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

[Molesworth]

I've just been reading this article from the guardian. Young girls are being sold to brothel keepers and made to take steroids so that they look older than they really are.

All my instincts say that the sex industry is just plain wrong. I know some feminists think it's OK (although obviously they wouldn't support practices like those described in the article). Are there any sex industry supporting feminists here? What's the rationale?

who do you thinkn that the majority of women in the sex industry are down trodden victims how did you come to this conclusion?
who have you spoken to or is it just the written word that have let you come to this conclusion?
I am interested to know
unless you know prostitutes and have spoken to them it may seem that some have a very unbalanced view
the 'happy hooker' does exist and so does the unhappy one , and from what i have read the ladies who have written on here seem happy in their life choices
so why call them fuckholes (nice!.. shows good manners there!!)
they are running a business like a lot of women including myself , I have a few women who visit me in my line of work who are involved in the sex industry, they are just like any other woman ,
but to some they are the scum of society...but I would much rather converse with some of the prostitues on here than others that have condemmed them

Rottygirl - I came across a lot of sex workers in a previous incarnation.

Please be careful how you conflate replies by the way - you have made it look as if I used the term 'fuckhole" and "condemned" prostitutes - neither of which I did or would.

Actually, not all the men who pay for sex are vile scum who think women are objects to be abused, either. I have several acquaintances who have visited pro-dommes (ie paid for a BDSM session during which it's the customer who gets tied up and whipped) and they speak of the women with respect. Also the lonely older widower or the man with physical disablities of some kind is grateful, not hostile, to the women he pays.
A man who thinks women are less than human doesn't necessarily pay for sex, I've encountered horribly misogynist men who regard the sex industry with hatred and contempt, a contempt which extends to the customer as much as to the sex worker. These are the men whose mindset is that they have 'never had to pay for it' but they are quite OK with using pressure or indeed a degree of force to get sex from a (non-sex-industry) woman.
Also, we pay people to provide personal services to us in a variety of ways which includes them treating us as though they like and care about us when they may not do, may be having a lousy day for other reasons, we may be rude or smelly or impatient: it's OK to pay for a service that you want done expertly, or in an unusual way, or that you just don't want to or can't do for yourself/

ooops ...sorry seeker for that I am sorry and I sould have made that clear in my earlier posting that it wasnt you that said that
x
not sure if the comments made by another poster at the former end of the thread has been deleted and I really cannot be bothered to scroll through it all again as it will really give me a bit of a headf@&k

"unless you know prostitutes and have spoken to them it may seem that some have a very unbalanced view"
I think that listening to people who are prostitutes is important. But listening to just one or two people when there are thousands is not a balanced view.

Of course an escort can earn £1000/night, but the vast majority don't. And I expect that outside London it is more difficult.

And I find the 'we're helping disabled people' line quite offensive. It implies that no right-minded person would want a sexual relationship with someone with a disability and so they need to pay for it.

In answer to the op, I think you can be a feminist and support prostitution, but it is a hugely divisive issue which has split feminist debate in half.

Clarification: no-one here has condemned prostitutes. The term 'fuckhole' was used to condemn an industry which reduces a human being to a fuckhole. We're objecting to women being treated this way, not insulting those women.

Seeker,
"...But the vast majority are. "
On what statistics do you base this on?
Has anyone done a survey of the sex workers to get an idea of what the story is?

The Myth of the Happy Hooker is a story, nothing more and I really don't think ALL men are running around convinced that all working girls are happy. This is a gross sweeping generalization of men. Is that fair? Just as assuming that all women in prostitution are there against their wills.

Unless we start castrating baby boys at birth, so they grow up to be eunuchs, me will be driven to seek sexual encounter outside of their primary relationships.

Men have and will always pay for sex, some will be direct as the exchange of money for a guaranteed sexual favor or more indirectly in the form of a new patio or car for the wife, or a diamond necklace for the GF. Should we criminalize these encounters as well?

I think what gets under the skin of most women when the subject of prostitution and such comes under discussion, is not so much the that the man is going outside the relationship and engaging in sexual acts with another woman or man. But I think the deep seated fear is the loss of the resource, the money spent.
My humble opinion.

I agree with SolidGoldBrass, unlike frankfrankly I don't agree that "we're helping disabled people' line is quite offensive". I think there is an element of truth in it. If you have ever seen the film 'Personal Services' about Cynthia Payne's life story, you will see that some of her customers were men in wheelchairs who did not have any other sexual relationships. I also agree with SolidGoldBrass that the majority of Cynthia Payne's customers did treat her with respect.

Not all women in the sex industey are abused victims.

Not all men who use them are vile.

But the whole relationship informs wider society's view of women and perpetuates misogyny.
"
"""who do you thinkn that the majority of women in the sex industry are down trodden victims how did you come to this conclusion?""

The gospels of infinite wisdom that are the British tabloids and/or alternatively Julie Bindel, Shelia Jeffreys etc. "

Whereas your views are drwn from those pillars of intellectual debate, The Sun, Nuts and Fiesta?

Obviously just as there is no one typical sex worker, there is no one typical client.

The issue is whether the industry supports the subordination of women. I think it does, by perpetuating the myth of continuous unthinking female sexual availability (hence my fuckhole comment, which is a slightly more brutal term than the accepted 'fucktoy'), and by condoning practices of terrible abuse.

I'm just reading The Equality Myth for the book club in this topic which is written by a fairly level headed academic feminist. The chapter on prostitution made me cry for the women she interviewed and what they endured. 68% of prostitutes have PTSD which is comparable to rates of torture victims. There is a massive physical and emotional price to pay for having sex you don't really want to have.

I'm sure disabled people do pay for sex, just as able-bodied people do, but when that is rolled out as a pro prostitution argument as some kind of do-gooder work, I think that is offensive to disabled people.

Also, I think that implying that disabled people are 'safe,' that they couldn't possibly be abusive to women, that they are poor people who need help in that department is misleading.

I've been looking at some research on this, but it seems to me that by its very nature it's impossible to get an accurate picture of prostitution in terms of numbers, types of prostitution and the ratio of 'happy hookers' to those who are having a considerably less happy time of it. Clearly there are women who have had horrific experiences, and I don't believe that they are in a minority (but I can't offer statistics to prove it definitively). Nor can MissHM and Mandamumu prove that safe, well-paid escort-type prostitutes are in the majority. The women participating on their forum are surely a self-selecting group: women at the other end of the spectrum are hardly likely to have access to a computer or the time to take part in such a group.

With ref to LillyB and claig's posts of 10.08 and 10.09 - underlying your posts is the idea that men have an inevitable need for sex. If they can't get it 'legitimately' (i.e. in the context of an intimate personal relationship) then they'll have to get it in some other way (by paying someone for sex). Therefore prostitution is inevitable consequence of men's need for sex. I don't buy the idea that there is some sort of immutable biological basis for men's need for sexual satisfaction. Human beings want sex and like sex (yeah, even feminists ), but they're not going to die or explode if they can't have it on demand. I think the idea that men have to have sex is a convenient cultural construct.

I don't buy the argument that prostitution is about patriarchy keeping women down. I think it is about money, large amounts of money and that is why criminal elements are often at the heart of the industry because vast amounts of easy money can be made from it. In this way I think the sex trade is similar to the drug trade, where criminal gangs are able to earn vast sums of money. As it is a very large industry, criminals do not control all parts of the industry, many prostitutes can work independently. I think the abused and trafficked women are forced into the industry by criminals in order to increase supply. But there are many 'happy hookers' such as MissHoneyMoon who are not tied into any of this at all. I don't think MissHoneyMoon is exploited, I think she has chosen to do it, due to the large financial rewards available.

I think seeker is asking the real question at the core of the issue i.e. is it true that prostitution "informs wider society's view of women and perpetuates misogyny"?

Society as a whole does disapprove of prostitution, is it for the above reason or for some other reason? I think that MissHoneyMoon makes a good point, that Bindel is on the same side as many ultra-religious groups (and even Mary Whitehouse type groups) who are against prostitution because they find it degrading. Bindel adds the extra factor about patriarchy, but I am not sure it is to do with patriarchy, I think it is more to do with the stuff that makes the world go around, money.

I found some stats on the Object website. (sorry to cut and paste)

75% of women involved in prostitution started as children.

74% of women cite poverty as the primary motivator for entering prostitution (Melrose 2002).

Up to 70% of women in prostitution spent time in care, 45% report sexual abuse and 85% physical abuse within their families (Home Office 2006).

Up to 95% of women in prostitution are problematic drug users, including around 78% heroin users and rising numbers of crack cocaine addicts (Home Office 2004a).

More than half of UK women in prostitution have been raped and/or seriously sexually assaulted. At least three quarters have been physically assaulted (Home Office 2004b).

68% of women in prostitution meet the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the same range as torture victims and combat veterans undergoing treatment (Ramsey et al 1993).

"With ref to LillyB and claig's posts of 10.08 and 10.09 - underlying your posts is the idea that men have an inevitable need for sex."

I think it comes down to supply and demand. If sex for sale is available, then some men will pay for it. If drugs are on sale, then some people will buy them. Society usually makes laws to make these activities illegal, restricting the supply, which means less people are prepared to pay. If society chooses to make these activities illegal and imposes very harsh punishments on both suppliers and purchasers then the vast majority of the problem will disappear. Suppliers will have to find another market where they can earn this sort of money, and purchasers will no longer be able to buy since there is no supply.

It is up to society to decide whether it wants to restrict supply or not, and it takes these decisions based on philosophical, moral and ethical arguments.

claig - i agree that money has a lot to do with the sex industry. But, the fact that the overwhelming majority of sellers are women and buyers are men means that there is something more than just market forces at work.

Frankfrankly: the trouble with those statistics is the same trouble with any statistics, they are not infallible because not everyone tells the truth and no statistical analysis can interview everyone. Home Office statistics are going to refer to sex workers who have come to the attention of the police - not all sex workers do come to the attention of the police, particularly the ones who are not coerced and who are working independently. It seems possible to me that these statistics refer predominantly if not entirely to street prostitution and/or full-time brothels eg the really awful, drug-heavy, exploitative end of the industry.

WRT the issue of sex and disability and paying for sexual services, I have heard more than once a recommendation that people who are very isolated for reasons such as disability/poor social skills or whatever, should book themselves a massage (not in the context of actual sexual contact or massage as a euphemism for paid sex) because it is unhealthy for human beings to be starved of touch.

frankfrankly, historically men had more money than women, and the suppliers wanted to get hold of some of that money. Therefore they supplied to the men with the money. Not many women are interested in paying £1000 a night for sex, the market is nowhere near the same, so the criminals can't make that sort of money off of female customers. Criminals can hook women on drugs so they can fleece women there, and they get a double whammy because in order for the women to pay for the drugs, the women have to work in the criminals' sex industry to be able to afford their habit. Criminals don't care who they fleece as long as they can keep earning.

SolidGoldBrass is right
"I have heard more than once a recommendation that people who are very isolated for reasons such as disability/poor social skills or whatever, should book themselves a massage (not in the context of actual sexual contact or massage as a euphemism for paid sex) because it is unhealthy for human beings to be starved of touch."

there are real sex therapies which help people with sexual problems by using aspects of sex to overcome their problems.

The discussion about happy hookers and the existence of a less objectionable side to prostitution reminds me of the point raised in the article I linked to yesterday in which the author speculates on why legalisation (in the Netherlands and Australia, for example) hasn't been as successful as expected. Where prostitution has been legalised, illegal prostitution continues and even thrives alongside the legal brothels. This does seem to point to there being two sides to consider: the 'good johns' who might visit MissHM and Mandamumu, and then the 'bad johns' who don't want to visit MissHM and Mandamumu because the degradation and abuse of the women they use is part of the thrill, and that sort of behaviour is never going to be acceptable as part of a legal prostitution setup.

SGB - with ref to your comments about Home Office research, the HO funds research so the stats aren't only drawn from women who have come to the attention of the police. Having said that, I agree that statistics on prostitution are inevitably problematic.

Drug supplies are restricted and there is still a demand, and if you know where to look you can quite easily get happily stoned to your hearts content. Yes, society can take measures to restrict supply, but where there is a need, we as human beings will find a way to fulfill it.

I think frankfrankly's statistics are true. Most women who enter the industry at a young age were tricked into it or pimped or had friends who were already doing it, or had few other financial prospects. It is usually entered by women who need the money, either to feed a drug habit or to provide for their families. As time goes on they can often move up in the industry and increase their earnings. The financial rewards have to be high in order to keep women doing it. Disadvantaged young men can't earn money this way, so certain disadvantaged young men enter the drug trade instead. Most of these men come from the same disadvantaged backgrounds highlighted in frankfrankly's statistics. If no poverty existed and opportunities existed for all, then far fewer women and men would enter any of these industries. But the world is not like that, there will always be poverty.

There are students at University who enter to pay their fees etc. but they are in the minority and usually don't intend to stay in the industry for long.

SGB - i agree that researchers can't always interview everyone, but that is well known and there are various ways of making your research unbiased and fair, so that it can be used in discussions. Good research does that, bad research falls down there. I've not looked into these stats, so I can't comment on them.

What we have said already on this thread is that it is easier to get in touch with sex workers who earn more, who are more educated, have access to social media, are on the chat forums and support networks that have been mentioned, so I would expect (but don't know) that it would be easier to get their voices represented in research.

Personally, I don't consider sex work equivalent to any form of service that touches the human body, so I couldn't make that comparison with massage. There is a world of difference between getting a massage/facial and between buying sexual services.