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?

Also meant to say a sex therapist doesn't perform sexual acts with the client.

Molesworth, I don't think it is about 'good Johns' and 'bad Johns'.
"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."

Not all Johns can afford MissHoneyMoon's prices, the legalised establishments are too expensive for many of the Johns. So the criminals set up illegal establishments, which are cheaper, and that is where the poor Johns go. The criminals supply to all sectors of the population.

LillyBordello,
"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."

It can quite easily be stopped. It depends if society wants to impose draconian punishments on these activities, like they do in some Far Eastern or Middle Eastern countries. Our society tolerates these activities to a certain degree, because they do not believe that they warrant the really draconian penalties. This could easily change. This is why Bindel et al. and religious groups campaign to try to change society's views. But at the moment their voices are not heard.

" 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. "

I think the opposite is the case. As time goes on they usually earn less, their drug habit becomes more expensive, the physical affects of drugs abuse, as well as sexual exploitation, take a toll on their bodies, they become less attractive, more importantly they get older, and they get cheaper. Meanwhile a new contingent of younger girls/women enter the trade and take the work. I think it is extremely rare for anyone to 'move up the ladder' in prostitution. I think women keep doing it because they have little other choice. Who's going to employ someone whose CV says their last 5/10 years have been spent in prostitution. That's part of the problem, there are so few ways out for women who want to 'choose' to leave.

frankfrankly, these type of sex therapists do exist. I have just googled and found a link to what they call "sex surrogates".

www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/spotlight-on-sex-surrogacy/

Yes, there's the 'rich john'/'poor john' division as well, you're right claig. I wasn't saying that the 'good john'/'bad john' issue was the only thing to think about, nor was I saying that it's a clear cut division (there'll be good poor johns and bad rich johns). OK enough with the johns already!

This goes back to my original question (or at least the question in my head which drove me to start the thread): is the sex industry (and I wasn't only talking about prostitution) inherently damaging to women? By that I didn't only mean damaging to women in the sex industry (clearly not all women suffer, although many do) but damaging to women in general by propagating the idea that we are sex objects. Is it possible to reduce or eliminate this harm and, if so, how?

frankfrankly, I agree with you, many women become addicted to drugs and do not increase their earnings. They are trapped. But some do eventually escape, having made some money, provided they kept drug-free etc. I agree that for most women once they are in it, it is difficult to get out. This is what pimps and the industry want as it keeps them forever hostage.

"is the sex industry (and I wasn't only talking about prostitution) inherently damaging to women"

this is the key question, and it is the question that society as a whole is always asking itself. Bindel, religious groups, parents etc. are all asking this question. What is the answer and why?

Interesting link Claig. It doesn't surprise me that this work exists, but as the article makes clear it is a contested area and not everyone agrees its a professional form of therapy. I'm afraid I'm of the mind it's just another high-end form of prostitution with a pseudo 'therapy' edge. Bet you could have guessed that though

frankfrankly, I think most people agree with you, that is why these things are kept quiet and not much publicity is given to them, but they do go on.

dittany is right when she says that there is an increasing trend to glamourise the industry with these Belle de Jour type TV programmes and newspaper articles. An interesting question is why is this happening? I don't believe it is patriarchy, I believe it is for the same reason that drugs are being made more attractive to young people by giving publicity to Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty etc.

Claig: there is also an issue WRT men being exploited for their bodies when you think of boxing, and the rather disproportionate numbers of young black men who go into it. Yes, a successful boxer can earn a lot of money but at the risk of serious injury, disability and death.
I think everyone would agree that exploitation of the unwilling and desperately broke is wrong, but this is a much bigger and wider social problem than will be solved by condemning and prohibiting the whole of the sex industry.

SolidGoldBrass, I agree with you. Poor people are exploited by people who want to make money. Rich boxing promoters need new talent and it can be dangerous for the young men who enter, but they offer the young men big financial rewards if they succeed, so it is a tradeoff. There are not many upper-class professional boxers, it is mainly poor men without too many prospects, although at Oxford University rich men from public schools also do boxing, but the Oxford types don't make a career of it. Similarly, on the whole it is poor women who enter prostitution. A woman from Oxford University, who has the chance of becoming a lawyer, is unlikely to enter prostitution.

The sex industry exists to make money, and some women can become rich in it, but many others will just end up being used by the industry.

The question is, is the sex industry so harmful that it should be prohibited? Some countries think so and do prohibit it, but our society does not think so and does not prohibit it.

I find it interesting that people can feel they have such an in depth knowledge of a subject just from reading a few papers. That's how it feels on the inside looking out...

The home office statistics that were quoted earlier; I think you'll find that the first figure (when seen in full) is that 75% of prostitutes UNDER 18 started as children. I find that a horrific figure and the levels of poverty/abuse that these children find themselves in needs to be sorted and fast, but that statistic is still very very different when seen in full, don't you think?

I make a habit of trying to get hold of the full report whenever I see figures like that bandied about. It makes enlightening reading. I would have a lot more respect for the anti prostitution lobby if they didn't continually put a "spin" on the facts.

I'm pleased to see that some of the people I expected to find here are now appearing. The people who are interested, who haven't completely closed their minds. The people I thought I would be popping in here to chat to. So far, the majority of posts in this thread have led me to feel that if I don't agree with the dittany line then I am not welcome. That is not the way forward, on her or in general. Everyone needs to get the chance to say their piece.

who is stopping you from saying your piece?

your words appear on the site, just like everyone else's do

they will remain there, for posters and lurkers alike

what a strange concept...that you don't feel you have "said your piece"

I think you'll find that many girls would have been put off by the initial "welcoming committee" and would not have "said their piece".

I didn't say that I hadn't said mine. That's just how you chose to read it.

girls ?

you mean working girls ? Stop using ridiculous phraseology, for goodness's sake

this is an anonymous website...anyone who is too intimidated to post perhaps does not have a strong enough opinion ?

Well Mandamumu just as long as you feel 'welcomed' by the right 'people'.

I still think your profession is exploitative, damaging and demeaning. You still haven't said whether you consider yourself to be a feminist.

"The home office statistics that were quoted earlier; I think you'll find that the first figure (when seen in full) is that 75% of prostitutes UNDER 18 started as children."

Mandamumu, i'm sorry that's not correct. The 75% stat refers to adult women involved in prostitution who entered it as children/young people. This 2004 home office report says:

"Just over three quarters of the women (76%, 93/122) had first become involved in prostitution at the age of 21 or under." (p. 141) This is referring to the research they have done.

They also mention other research, saying: "The literature suggests that most of the women and men involved in prostitution probably entered prostitution as young
people, under the age of 18 or 2129 (Pearce and Roach, 1997; Melroseet al., 1999)" p.55

I can't go back through it all right now, but while I'm not sure that MandaMM has said she considers herself to be a feminist, MissHM definitely did.

IMHO it'd be good if we didn't get too hung up on phraseology, eg 'working girls' or (a lot further up) 'boudoir'. I don't work in sex work so therefore don't know what terminology is used / normal / unsurprising in that circle.

sorry the 2nd quote should read "the age of 18 or 21" and the p.55 refers to the page in the home office report, not a page of the references. sorry!

Mandamumu, I agree that we have to be careful about statistics (as I've already said). The 75% statistic you mentioned seems to have come from Benson & Matthews 1995 study. The Home Office refer to this research in their 2004 report, "Paying the Price":

"[M]any men and women were first drawn into prostitution when they were children. In this country around half began their involvement in prostitution before their 18th birthday. Some studies suggest that the figure may be closer to 75%."

So clearly this isn't saying that the figure applies only to under 18s, and the figures used in that report are drawn from a range of research, not a single study. It's also worth noting that the report's focus is on street prostitution.

I do agree with you that we must approach the statistics that get bandied about with caution and follow these up wherever possible to put them into context.

Sorry about the length of this post, but here is the summary of the sources used by the Home Office, showing sample size and key findings on age of entry into prostitution (Annex C in the Home Office report):

Kinnell 1993
115 women in Birmingham
More than half became involved in prostitution before they were 17

Faugier and Cranfield 1994
250 women in Manchester
63% of women became involved in prostitution before they were 20

Benson and Matthews 1995
48 women across the UK
Three quarters were aged 17 or younger when they became involved in prostitution 40% were 15 or younger

Sharpe 1998
40 women in a ?northern UK city?
A quarter became involved in prostitution aged 16 or 17 8% were 15 or younger

May et al 1999
67 women working in three cities in the UK
Half (33) became involved in prostitution before they were 18

Campbell 2002
70 women in Merseyside
30% became involved before they were 18 Of those, 38% were under 16

Pearce and Roche 1997
46 women
27% became involved in prostitution aged between 12 and 15 years of age ? 75% before they were 20.

Pearce 2002
15 young women in a London Borough and a Northern City
9 became involved in prostitution before they were 16

Hester & Westmarland 2004
122 women in Hackney, Hull, Kirklees, Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent
76% became involved in prostitution aged 21 or younger. 52% were aged 18 or younger

Besides the irony of the feminist stormtroopers telling us that prostitution damages, degrades and objectifies women and then actually using derogatory language to label those of us that proudly admit of being prostitutes as fuck objects, it is also interesting that the same people refuse to enter a fair and open debate. If asked to actually step away from quoting blogs, papers and other third hand info and perhaps trying to listen to those actually involved in the work ? they adopt the same patronising stance of talking down and over us silly little women than the autocratic patriarchs they so revile. Bindel keeps doing that too lol

Another irony is that Manda and me are chastised for the language we use yet some posters use ridiculous phrases such as ?Johns? etc which none of us use. Mock us belittle us but at least accept that each group will have his own terminology. Using the word ?John? is stupid and ridiculous ? no person in the UK speaks like some cheap US drama.

Unlike the totalitarian defenders of the official feminist party line, I support TLC, a board that attracts both genders . The only offensive thing is to dismiss the forum and its members. Disabled just as abled bodied clients are not abusers. I suggested to go TLC and SAAFE and try to get a broader view. I am also repeating that content sex workers are not a small minority group but represent a considerable chunk of this industry. I cannot speak for the disenfranchised and less lucky prostitutes, then again nor can anyone else here. These women probably have less incentive or even access to come on this forum.

Some people keep mentioning the money ? eerrr well that is normally a large incentive for working. I have worked out of love in academia and arts/crafts jobs for crap pay but also in the free industry. Before becoming an escort, I actually earned the same as a director of a media company. The only difference was that I was overtired, stressed and getting iller by the day. I loved my last job but no longer had time for my friends and family. Now I am healthy, relaxed, well rested and take long breaks in between. I took stock of my life and found a new happier balance of work and free time. Although a lot of posters here refuse to believe so ? I am far from being a small isolated case. I know a few hundred ladies who I communicate with who chose this work for similar motives.

Anyway, it seems now obvious that some feminists are more equal than others... lol

Frankfrankly: to you there is a huge and insurmountable difference between touching the human body for general therapeutic reasons and touching the human body for sexual reasons. This is not the same for everyone.
ONce again, I think the major problem with discussing the sex industry is that some people consider sex to be such a massive big deal when to others it's just another human activity, therefore doing it for money is no different to cooking for money, scrubbing floors for money, singing for money or being punched in the face for money.

You might get a better response if you were a little more respectful yourself MissHM, bearing in mind this discussion is in the forum's "Feminism" topic. Mandamumu has engaged in this discussion in a civil manner. If you bothered to read the thread properly you would find a reasonable and open - if at times heated - discussion in which it has been acknowledged that not all prostitutes are coerced or suffering and in which questions have been raised about what harm is being done within and outside the sex industry and what, if anything, should or could be done about it. Ranting about non-existent feminist "stormtroopers" is just irritating and inaccurate.

bookmark (I get the feeling this one will still be rolling tomorrow!)