Archive for Sex+ Work
International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers
While I’m a little late in the day with this, I want to post an acknowledgment of the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which is today, December 17. As originally conceived by Annie Sprinkle in 2003, this day has been named so to commemorate sex workers who have experienced violence in their line of work or lost their lives as a result of it, especially amidst society’s woeful historic propensity to misunderstand such violence as either less tragic than violence against those who are not sex workers or something simply “to be expected” in such a line of work — a harshly erroneous conception. Correlatively, it is also a day to support the rights of sex workers as professionals and as people, both of which have historically been denied by various governments (and society).
I offer my support to my fellow professionals who work or have worked in all areas of the sex industry, thanking them for their service, acknowledging their rights, reiterating my advocation for the decriminalization of all areas of the industry, and deeply wishing for their health and safety.
With love and support for all,Emerald “We are outraged that those who provide [professional sexual] services . . . carry the burden of sexual shame and punishment in our society while the very people who use our services are creating and enforcing legislation that violates our human rights. . . . There is a great deal of expertise from our communities defining safe work environments, identifying abusive situations and establishing a culturally appropriate community-based response to these problems.”
-From the list of demands proposed by Sex Workers Outreach Project USA in a letter to President-Elect Obama, 2008
A Little Snippety About the News Lately…
It pains me to write this about something Bob Herbert wrote; it really does. I have historically vastly appreciated Mr. Herbert’s New York Times column and presentation of his perspective on a number of issues. I have noticed on the issue of sex work, however, our perspectives diverge. The column I read most recently from him (“Fantasies, Well Meant,” 9/11/07, which unfortunately is only available to TimesSelect subscribers) serves as a stark case in point, and much as I have revered numerous things Mr. Herbert has written in the past, my reading of this piece compels me to respond in dissent.
From the article, which proposes Mr. Herbert’s reasons for supporting the continued illegal status of prostitution:
“Real-world prostitution, in whatever guise, bears no resemblance at all to the empowerment fantasies of prostitution proponents.”
With all due respect, almost every movement of prostitution proponents of which I am aware consists by vast majority of actual sex workers, mostly whores. How this could bear “no resemblance at all” to “real-world prostitution” therefore seems, well, impossible to me.
“[M]ost so-called legal prostitutes have pimps — the state-sanctioned pimps who run the brothels and, in many cases, a second pimp who controls all other aspects of their lives (and takes the bulk of their legal earnings).”
Well, this is indeed one difference between “legalization” and “decriminalization.” Almost all of the sex workers’ rights activists of whom I know, including myself, advocate decriminalization rather than legalization. I think the most effective way I can describe the difference is by citing an example. Abortion was “legalized”—not decriminalized. “Decriminalized” implies dropping the association with criminality of the action in question, thus relegating it to a business like any other (of course having to follow OSHA codes, etc.). “Legalization” is when the government vigilantly deigns to allow the activity in question to be legal to some degree, but continues to hang over its shoulder, so to speak, making it obvious that the activity is still considered legally questionable according to its (the government’s) dictates. Thus, abortion was indeed legalized, but the government still pushes its way into this realm to try to control various circumstances around it and ultimately the action itself.
Such as it is with prostitution. The brothels in Nevada indeed operate under circumstances some would find constrictive — that is because where those brothels are, prostitution has been “legalized.” Decriminalization would call for the lifting of laws surrounding prostitution and letting the profession operate as any other profession without undue government interference.
“That a city, a state or any other governmental entity in the U.S. could legally sanction the sexual degradation of women and girls under any circumstances, much less those who are so extremely vulnerable, is an atrocity.”
No disagreement there. In fact, I quite appreciate the sentiment. Ironically, I find any anti-choice law that forbids or impedes a woman from acquiring birth control or obtaining a safe abortion to be sexual degradation, and that is legally sanctioned in all sorts of places throughout this country. I do not find allowing women the legal right to choose their vocation even if it involves selling sexual services a form of sexual degradation. On the contrary.
“And if you don’t think legalized prostitution is about degradation, consider the ‘date room’ at Sheri’s [Nevada brothel]. That’s a small room where a quiet dinner for two can be served. Beneath the tiny table is a couple of towels and a cushion for the woman to kneel on. The only one empowered in that situation is the john.”
Hmmm. I won’t get into too much detail here, but I will say that that seems to me to be quite a bold blanket statement about blow jobs….
“Legal prostitution tends to increase, not decrease, illegal prostitution, in part by creating a friendlier climate for demand.”
I’m really not sure exactly what he means by this and would request further clarification in regard to his statement about demand. But I would add here that “legal prostitution” can in some cases increase illegal prostitution because of the complications mentioned in the above-stated differentiation between legalization and decriminalization. With legalization can come any number of cumbersome, hindering, or outright absurd requirements and prerequisites for doing business (witness laws that have been proposed in some states such as Missouri stating that abortion clinics must pass the regulations of outpatient surgical centers, which is really a way to make things so difficult for the clinics to adhere to such a standard that they are forced to close). Thus emerges the case for decriminalization: Quite frankly, government, please feel free to remove yourself from this line of work to the degree that you do the majority of others. You do not belong here any more than you belong in construction, plumbing, real estate, or most other non-government professions.
“As a society, we should be offering help to the many thousands of women who would like to escape prostitution, and providing alternatives to those in danger of being pulled into it.”
Sure. Again, no disagreement here. Nobody should be prostituting who does not want and choose to be. One of the ways to do this is to stop condescending the female population with an attitude that implies that the capability to willingly aspire to sell sexual services somehow does not exist so that those who are indeed in trouble may be more easily identified as such and given access to the support that could be of use to them.
Mr. Herbert, at least, has basis for his perspective other than what society collectively postulates, which is more than I would say for most people (in my experience) who denigrate prostitution. I appreciate that. But perhaps as a journalist he is naturally seeing those who are exploited and under duress, as that is where the stories of journalists often seem to be in our society. There would not really be any reason perhaps for him to talk to the multitudes of prostitutes doing their jobs independently and indoors (“indoor prostitute” refers to those who work from their homes/studios or do outcall work as opposed to those who work on the street—the vast majority of whores in this country are indoor).
Sex trafficking, as I have said innumerable times, is to me a heinous, appalling phenomenon. The idea of it profoundly horrifies me. It seems obvious to me that in order to address it more effectively, recognition must be given to those who are not victims of trafficking and who do their jobs in the sex trade freely and willingly.
I appreciate the well-meaning, caring orientation of Mr. Herbert and others of similar opinion. But I cannot at this point condone the implication that women are inherently helpless victims when it comes to sexuality who are not capable of (or should not be allowed) self-determination and autonomy. Blanketing prostitution in a way such as Mr. Herbert portrays in his column seems to me to be a continuing way of doing just that.
Love,Emerald “It is acceptable for a woman to work, and it is generally acceptable, under certain circumstances, for a woman to have sex, but even the most liberal people are troubled by the idea that a woman might work at sex. We believe, in fact, that you can do all kinds of nasty things for money, all kinds of despicable things: poison the environment, build bombs, destroy tenements, raze forests for money. Just about anything but sex.”
-Sallie Tisdale Talk Dirty to Me p. 196 (First Anchor Books 1995)
Somewhere Between Frustration and Oneness
You know, there is sometimes an enormous amount of frustration generated in me by my perception of society’s and the media’s treatment of sex — or more specifically, their treatment of sex outside of the married pro-creational sex that is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) postulated to be “normal” and “natural,” often relegating sex that does not fit this description to…something else, apparently.
One of the most obvious subjects I see as made victim to this is prostitution. For some reason it is not allowable in America to sell sex. (Ironic, eh? One may use sex to sell almost anything one can think of, but as far as actually selling it itself, no no no!) Two recent news pieces have brought this topic to my attention the last couple days, and subsequent frustration has indeed been ignited in me.
The first:
“A federal appeals court ruled that the Bush administration can deny funding to nonprofit AIDS groups that do not publicly disavow prostitution and sex trafficking. [NOTE: This perpetual conflation of prostitution and sex trafficking as though they are the same thing is dangerous, counterproductive, and utterly inaccurate.]
Overturning a lower court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said Tuesday that the AIDS groups’ free speech rights would not be violated if the money was linked to a pledge to uphold government policy. . . .
‘The act does not compel DKT to advocate the government’s position on prostitution and sex trafficking; it requires only that if DKT wishes to receive funds it must communicate the message the government chooses to fund,’ [the judge] wrote in a 10-page decision reversing the lower court’s ruling.“ (emphasis mine)
Okay. Now I seriously fail to see the distinction here. At all. How is requiring it to “communicate the message” of the government different from “compelling it to advocate the government’s position”??
Indeed it has been evident to me that those in the White House have their little moralistic hang-ups about sex (naive and self-righteous as they may be), and I have historically noted and experienced dismay as a result of my perception of the puritanical social overtones regarding the same in this country, but that does not mean that I understand any of it. When I get to the next example I will talk more about the general idea of judgmentality in connection with sexuality, but in the above situation, at issue is a more practical matter of policy being put forth by those in a position of political power.
It’s fine that those in charge of U.S. policy consider prostitution immoral; it is certainly their prerogative to hold that opinion. When they coercively extend it to everyone living in certain countries on other continents in conditions most of us can’t even imagine and haven’t bothered trying to (myself included), it demonstrates an inappropriate invasion of their aforementioned opinion on people’s lives — and deaths, in this case. (At risk is funding for AIDS prevention programs in a number of countries around the world.)
And the second:
“Police are investigating an alleged brothel in an upscale neighborhood in Bedford Hills. . . .
This is a really rich upscale area but right underneath all the neighbors [sic] noses, police say there was a dominatrix operating out of one of the houses. . . .
[P]olice arrested the alleged dominatrix.
‘You wouldn’t expect this in Bedford Hills.’”
What exactly is it that one “wouldn’t expect”? People to be having sex? People to be having sex differently from the way you do? People to be making a living in a way different from the way you do? Any of this to be happening in a neighborhood that is “upscale”? It continues to astonish me how automatically people appear to dismiss, denigrate, and outright attack things of a sexual nature that they either know little about or simply assume must be “bad” or “wrong” because society postulates, either overtly or tacitly, some disapproval of them. What, exactly, is the argument against the practice of consensual activities between adults that is not causing harm to others?
In short, to those so concerned about the aforementioned activities of others that they force others to profess agreement with them in order to receive their assistance or condemn their neighbors for doing consensual things they themselves choose not to (or claim to choose not to), I say this gently but frankly: Get a life.
I say that without malice or sarcasm. Instead, I offer it sincerely, and what I mean by it is this: Find a focus in life that extends beyond the fear that leads you to condemn and condescend others who take part in consensual activities that you don’t find appealing. Direct your energy in a way that aims to serve you and the universe, rather than in a linear or downward fashion that actively seeks to condemn others and searches for reasons to aggressively focus outward in order to avoid whatever it is that is so constricting and frightening you internally.
Examine the attitudes about sex and sexuality that you have naturally absorbed from the mainstream culture and consider how you feel about them. If you find yourself feeling judgment, ask yourself why you believe you are in a position to judge what is right and wrong sexually and that others should act in accordance with those beliefs as well? I myself am personally quite familiar with the propensity to be judgmental, so I strongly empathize as you explore this phenomenon in yourself.
What if someone decided that something you consensually enjoy sexually was “wrong” and “indecent” and quite simply not allowed anymore? What if the way you choose to make a living was suddenly criminalized because someone else decided that it was “wrong,” and the idea caught on until society seemed quite firmly gripped by the mindset that your method of making a living was somehow just fundamentally and unquestionably not acceptable?
Some people don’t like the idea of prostitution, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they should not have to partake in it if they don’t want to. Some others are not uncomfortable at all with prostitution, and I have yet to be convinced just what it is that justifies their being legally prohibited from engaging in it. (Incidentally, I would add that the hypocrisy of such a policy in a country that lives and dies on capitalism is truly breathtaking to me.)
Almost all of us view the world through our personalities most of the time, and it is the fixation(s) of the personality that generates and manifests phenomena such as judgmentality, self-righteousness, and misdirected aggression. Even the frustration I feel as expressed above is a product of my personality. I struggle with these tendencies just as much as the next person, and I support us all in recognizing our habitual, unaware propensities and realizing the ultimate universal truth:
We are all One.
“Imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky, imagine all the people living for today…you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one, I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one…”-John Lennon “Imagine”
