The Green Light District

At the Risk of Repeating Myself…

I feel like I’ve said this all before. Yet I seem to continue to encounter some of the same assertions, postulations, perspectives about sex work, specifically the decriminalization of prostitution, to which I still feel, and have felt in the past, compelled to respond.

In this case, as I mentioned in my recent post about human trafficking, there was more to which I wanted to respond in the two articles I referenced. That post of mine focused on the (erroneous) conflation of sex work and sex trafficking, and as I said then, in the interest of post length I didn’t want to get into as well the things in both articles with which I disagreed about the principles of prostitution and its decriminalization in general.

That I saved for this post.

Philosophically, in addition the fallacious perspective that equates prostitution and sex trafficking, the perspective offered in these two articles seems to find the current and continued criminalization of prostitution advisable and desirable. Michelle Brock, the author of both articles, asks in the second one,

“If you were a trafficker, would you be drawn to a country where men were criminalized for giving you business, or to a country where they felt free to roam?”

And that seems to me an interesting question. The first answer that occurs to me is that since trafficking of human beings is (appropriately) illegal, I don’t know whether the legal status of the places traffickers are going would seem of particular importance to them. If what they’re doing is illegal anyway, it doesn’t seem obvious to me that they would be seeking out legal enterprises or environments in which to operate. Dealers of illegal drugs in the United States, for example, don’t seem to have avoided bringing said products to the country despite their illegal status. If such drugs were decriminalized, I don’t feel sure that the same covert mechanisms and tactics for provision would still be necessary and that current dealers of illegal drugs would suddenly flock to the United States where they were “free to roam.”

And actually, it seems to me that the traffickers referred to in the question may prefer the former—being somewhere where the demand was criminalized. If they are doing something illegal to provide a service, why would they go somewhere to provide it where the practice is not criminalized? Essentially it seems this would eliminate or at least decrease the demand for their services. If the service were freely or easily accessible and legal, why would illegal means be necessary to further provide it? Such may in fact create an environment in which traffickers might not feel so comfortable operating.

The same article states,

“. . . I have read in most other government and NGO documents that many victims are afraid of telling police the truth, since they are threatened and by traffickers.”

That strikes me as truly ironic. I don’t doubt that it’s true (and find it tragic). I wonder why it doesn’t seem to occur within this context that when prostitution is criminalized, virtually ALL working whores, trafficked or not, feel exactly this way by the very law in regard to reporting crimes and telling the truth? If they do experience some kind of assault, especially on the job, the exact description cited above fits that which every sex worker (in an environment in which said work is criminalized) may face—sometimes afraid not of traffickers, but of the law and officials employed to uphold it. Incidentally, since decriminalizing prostitution certainly doesn’t mean decriminalizing human trafficking, nothing about the above would presumably change in the face of the decriminalization of prostitution. What would change, rather, is that the many working in the sex industry by choice would legally hold more recourse in reporting abusive or unlawful acts without (so much) fear for their own freedom or safety. In addition, law enforcement would be in a position to devote more attention to actual situations of abuse and coercion since the law would not call on them to identically pursue incidents of consensual sex work.

Going back to the first article,

“Paying to have sex with a prostituted woman/sex worker is inherently dehumanizing because it takes the wholeness out of the woman’s humanity.” [Emphasis theirs]

…What in the hell does that mean? I’m really not being a smart-ass here—I truly do not understand this. What exactly is the part that’s “dehumanizing”? The having sex? That would seem to be quite the assertion (though not unheard of, I guess). The being paid for it? Um, is most gainful employment dehumanizing, then? What about, for example, writing, which is something I have loved to do since I was seven and that I feel has been a significant part of my existence—and for which I have also been paid. Is that dehumanizing? How about professional psychologists? Are they “dehumanized” by being seen for their training and education when one buys their services, taking the “wholeness” out of their “humanity”? Feel free to insert virtually any profession you’d like to in the above statements, as I don’t see exactly what is differentiating one from another. Why is this profession somehow more “dehumanizing” than the other services we perform for money in a capitalistic social and economic system?

Moving on to practical matters (still in the first article):

“If you throw in some drugs, second-hand clothing, and the watchful eye of a pimp, you’ve got yourself a more realistic picture of what the majority have for a work environment.”

First, I really wonder how one claims to know that this represents a “majority.” But second, why, why, why does it not seem to occur to us that this may be in huge part because the industry is forced underground due to its illegal status? I really don’t understand why this does not seem more commonly recognized. Does it really seem like the above would need to or likely be the case in a non-criminalized industry?

Maybe an example would help this seem clearer. Let’s pretend that we decided to criminalize, say, soccer for some reason. Do you think soccer would remain just as it is now, with the same audiences, environments, and performing conditions? Does it seem that perhaps the aforementioned factors may be affected by its suddenly having lawfully punishable status? That viewing it, following it, participating in it would suddenly need to be done covertly, so that the methodology(ies) arranged to employ this may shift, take on a different feeling, be exploited in different ways? Seriously, ponder that. And if this were the case, does it seem obvious that this would be not because of soccer itself but because of its illegal status?

Then there is the line at which I just sigh:

“This means she [Pye Jakobsson] cannot speak on behalf of the sex trade industry, specifically when it comes to trafficking victims.”

I wonder why, then, Ms. Brock feels that she can? I wonder who exactly can speak for sex workers if not sex workers themselves? This is not the first time I’ve seen or heard such an assertion—you’re “an exception”; “most” sex workers are like this. How do the people purporting this know this (even more pointedly, know this better than sex workers themselves)? Why does it seem so commonplace and cavalier to blatantly disregard, particularly as “atypical,” sharings from sex workers who have chosen to work in the industry and who express their perspectives? At what point is it appropriate for those perspectives to be taken into consideration? Why have they seemed so consistently ignored? What constitutes a “valid” sex worker perspective worthy of attention? Perhaps most pointedly, why would someone who has not worked as a sex worker seem to feel so strongly about wanting to speak for them while ignoring expressions from those who have or do work as sex workers as they speak for themselves?

For the record, I don’t claim to speak for all sex workers, nor do I feel I have some magical understanding and knowledge of the majority of sex workers’ experience or working environment or contexts. I frankly don’t know how virtually anyone feels like s/he knows this, especially in an area of work that tends, contemporarily, to be so covert. What I do feel is that, as I have said before, in a capitalistic environment, I see no justification for the arbitrary disallowance of sexual services to be recognized as one of those legitimately sold amongst the myriad services offered within the structures of that system. In addition, to purport to speak for the workers comprising an entire industry without necessarily even speaking personally to any of them, much less what may be construed a representative sample, seems inappropriate, or at the very least, subject to scrutiny, to me.

Love,
Emerald

“Everybody’s talking all this stuff about me, why don’t they just let me live?, I don’t need permission, make my own decisions, that’s my prerogative…”
-Britney Spears (originally by Bobby Brown) “My Prerogative”

Filed under: Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society, Sex+ Work |12 Comments

Fallacy and Distinction

Recently on AKIMBO, the blog of the International Women’s Health Coalition, Audacia Ray posted about the June release of the 10th Annual Trafficking in Persons Report by the United States Department of State. I have not read completely the 373-page report but rather browsed it a bit, spot reading a few paragraphs on different pages. What I read I (not surprisingly) found heartbreaking.

There is no intention in me whatsoever to undermine, dismiss, or observe with any lack of appropriate reverence the horrific phenomenon of human trafficking. I do feel concern, however, about a conflation of human trafficking or sex trafficking specifically with sex work in general. As Audacia pointed out when she provided the link, the ugly phenomenon of human trafficking encompasses far more areas of industry than just sex work, and indeed, in my brief perusing of the report, much of what I saw related to other forms of industry. And yet, sex trafficking seems to be the area most associated with human trafficking to the public, and in some cases this emphasis seems to be used to argue for continued (or increased) criminalization of prostitution.

This is not to necessarily accuse the perspective that proposes this conflation of exploiting the tragedy of human trafficking, but it does seem important to me to provide another perspective(s). The current phenomenon of human trafficking seems to me related to a number of economic, social, psychological, evolutionary, and consciousness-related factors beyond the scope of this post, and a consideration of human trafficking or sex trafficking as synonymous with sex work seems to me severely misguided. I see no intrinsic connection, much less interchangeability, between the two.

I read two online articles recently that I interpreted as presenting fallacious assertions about sex work and human trafficking.* Both were at an anti-sex-trafficking website called Hope for the Sold. The first was published June 8 of this year and is a response to a video of Pye Jakobsson discussing sex worker rights and the Swedish model of criminalizing the patronization of sexual services. The second is a follow-up article in response to comments received on the first.

In the second referenced article, Michelle Brock of Hope for the Sold states,

“Legalization grows the size of the sex industry, which includes a rise in demand for paid sex.”

This seems to me a possible subtle fallacy. The legalization of alcohol at the time of Prohibition did not seem to increase the demand for it. The demand was already there. Maxim claims prostitution as the world’s oldest profession. In this country and much of the world, capitalism is an official and strongly ingrained social system. Sexuality is intrinsic in us. Combined, the demand for sexual services does not seem to need much help.

Does it seem likely that an increase in the demand for manual labor has occurred because it is legal to work in that industry? For domestic work? Is that why we think human beings are trafficked for these purposes? Because domestic work and manual labor being legal are increasing the demand for it? To me that makes little sense. As with sex work, the demand seems to be already there and not to need any help. I see no basis for a supposition that sex work being legal increases a demand for it, or really that demand is or would be affected very much by legal status at all. Human trafficking seems to encompass numerous factors, contributors, and circumstances not exclusive to or even necessarily directly related to sex work or any of the particular industries in which it is occurring.

In the first article, Ms. Brock asserts,

“[Ms. Jakobsson] fails to see that prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be separated.”

Really? So does that mean manual labor and manual labor trafficking cannot be separated, and domestic work and domestic work trafficking cannot be separated? What will we do about that? Try to abolish a demand for manual labor and domestic work? Criminalize them? Criminalize the purchase of such services? I fail to see how “prostitution and sex trafficking” any more “cannot be separated” than other kinds of work from their respective trafficking occurrences.

Which brings me back to the heartbreaking point that there are many other areas and cases in which human beings are currently being trafficked besides sex work. The fixation on sex trafficking to the exclusion of other areas of trafficking is one of the things that signals that a bias against sex work itself may be in operation.

It does not seem productive to me to perceive an “us against them” circumstance between those who support decriminalization of prostitution and those who seek to eradicate human trafficking. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these positions; on the contrary, I don’t recall ever encountering or hearing of anyone who supports the decriminalization of prostitution not also unquestionably desiring the elimination of human trafficking.

What seems important to me is to present an alternative perspective(s) to any which may be focused on a hostility toward sex work itself and thus draw superficial, ignorant, or arbitrary connections between decriminalization and sex trafficking that may be more related to ingrained cultural perspectives than what is actually occurring. (I do not use “ignorant” there derogatorily but rather advisedly—ignorant of an understanding of consensual sex work, a category into which much of the population may fall—and not necessarily by fault of their own: there is little in mainstream society to illuminate this understanding for the general public.)

As I ponder how to close this post right now, what feels forthcoming is a sincere reiteration of respect and love for everyone, encompassing the heartbreak for the tragedy of human trafficking and the holding of unconditional love in this deep wish for the Awakening of all humanity.

Love,
Emerald

*This post focuses particularly on the perspectives postulated in the articles related to human/sex trafficking. There are a number of other assertions in the referenced articles regarding the selling of sexual services in general to which I also have a response that I plan to address in a separate (forthcoming) post.

“Hey you, don’t tell me there’s no hope at all, together we stand, divided we fall…”
-Pink Floyd “Hey You”

Filed under: Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society, Sex+ Work |7 Comments

International Sex Worker Rights Day

Today (March 3) is International Sex Worker Rights Day. I would like to observe the occasion here by listing and highlighting some things pertaining to sex work/sex workers’ rights lately that I find cool/uplifting/heartening/lovely. The t-shirt I am wearing in the picture, by the way, was produced by the fabulous and local-to-me organization HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive).

Also, if you happen to be in the New York City area, a potluck dinner celebration will be held this evening as organized by SWOP, SWANK and PROS Network.

Okay, on to the aforementioned list:

1) “An open letter from a client” at Harlot’s Parlour. I love that this is a letter to a governing body in support of sex workers’ rights in relation to proposed legislation, I love that a client cared enough to write it, and I love what it says.

2) As posted on Violet Blue’s website, San Francisco-based porn company Pink and White Productions has compiled a recommended practices list for the porn industry/porn performers. I am all about safer sex practices in porn and like Violet am delighted to see a company present a document such as this.

3) While it may not seem directly related to sex work/sex workers’ rights, sexuality education and open dialogue about sexuality in society seem to me quite intermingled with them, and the circumstances surrounding this center on the eve of its grand opening illustrate the struggle for sexual freedom in which sex workers’ rights is encompassed. The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health in Rhode Island opened its doors on February 1 after a surprise controversy that erupted late last year over supposed zoning concerns threatened its doing so. Congratulations to founder Megan Andelloux and the Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health!

4) The story in this comment on the blog of Veronica Monet. Feel free indeed to read Veronica’s blog post as well, but it’s not necessary to contextualize this account in the comment, posted by Gillette (no contact information given):

“I will, though, share a story.

When I first started my work 14 years ago, I shared with a Tantrika friend about what I was doing [prostitution, I have the impression] and why. I felt safe sharing as, heck..we were assisting at a Tantra workshop, she did “healing massage” and we were both supposedly doing our inner work. She blasted me like no one had before. I just kept breathing, knowing that we had to be together all weekend in this close environment, working together for the participants. Our “stuff” had no place there.

At first she wouldn’t look at me. I simply kept reminding myself that this had nothing to do with me, it was her stuff. I was safe, all was well, etc, etc.

The last day she came up to me and thanked me. During the course of the weekend she realized that her blast had come from her fear about doing the same work. That she had been getting intuitive flashes that it was her next step but she was afraid.”

Oh my. I don’t even know what to say about this except that it may be one of the coolest personal accounts I have ever read in the context of sex work.

And there is my list of beautiful celebrations I specifically honor on this International Sex Worker Rights Day. Best wishes, support, gratitude, and love to all current and former sex workers on this day of celebration of our universal rights amidst our professional vocations. (And of course best wishes, support, gratitude, and love to everyone everywhere as well. We are, after all, all One. :))

Love,
Emerald

“No more turning away from the coldness inside, just a world that we all must share, it’s not enough just to stand and stare, is it only a dream that there’ll be no more turning away?…”
-Pink Floyd “On the Turning Away”

Filed under: Sex+ Freedom/Rights, Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society, Sex+ Work |7 Comments

Lighting a Red Candle

As I mentioned last year (though on MySpace at the time, as it was before this blog was launched), December 17 is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers as conceived and named by Annie Sprinkle and SWOP-USA in 2003. The red umbrella is an international symbol (history/origination here) of support for the rights of and protestation of violence and discrimination against sex workers.

An article by Dr. Sprinkle about the origination of the recognition of this day may be found here. It is a read I highly recommend.

SWOP-USA’s December 17 site contains a listing of events around the country and world to recognize the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. I don’t know of any organized gatherings in the geographical location where I am this year, so my own commemoration will be solo. I have procured a red candle (conveniently easy to do this time of year) that is currently lit and that I plan to have lit throughout the day in silent support for current and former sex workers, our rights as professionals and as individuals, and deep reverence and respect for those who experienced violence in the line of work in the last year and ever.

And reverence and respect for all.

Namaste.

Love,
Emerald

“One day you’ll have to let it go, you’ll have to let it go…one day you’ll stand up on your own, remember losing hope, remember feeling low, remember all the feelings and the day they stopped; we are, we are all innocent, we are all innocent, we are, we are…”
-Our Lady Peace “Innocent”

Filed under: Sex+ Government, Sex+ Work |2 Comments

Our Continued Awakening

I have generally not commented much on abortion and reproductive rights on this blog, not because I don’t find the topics important (I have been a reproductive rights activist almost my entire adult life and have worked in that area professionally at times when I’ve had a day job), but because it is so commonly covered elsewhere (where sex workers’ rights and the advocacy of open sexual dialogue, understanding, and appreciation seems to me not nearly so much). However, reproductive rights is of course intrinsically linked to sexuality, and in response to two articles I have come across recently, I do feel like I would like to say something about it here.

I actually wrote the first part of this post a few weeks ago when I encountered the first article referenced above. An opinion column in the New York Times, it is entitled “Not All Abortions are Equal” and is written by Ross Douthat. (It may be that this article will only be available to NYTimes Select subscribers. I will do my best to quote the things from him to which I am responding directly in case that is the case.) I did not see the second article mentioned above, by Kate Harding on Salon.com, until today when I followed a link from Shanna Germain’s blog. So I will be going over the response in me to Mr. Douthat’s column first and following up with the relatedness I see in Ms. Harding’s.

The argument in Mr. Douthat’s article seems to be (and I did not understand all of it, which I will get to) that just because some abortions are sought and performed due to traumatic circumstances like rape or because a woman’s life or health is in danger if she continues a pregnancy does not mean that abortion should legally be a completely unrestricted procedure.

From the article:

”The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women’s lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense. Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn’t enter into the equation.

But the law is a not a philosophy seminar. It’s the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense. And it can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons.”

This is probably the part of this article where most of the responses I lay out here come from.

Something about the arrangement here doesn’t resonate with me. Not all cases of rape (for example) are “equal,” either, but that doesn’t mean we nuance the law around it and say, “Well, if this person knew her/his assailant, it’s a little different so not quite as illegal,” or “Well, if she was out by herself at night, that’s a little different so the law changes.” (There may be social attitudes surrounding this that encapsulate such unconscionable perspectives, but thankfully they are not apparent in official laws at this time.) Rape is illegal because it appears to violate a basic human right. Abortion is legal because it appears to uphold one.

In neither case does it seem to me appropriate to begin qualifying law based on what we see from the outside as interesting or nuanced. To be sure, there are nuances. Of course there are. But while Mr. Douthat touts law as “place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense,” I would offer that this seems erroneous. To me law seems basically the opposite. Law necessarily calls for guidelines that are not based on compromise (do we say, “Murder is illegal unless, well, it seems like I think it’s justified”? or “The speed limit is this — unless you find yourself justified to drive this particular speed to get where you’re going”?). The legal process does include some degree of recognizing nuance, and it generally takes place in the courts, e.g., juries of peers who consider such things. It is not written into law — if it were, the structure law purports to provide would contain a certain flimsiness that would render it far less credible and useful.

It strikes me that the philosophy surrounding the abortion and reproductive rights issue has sometimes seemed not particularly considerate of the fact that quite real, immediate impacts exist and occur regarding the individuals about whom we so fiercely debate. While we go on and on about rights and life and viability, a woman may be facing a pregnancy which she finds breathtakingly fearful, desolate, joyful, euphoric, crushingly uncertain, or any number of other things that those debating may not — because they are not pregnant or surrounded by the circumstances of that woman’s particular situation.

Regarding fetuses: Some people claim to feel a protectionism toward fetuses. I will admit I feel suspect of this; in some cases they may genuinely believe this is what their focus is on, but it does seem to me that the discussion is so fundamentally about male and female, sexuality, and autonomy that there is likely more at play than a simple concern about fetuses. In many instances, incidentally, I have observed the same people so concerned about fetuses seem rather un-concerned about babies once they are born. To feel concern about fetuses is one thing, but it seems to me it would carry over into a concern about babies as well, and frequently this has seemed to me not to be the case. Not once they are separate units themselves, out from under the protection of a woman’s body.

Which brings me right back to one of the main things it seems to me this controversy is about.

I’ve generally not adhered to comparisons when it comes to abortion. E.g., “It’s murder, taking a human life,” or “She’s just having a medical procedure done.” Pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth seem to me not particularly ripe for comparisons because they concern a unique process. There is simply nothing else like it. Thus to say either of these or related comparative things seems to me to be speaking of something in a way diluting of its inherent and unavoidable uniqueness.

In fact I think this uniqueness may be what has made the process such a target for controversy. On some level I think it is recognized in us that there is nothing else like it. There are also perspectives in us about it that stem from some basic things that may be largely unconscious and thus seemingly unknown to us. Combined, there is a tendency in us is to use things about which we know, about which we already have established conceptions, to fit the subject in question into/around these unconsciously-motivated feelings.

To me, denying a woman the choice to obtain abortion feels viscerally repugnant, eliciting a conscious seething, frothing, fury in me. The unconscious motivators for that may be numerous — a ferocious rebellion against male domination of female, against one person’s control over another person, against external control or oppression of sexuality…all this resonates with me. For others, there may be a similarly unconscious aversion to almost the opposite — female having autonomy, equal control of women with men over something, or perhaps something even further: In the case of pregnancy, something has happened to which both a female and a male contributed. In the case of abortion, the female may make an ultimate decision without the involvement or consent of the male part of it. It is not just equal say — it is a full-blown demonstration of female autonomy that may overrule the male part of the equation, ultimately rendering him without a voice about something with which he was inherently involved. A certain fundamental sexism is so ingrained in us societally that in the unconsiouses of some, this could feel searingly threatening in its unfamiliarity and disruption of a centuries-long collective identity.

In being presented with the argument that if a woman chooses to have sex, she must be willing to face the consequences of having a baby, I have heard statements along the lines of, “It’s just biology. It’s not fair, but biology isn’t fair.” Interesting to me that the above offering could be presented in the exact same language. What makes one more valid than the other?

Historically I have almost never felt oriented toward or resonant with separation on the basis of gender, sex, or biological characteristics in general as far as human potential and certainly rights. Thus I have rarely recognized a distinction in the perspectives or experiences of men and women in general, feeling oriented rather toward recognizing that everyone is an individual and one’s sex does not override basic human potential and uniqueness. The only area in which I can ever remember making any such distinction (barring biological characteristics of the physical body) is regarding pregnancy.

Biologically as far as we understand human life to have existed, it is simply the case that men do not become pregnant. As such, when a man has stated a preference for the disallowance or restriction of abortion, I have felt in me a visceral rebellion that has at times felt almost overwhelming.

It is not that I think men should have no perspective or voice about it. To deny such a thing seems outrageous to me. If a male wants to say he does not feel abortion should be allowed, I have no desire to squelch that voice. I simply recognize that it does not resonate with me.

For that perspective from that source to come to pass, that is, for it to be made a rule affecting females, feels unconscionable to me.

I assure readers I am making no claim whatsoever that all men are anti-choice, which in my experience has been obviously not the case, or that all females are pro-choice, which in my experience has been equally obviously not the case. I simply mention that because it is another nuance surrounding the issue that seems unique to pregnancy and therefore abortion.

To go back to Mr. Douthat’s article, the following are (parts of) the closing paragraphs:

“One reason there’s so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions . . . is that Americans aren’t permitted to debate anything else. . . .

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester — as many advanced democracies already do – would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases . . . .”

This is really an area where I do not understand what Mr. Douthat is saying.

“Less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases”? I wonder if he thinks that if the “landscape drastically changed” due to “the democratic process” that those of us frankly concerned about not only our personal lives but also the concept of the female population’s bodies being relegated to susceptible to state control as agents to produce babies will just say, “Oh, whew, we have much more to debate now that people aren’t paying attention so much to the ‘small number of tragic cases’ that have occurred in this area. I don’t think we need to worry quite as much about it in general now, do you?” What does this even mean? This is not the only area in which I felt genuine bafflement about what exactly Mr. Douthat was implying, arguing, or presenting. I am not sure exactly what he means by this statement, but I offer that for some abortion is not a philosophical concept to be debated “democratically” but an immediate life-altering issue, and even for those for whom it is not, for those who have the theoretical ability to get pregnant, it carries a more significant implication in that at some point that could be the case.

For men this will simply never (as long as the biological workings continue as they have since our understanding of human beginning) be the same consideration.

The second article I referenced at the beginning of this post is by Kate Harding and entitled “Voluntary Childlessness ‘Unnatural’ and ‘Evil.’”

This article speaks to reproductive rights being fundamentally about female autonomy and presents evidence of social perception on subjects beyond the realm of abortion. The author mentions the similarity she saw between the “vitriol” directed at Polly Vernon, a thirtysomething woman who proclaimed in the Guardian that she was choosing to not have children, and that which Harding has historically observed from the anti-choice faction, such as “‘terrifying’ letters and e-mails calling her ‘selfish … unnatural, evil’” which Vernon received.

It was when I came across and read this article today, which basically echoes much of what I have said above, that I felt drawn again to blog about this. Harding writes the following:

“When you’re talking about abortion, specifically, you can muddle that basic issue with questions about fetuses’ rights. But it becomes crystal clear when you take the fetus out of it: A woman says she doesn’t plan to have children and is thus taking measures to prevent unintended pregnancy indefinitely, and she gets the very same load of crap: She’s unnatural, evil, mentally ill.”

Basically, that offers an anecdotal summary of what I have referenced here that seems clear to me: Reproductive rights is about something much broader than abortion — and the resistance to abortion as a choice is too.

Here’s to our continued awakening, sexually and otherwise.

Love,
Emerald

“Every time I hear people say it’s never gonna change, I think about you, like it’s some kind of joke, some kind of game, girl I think about you…I think about you, eight years old, big blue eyes and a heart of gold, when I look at this world I think about you…”
-Collin Raye “I Think About You”

Filed under: Sex+ Freedom/Rights, Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society |18 Comments

Perception, Profession, and Decriminalization

I have encountered a few things lately to which I have felt a pressing response from a perspective of supporting the decriminalization of prostitution (which I do). One of them was this letter to the editor in the New York Times in response to an article about proposed legalization of prostitution in the United States. (Note: I support decriminalization rather than legalization of prostitution — descriptions of the distinction may be found here).

Author of the letter Norma Ramos states in regard to prostitution:

”It is the world’s oldest oppression that stems from the world’s oldest inequality — that of women.”

When I read this the first response in me was, could it be that this is more about sex than about women? More on that in a bit.

The letter says later:

”By all accounts, the countries that have legalized prostitution have become magnets for human trafficking and other crimes.”

This is not backed up with evidence in the letter, and I would challenge it to be. Statistics may of course be skewed and biased and repeatedly have been in social research, so I myself hesitate to utilize them as prominent support for presenting the perspective in me, but I will point out that this assertion of “all accounts” seems erroneous to me. Further, it’s not as though strict criminalization laws around prostitution have been free of criticism.

In reference to the prostitution laws of “Sweden, Norway and most recently Iceland” the author says,

”Their law is premised on the recognition that women and girls are human beings and therefore cannot be bought or sold.”

In a prostitution exchange if one does choose to take the perspective that a body is being “sold,” its selling is relinquished upon the end of the exchange (which is why this description does not resonate with me). If one wants to claim that a body is “sold” for a certain period of time, that makes more sense to me, though the vernacular still doesn’t resonate particularly with me. The body is a part of what is being presented as the professional exchange of a service. How exactly is this different from the professional offerings/exchanges of actors, models, and athletes, for example?

Could it be, again, that this is about sex and certain underlying biases or associations we have with it?

I feel as though I would appreciate it if this were at least recognized. There seems to be an automatic “prostitution is bad, wrong, exploitative, harmful” perspective throughout virtually the entirety of society that seems to me to rest on little more than, “well, that’s just the way it is.” Why? Why is sex so much different from all the other myriad services that aren’t even blinked at when they are commodified and used in the context of (rampant) capitalism?

In response to accusations that prostitution has often been surrounded by “vice,” why does it not seem to occur to us that rather than somehow just inherently being surrounded by violence, crime, drugs (which by the way I see as something else associated with crime and an underground world because of its criminalized status rather than some given “attraction” it has to them), etc., prostitution has in modern times been surrounded by such things because it has been criminalized and thus pushed to an underground status in society where those partaking and participating in it are not apt to interact with law enforcement and other protective agencies in its context? Why is it that we assume these associations came first, so the practice was criminalized, rather than that perhaps the practice was criminalized for some other reason(s), and as it was ostracized into an illegal profession, crime and other facets of the underground society rose around it?

If one doesn’t feel comfortable with the idea of doing sex for a job, fine. It is not as though decriminalizing prostitution suddenly eliminates anyone’s right to not engage in it. I would not dream of saying that anyone who doesn’t want to have sex be a job for him or her should do so.

Which seques into the subject of sex trafficking. It seems to me that criminalizing prostitution does not seem at all a sensible way to help eradicate nonconsensual sex work; that indeed, criminalizing the whole trade simply forces it underground where it is even more difficult to examine and discern who is really in a situation of abuse and in need of assistance. How does outlawing consensual action help to more easily discover abusive activity within the same working area of action? It also calls for law enforcement to devote time and resources similarly to discovering and pursuing situations in which abuse is occurring and situations in which individuals are working freely and willingly since the law, due to the nature of the work being performed, conflates these two occurrences.

Interestingly, while human trafficking occurs in work areas other than prostitution, the focus has continued to seem almost exclusively on sex trafficking in the media and societal conversation. Why is this? Or more to the point at the moment, why are we not having a conversation threatening to outlaw all manual labor, farm/outdoor labor, and domestic work since these things have been found to be areas in which trafficking has occurred as well? Once again it seems fundamentally the question has to do with sex, sex work, and underlying perceptions about it rather than perhaps the seemingly obvious issue of the abhorrence of nonconsensual sex work.

None of that is said with any intention on my part to undermine what I see as the crushingly heartbreaking and appalling nature of sex trafficking (or indeed any human trafficking). The idea of not finding nonconsensual sex work or nonconsensual sex of any kind harrowing and abhorrent is unequivocally foreign to me.

In closing, it happens that the indefatigable Dr. Dick recently interviewed for his new series “Sex EDGE-U-cation” the Modern Hooker (whose identity remains anonymous since the profession in which she works is illegal). Modern Hooker’s description is not a glossed-over, glamorized account of prostitution — some of it is not pretty, indeed. It seemed to me a straightforward, open discussion about her work, and I deeply appreciated it as such. I had in fact appreciated this interview so much that I was wanting to mention it here anyway, and since it happens I am writing this post right now, this seems an exemplary opportunity to do so. Thank you again to both Dr. Dick and Modern Hooker for this beautiful offering.

Namaste.

Love,
Emerald

“But tasting a bit of freedom is quickly turning this happy hooker into a defiant whore.”
-Juliet November, in an article entitled “Hooking Without Crooking”

Filed under: Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society, Sex+ Work |8 Comments

Reverence Where Reverence Is Due

I received a link this week to an editorial published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Sunday that concerns abstinence-only sex education. The article’s author, Stacie Murphy, decided to see what it took to become a Certified Abstinence Educator. Her article describes her experience taking — and passing — the online Certification Exam of the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

Among other things, the article reiterates information to which I have already been exposed as a longtime reproductive rights activist from studies that have concluded that abstinence-only sex education appears not only ineffective but can decrease safer sex practices among young people who have sex because of abstinence-only programs’ propensity to emphasize the failure rates (often inaccurately) of contraceptive methods. As Ms. Murphy writes:

“It makes sense. The assertion that premarital sex will condemn them to a life of poverty, degradation and disease does not align with their experience of a country where more than 95 percent of people have sex before they get married. And condoms? If they don’t work, why use them?”

It seems like it would take charts for me to comprehensively explain the things I find dismaying about government-sponsored abstinence-only sex education. Beyond the medical inaccuracies, blatant ideological and/or religious beliefs are also part of some of the curricula as well as gender stereotypes that are presented as casual understanding. And I’m going to stop there for now because I don’t have charts right now and want to address another specific aspect of this in this post.

Because beyond all the (numerous and significant) practical implications I find so disturbing about abstinence-only sex education, philosophically speaking there is a basic premise of the perspective and rhetoric that profoundly doesn’t resonate with me.

Frequently the focus/discussion is on “sex before you get married.” For quite a while I’ve found the “before you get married” part of this rhetoric notable. Before you get married — because, of course, you’re going to get married.

Um…what if you don’t get married (or legally can’t where you choose to live)? What if you don’t want to get married? What if that doesn’t feel like a prominent focus in your life at this time, and you’re not sure it ever will? Does that mean sex is just out of the question for you?

The assertion that these two things are exclusively connected actually makes me feel a little bit queasy. The idea of taking something as fundamental, inherent, and personal as sexuality and forcing it into a rigid, in some ways arguably arbitrary as far as sex is concerned, social standard seems appalling to me. I am not arguing against marriage. I am not saying people shouldn’t get married, or that marriage is irrelevant, or aiming to denigrate it in any way. I am lamenting the idea that marriage, the social construct, should or would be the predecessor or controller of sexuality, an inextricable, wholly individualized, absolutely fundamental aspect of life itself.

The idea has long seemed comparable to me to an assertion that we may only eat during mealtimes. Do not pay attention to when you are hungry or develop any kind of intimacy or relationship with your body that attunes you to your appetite and guides you in a way that serves you — these are the mealtimes, and they are when you eat. That is what we have decided, and that is the way everyone is to do it.

I am not speaking snarkily or sarcastically; this conflation truly does disturb me. It feels viscerally inappropriate, intrusive, and misguided to me, and once again it seems to denigrate something that appears to me so obviously beautiful, luminous, awe-inspiring, and unspeakably sacred, which is sexuality. Seeing it undermined by simple virtue of not being recognized and appreciated as such — or only being appreciated within certain social and arguably externally controlling confines — has been known to feel heartbreaking to me, and that is how it feels right now as I type this.

However, it occurs to me that part of “heartbreaking” is “heart,” and I just noticed I am feeling there right now. The joy, beauty, light, glory, love of all of us, that we all are, that is life, that sexuality is purely and luminously within.

…Whew. That all being said, today is a bustling day in erotica blogland — Erobintica is up on the Blow Hard Tour 2009, and today is Donna George Storey’s stop on the Swing! anthology blog tour!

Namaste and love to all.

Love,
Emerald

“We’re born to shimmer, we’re born to shine, we’re born to radiate, we’re born to live, we’re born to love…”
-Shawn Mullins “Shimmer”

Filed under: Sex+ Freedom/Rights, Sex+ Government, Sex+ Society, Sex+ Spirituality |9 Comments