Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex Work vs. Trafficking: Understanding the Difference

By Melissa Ditmore, RH Reality Check. Posted May 10, 2008.


There are big differences between women trafficked into sexual slavery and voluntary sex workers. So why are we treating them the same?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Melissa Ditmore

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Originally posted at RH Reality Check.

Even those who mean well sometimes confuse the human rights abuse of trafficking in persons with the human occupation of prostitution, or sex work. It's understandable because of the history of the two fields, but it creates rather than solves problems. Let me try to sort it out here.

The tendency to treat trafficking and prostitution as if they were the same thing has a long and problematic history. Legislation and social discussion have often blurred or denied any difference, but that has always made things worse rather than better for those involved.

The trafficking of women and children into sexual slavery is undeniably a gross abuse of human rights. Like all trafficking, it involves coercion or trickery or both. Sex trafficking is an odious forms of trafficking, but it is far from the only one. Men, women and children are also -- and more commonly -- trafficked routinely for purposes of household and farm labor as well as sweatshop manufacturing. Their lives may be less media-genic than those of sex trafficking victims, but they are no less brutal, dangerous and degraded.

A narrow focus on the single aspect of sex trafficking is often fueled by sensationalist and sometimes salacious accounts of sexual abuse. It leads us to ignore these other forms of trafficking, and so denies help and protection to all the men, women and children forced into and trapped in abusive working situations in other industries.

By the same token, treating sex work as if it is the same as sex trafficking both ignores the realities of sex work and endangers those engaged in it. Sex workers include men and women and transgender persons who offer sexual services in exchange for money. The services may include prostitution (sexual intercourse) and other services such as phone sex. Sex workers engage in this for many reasons, but the key distinction here is that they do it voluntarily. They are not coerced or tricked into staying in the business but have chosen this from among the options available to them.

A key goal of sex worker activists is to improve sex-working conditions, but self-organization is impossible when sex work is regarded as merely another form of slavery. Then authorities and laws trying to stop true slavery -- trafficking -- get misapplied to sex workers, clients and others involved in the sex industry. Law enforcement raids in the U.S. and abroad, for example, have led to little success identifying trafficked persons but instead have driven sex work underground. This exposes sex workers to an increased risk of violence and denies them any protection of laws against assault or access to medical, legal and educational services. It denies them their human rights.

A national anti-trafficking law enacted in 2000 recognizes "severe forms of trafficking" as a modern form of slavery that involves a broad spectrum of workers and industries. In this interpretation, trafficking is clearly distinguished from voluntary sex work and thus avoids the absurdity of equating the fear and suffering of a trafficked person with the typical working conditions of voluntary sex workers. These conditions are often far from ideal, but nevertheless they are far removed from debt bondage or enslavement.

It is regrettable that despite the obvious reality of this perspective, the popular imagination of sex work tends to return to images of young girls forced into sexual slavery. Perhaps people would rather read such stories than hear about more prosaic struggles for workers' rights -- to organize, to be free from harassment, to get decent health care. But their preferences should not be allowed to dictate policy about either human trafficking or sex work.

Traditional standards of morality have been a major influence on legislation aimed at trafficking, and on the ways that trafficking legislation changes the legal treatment of prostitution. But the 'moral' position opposing sex work is actually a specific political and ideological position, and its net effect is typically to limit women's autonomy.

Sex law is often a front for ideology that constrains rather than liberates women. What most appalls me about the recent conflation of trafficking and sex work in law and policy is that some feminists support the confusion. These women would normally never dream of telling other women how to behave, because they have fought against imposed constraints in their own lives. Yet they seem to think it is acceptable to tell sex workers what is best for them, and they are prepared to use dubious political alliances to advance their moral agenda.

Women's studies professor Donna Hughes even told the National Review that George W. Bush is the president who has done the most for women on the strength of his policies aimed against sex work. The fact that these policies do nothing to halt human trafficking and in fact may be counter-productive seems to be irrelevant. So does the worse fact that President Bush has presided over a deliberate reduction in access to reproductive health care for women in the United States and around the world.

Women are not the only victims when trafficking is conflated with sex work. The confusion squanders opportunities to address real victimization and to assist people in real situations of abuse. Resources, time and energy that might actually help trafficking victims are wasted in sensational "rescues" that are also ineffective and often counterproductive.

There is a clear need to formulate public policy that is less emotionally driven and better able to recognize the real causes, nature and effects of trafficking in persons. People concerned about the health and rights of migrants should choose to talk in terms of migration and mobility and workers' rights -- including sex workers' rights -- rather than confusing matters by using the term "trafficking" with all its attendant baggage. That should help clear the debating field for useful and separate discussions of both.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism, prostitution, sex work

Melissa Ditmore, Ph.D., was the inaugural Chair of the Advisory Board of the Sex Workers Project and is a research consultant on issues of sex work, mobility and migration, HIV and sexual health. She edited the Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work (Greenwood Press, 2006) and edits Research for Sex Work, the journal of the Network of Sex Work Projects.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You Hit the Nail on the Head
Posted by: Libertine on May 10, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminists have traditionally opposed the type of "traditional morality" that is heavily based on boxing men and women up into stereotyped sex roles, but the average feminist's response to the sex worker/trafficking issue tends to be an emotional one largely based on two erroneous stereotyped ideas about women, namely:

1. Women cannot separate sex from love, thus could not willingly choose prostitution because it is having sex for money, not love.

2. Women are natural victims, gullible and easily led, so all prostitutes are "victims", no matter how much they may protest to the contrary.

The fact that the anti-sex wing of the feminist movement, led by Catherine McKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin, have in the past worked with anti-sex crusaders in the Christian fundamentalist right wing speaks volumes as to the highly conflicted nature of their views.

Progressives of any stripe should step back and re-examine their views when they find themselves making common cause with the James Dobsons and Pat Robersons of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let them sell their kidneys, while we're at it
Posted by: scheherezade on May 10, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are not coerced or tricked into staying in the business but have chosen this from among the options available to them.

Yes indeed, how many countless little girls out there grow up dreaming of a future that includes sucking dicks to pay the rent.

Perhaps we should legalize selling organs, as well. After all, we only really need one kidney. If selling the other is an "option available" to people, why not afford everybody the freedom to do so -- gotta pay to gas the car up somehow!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why doesn't she just buy a brothel?
Posted by: Amsterdam on May 10, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-sex feminism is the Jew the Nazis allow to live to trap other Jews. I think basically Ditmore's problem is that she really likes the idea of prostitution as an alternative to working in a factory.

I have a solution for her, she should get out and do it, however, I get the distinct feeling, that she would hanker after being a pimp, it is her lecturing tone that has me thinking that.

I can tell you this, brothels are not about choice, you get to do whoever comes in the door, that's the standard be nice to the customers rule. It is just like Mcdonalds, you get to do the one you get.

It doesn't matter if he is also raping his daugther in a dungeon in Austria, if he is paying, he's is buying, exactly what he points at and it is time to be nice. If Josef Fritz walks in the door, Josef Fritz is the person the girl gets to do.

Gregory Carlin

Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality check?
Posted by: lefty010 on May 10, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this interpretation, trafficking is clearly distinguished from voluntary sex work and thus avoids the absurdity of equating the fear and suffering of a trafficked person with the typical working conditions of voluntary sex workers. These conditions are often far from ideal, but nevertheless they are far removed from debt bondage or enslavement.

Wow that’s a pretty amazing distinction considering I just read this article here on Alternet titled: Satisfied Sex Worker or Domestic Trafficking Victim?
By Kari Lydersen, AlterNet. Posted May 8, 2008. Here’s an excerpt:

A teenage girl from Chicago is being sexually abused by her mother's string of boyfriends. So she flees home with a boyfriend of her own. They hit the road but run out of money, so the boyfriend shows her how to work the truck stops, and she becomes a prostitute. Several years later, she is working for a pimp who forces her to serve 10 or more customers a night, driving her to different locations in the city and suburbs, and keeps almost all the money himself. She wants to leave prostitution, but is emotionally and financially dependent on the pimp and afraid he will physically harm her if she tries to leave… (the rest is here http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/84748/)

This author can try to legitimize the “career” of sex worker as much as they would like but the bottom line reality is that prostitution, and the sex industry in general, more often than not, end up re-victimizing the workers. This is not a the dream career that this author touts it as being. I also resent that because I hold this view that I am considered some right-wing religious conservative. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I refuse to propagate the idea that the sex industry/prostitution is the only place where people (usually women) can get paid a living wage (which also doesn’t happen very often per the other story). There are much larger, systemic problems that lead people to “choose” prostitution and the sex industry. To try to present prostitution as a legitimate career choice for women is to further victimize them and truly diminishes the real and deleterious inequality that women and other minorities (GLBT) face in a patriarchal society.

Yes I know there are exceptions to every rule and I’m sure there are a minuscule amount of sex workers who LOVE what they do and their lives are full of rainbows and unicorns, but for the most part, that is not the reality for MOST sex workers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Reality Check Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: Reality Check Posted by: Holly P.
» Really?!?!?!? Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Really?!?!?!? Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: eally?!?!?!? Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Really?!?!?!? Posted by: Holly P.
» Same back atchya! Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Domestic Abuse Shelter Posted by: susnow
» Hmm... Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: ann83
» Give me a break!! Posted by: lefty010
» HUH? Posted by: lefty010
» RE: HUH? Posted by: susnow
» It was clear to me Posted by: soft2u47
Thank You, Melissa
Posted by: Holly P. on May 10, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you take your own advice, Gregory, and go work in the sex industry yourself instead of coming onto this board and trying to speak for sex workers because you don't represent all of us. In terms of your comment about working at McDonald's, I agree that it's not the same thing as sex work, though both are ways that people make a living. Personally, I'd prefer to provide sexual services and entertainment for a living than work at McDonald's and be around all that grease while for a low wage, and not to mention, I'm a vegetarian. I'm not claiming to speak for everybody, but I do have the right to define my experiences and perspectives for myself.
Melissa did an excellent job of addressing the harms of conflating all prostitution with trafficking. This conflation does nothing to stop human trafficking, but instead has resulted in repressive policies in which sex workers are being persecuted and made more vulnerable to trafficking and other abuses. Persecuting sex workers does nothing to stop human trafficking. Some of the trafficked people in the sex industry are people who are trying to flee persecution due to the criminalization of prostitution. Also, in the world we live in, people in various industries cross borders to make a living and it is not only incorrect, but it is downright xenophobic to assume that all migrant workers in the sex industry are human trafficking victims. In this sense, we're still dealing with the same xenophobia today that was occuring 100 years ago. Furthermore, human trafficking occurs in various industries, as Melissa acknowledged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank You, Melissa Posted by: Martin32
Sanctimonious moralistic hypocrites
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on May 12, 2008 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with agencies and groups fighting sex slave traffic, historically, is that from the term "coerced into having sex", coercion doesnt bother them half as much as sex. For them, a moldavian girl beaten and held captive is only a matter of concern because she is forced to have sex. Moreso, in their righteous crusade to save her, they applaud laws that impose stricter punishment not only for the traffickers, but to them.

Sex, or telling people how they should use/enjoy it, is the key.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The New World Order
Posted by: mizipi on May 12, 2008 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, in the NWO, it is OK to enslave someone to be a whore, yet it is not an individual's right to choose prostitution as a profession. Where I grew-up, there used to be a beer joint everyone knew as "Ma Shoemaker's" (officially the Club Caprice), and to put it bluntly, everyone knew it was a whorehouse. Though I never used the services of one of the girls/women working there, I often drank beer there, shot pool and/or played pinball there. Over the years, I made friends with several of the girls and all of them seemed satisfied with the conditions of their employment. Even the local law enforcement sort of 'turned their eyes' away from what was surely illegal. Then in 1994, the IRS and DEA did a raid on the place, permanently shutting "Ma's" doors. Now, one can see street walkers, mostly crack-heads or meth-heads in the seedier parts of our cities. Maybe, Craig'sList is the new "Ma's"......I do not know. What I'm trying to say is this: being a sex worker is not for everyone, nor is using the services of a sex worker for everyone. But what should be for everyone is the right to choose a profession that delivers a service without infringing upon the rights of anyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
...a few questions to awnser.
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on May 12, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taken we all, beign sensible persons, oppose traffic and coerced labor of any kind...

-Do you think laws against prostitution protects women or society?

-If so, do you think prostitutes should be incarcerated or be subject to any other measure?

-If so, what kind of measure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Listen
Posted by: ann83 on May 12, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet readers in particular seem to have a very visceral reaction anytime a post comes out that involves sex work/sex trafficking. It's sort of maddening, because I think that, with the exception of the trolls and individuals who call these women skanks (which i believe falls under the realm of discriminatory or hateful language, and needs to be removed), we're fighting for the same thing. We want these women (and men, and transgendered individuals) to be safe as possible regardless of whether they are trafficked or if they have chosen their profession. It's a simple human rights question. My personal belief, is that if the women are being trafficked, we need to find their trafficker, and punish him/her with the highest severity of the law. If they are not (and yes, I believe some have chosen the profession among the options available), then do not punish THEM, as this will only make things worse. Also, I agree, that some people are doing this as survival work, so the question of coercion becomes quite slippery. This is an economic question (and I also hate how alternet tags this post as sex and relationships, when I feel that this would be better tagged as labor rights, or something like that), and thus, we need to look at the larger structural economic system of why these individuals feel that sex work is the only option available. Perhaps because the jobs out there for people with low education pay $6-9 an hour? The welfare benefits in some states for a person with two children is $900? Has anyone on this list tried to raise three children on less than $1000 a month?

My question is, all of these strip clubs raids, craigslist raids, and the dungeon raids that have been happening, all have been legitimized by this idea of "finding the trafficker" and protecting the "victim."

Subsequently, why do I rarely, if ever read about a trafficker being arrested? I only read about the sex workers arrest: their name gets printed in the paper, they get arrested, which consequently makes it harder for them to get another job. So the cycle continues. Let's focus on getting the traffickers. And NOT criminalizing the sex workers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Listen Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» RE: Listen and learn Posted by: rhbee
Ironically, this post after Mother's Day. Pay all women what they're worth
Posted by: Alex Hidell on May 12, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Is Your Mom Worth ?

see salary.com's 'salary wizard'

The same could be said for legitimate sex workers in NV brothels or those working outside the law.

Nobody's getting what they're really worth in this
corporatist run society so some resort to selling themselves short just to stay alive. I read somewhere, and I believe that Sen Daniel P. Moynihan tried under Nixon to get somewhere near this figure, that $50,000 annual income is all it would take to make most people "happy"

Don't worry, be happy ... or not
The secret to happiness, according to researchers, is low expectations. Don't ask for the moon, voyager, when you've got the stars.
Low expectations may trump wealth

http://www.thestar.com/article/198212

A bastardization of the earned income tax credit (EITC) is intended to provide a cash supplement to poor or near-poor taxpayers. The original idea for the credit is from a combination of Milton Friedman's "reverse income tax," the "guaranteed minimum income" idea of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Nixon Administration, and an intent to shield poor Americans from the FICA tax...

...a guaranteed income of $50,000 obviously isn't how things worked out in today's world.

Happiness seems to have eluded those on the lower income spectrum and seems abundant to those in the top 1 and a half percent of taxpayers.

It also seems to come back down to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

What is the minimum required to make the US taxpayer/citizen "happy" ? I'd go along with that $50k and press the hypocritical conservatives to see to it that everyone they look down upon (hookers and sex workers and yes even single mothers) gets that minimum $50k.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Straw men obfuscate the issue
Posted by: whaaat? on May 12, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ditmore never really tells us who among opponents of the prostitution system allegedly confuse forced trafficking with prostitution (sex isn't work). In my experience, no one does: links are acknowledged when they exist, but the focus is clearly on men's privilege to pressure women and youths into unwanted sex for cash, with traficking issues treated separately and involved in only some of prostitution situations.

By setting up a straw man argument, Ditmore silences and belittles opponents of men's power ploy against impoverished women. If one were to accept her slanted perspective, there would be no middle ground between forced trafficking and voluntary prostitution, a simplistic phallacy by all counts when one takes into account the many forms of economic, social and psyschological constraint involved.

An exclusive focus on the virtual possibility of some women's relative agency works to disappear the much more real agency and control exerted by the people who run the prostitution industry, the prostitutors: pimps, johns, domestic and international traffickers - when some are involved - and all the politicians and cops who look the other way and enable this business of men sexually using impoverished or otherwise pressured women because they can afford to and a patriarchal system serves them up, along with the necessary apologists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THANK YOU!!!! Posted by: lefty010
We are all forced to work to survive but slaves work jobs against their will
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 12, 2008 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously we all have to work in order to make ends meet and survive.

The issue in this article seems to be slavery. Workers who are forced to work by some other individual or organization against their will.

As tough as it is, it is possible to survive on low skilled minimum wage jobs. I had a coworker back at my first job who wasn't very bright and because of that he could only get low skilled jobs. He worked 3 of them in order to make ends meet. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Sex workers who aren't slaves do have a choice, even if they are in poverty. It's a bad choice, 3 minimum wage jobs is a crappy way to live but it is a way that doesn't involve selling one's body for sex if they do not wish to.

Sex workers should not be imprisoned for making the choice to sell sex and nor should their customers for using their services.

My body, my property, my choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My problem with this
Posted by: drmeow on May 12, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and many of the other pro-sex-work or anti-sex-work articles is that neither side seems to want to admit that there is a normal distribution that ranges from trafficking to voluntary sex work and every thing in between. The reality is that, like all normal distributions, the minority are at the extremes. Neither side seems to want to acknowledge or do much about the majority in the middle. To cheerlead about voluntary sex work with this lip-service acknowledgment of the often dangerous and unhappy conditions in which some sex workers work (These conditions are often far from ideal, but nevertheless they are far removed from debt bondage or enslavement.) is as disingenuous as those who rail about prostitution without acknowledging that there are many happy and successful voluntary sex workers. In both cases it leads me to just shut down and dismiss their arguments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My problem with this Posted by: susnow
When is consent real?
Posted by: GPFrank on May 12, 2008 5:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is difficult not to get emotional on this subject because we have a hard time telling when consent is real.

Let me tell of some anecdotal observation in the vicinity of a new federally funded clinic for child and adult victims of abuse.


When a man happens to look in the direction of this slightly deformed young adult woman she has a look as if some form of abuse is the first thing she would expect. That is, she is not soliciting but exhibits a fearful body language aas if she were ready to comply.

Recently, she happened to bump into me from getting off another bus when I was waiting for a bus. She asked me a question, the words of which were unintelligible but she pressed right close up.

She even looked much better than when I had first seen her two years ago. However it is possible her question might have been about whether I also go to the clinic.

Suppose there were a legal setup for people calling themselves sex workers. Assuming they were actually interviewed before taking on a job, how would one tell if when asking if they were abused whether they were dissimulating, hiding or actually repressing memory?

There is something not quite right about Bertrand Russell's assertion that a person has free will if he or she thinks he or she has free will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When is consent real? Posted by: Holly P.
People aren't commodities
Posted by: VeryBlessed on May 12, 2008 7:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social changes that are “choices” for elites often aren’t for people of lower status. I’ve known two women who became caught up in controlling domestic situations and stayed with male friends to avoid homelessness. How terrible if either of those men had been able to guilt those women, or even just apply a lot more pressure, on the argument that the help the women were receiving but couldn’t pay for by other means at the time was easily paid for by turning over their bodies. After all, not only can’t it not be too bad if society says it’s okay, there can’t, in fact, be anything wrong with it - it’s actually right. Any woman who doesn’t pay a man “what’s due him” with sex, then, is unscrupulously defrauding him, holding back as if she were hiding a secret income. If bodies are sellable, they’re also collateral, and legal tender for debts. And sellers/possessors don’t hold all rights. If you own a restaurant you can’t discriminate against who you serve.

This is how the lower and lower middle class world works, but some “well-meaning” liberals want to give every man with a financial upper hand the “moral upper hand” by justifying the idea that sex-for-assistance isn’t “out of the question.” The woman who thinks otherwise about such intimacy would be so much more open to the browbeating that she’s just an uptight and controlling prude who’s out of touch with reality.

Legalizing prostitution will make every woman a prostitute to the degree of her financial status, meaning it will never happen involuntarily to those who are elite, with other means, but will become part of the life and identity of every woman of little means. I shudder at the thought. Very likely proponents of prostitution won’t understand what I’m getting at and will dismiss it, but I know what I’m talking about, and it makes me sick. It will become part of the reality of the identity of these women, whether a woman ever has sex under such circumstances or not. It will legitimize it for her, against her will, taking away the legal protection she had over the integrity of her own intimate self. The law and society would be against her belief that it is a big deal for her to see her intimate self as any different from a tv set or money or anything else. It will degrade her by default.

At the other end of the spectrum, for the elites, play-acting the prostitute with the excitement that it could now be more real than ever (even though of course these women and their families will still unfailingly prefer college, graduate programs that “study” and “support” sex workers, and a liberal form of the bourgeois life for themselves and their children) will just be another cool addition to their personas.

“There are big differences between women trafficked into sexual slavery and voluntary sex workers. So why are we treating them the same?”

There are big differences between prostitution and work that doesn’t involve performing intimate sexual acts with strangers. So why would society treat them the same?

As a woman who has myself spent much of my life in the lower middle-class, and have seen how things actually work out, it disturbs me that many elite liberals would take away from so many women the safety they have that no matter what, society does not legally (and so also morally) support the idea that they and their sexually intimate experiences are not mere commodities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: People aren't commodities Posted by: VeryBlessed
» Nicely done Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Nicely done Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: Very Blessed Posted by: susnow
» RE: Very Blessed Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: Very Blessed Posted by: Holly P.
» RE: Very Blessed Posted by: VeryBlessed
» RE: Very Blessed Posted by: susnow
Netherlands TOO!
Posted by: lefty010 on May 14, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pardon the source, it's Wikipedia, but I'm posting it anyway.

Human trafficking:

The Netherlands is a primary country of destination for victims of human trafficking. Many of these are led to believe by organized criminals that they are being offered work in hotels or restaurants or in child care and are forced into prostitution with the threat or actual use of violence. Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis.[8] The victims mainly originate from the Netherlands, Africa and Eastern Europe, particularly from the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. Most police investigations on human trafficking concern legal sex businesses. All sectors of prostitution are well represented in these investigations, but particularly the window brothels are overrepresented.[9][10]

Over the years there has been a significant increase of registered Dutch victims of human trafficking. In 2005 23% of the persons registered at the Dutch Foundation Against Trafficking in Women were Dutch citizens.[11]

In an effort to crack down on forced prostitution, a campaign [12] was launched in 2005 in magazines through posters put up around the red-light districts encouraging clients to report signs of coercion. The poster has an eye-catching silhouette of a spike-heeled prostitute with long hair leaning back, but on closer inspection another picture reveals a gun being held to the female's head. The caption reads "Have you seen the signals? Fear, bruises, no 'pleasure' in the job." It then goes on to offer a phone number which clients can call anonymously.


From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Netherlands TOO! Posted by: Holly P.
» Yawn Posted by: lefty010
» RE: Yawn Posted by: Holly P.
Another
Posted by: lefty010 on May 14, 2008 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's another:

www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_ legalizing.html

As countries are considering legalizing and decriminalizing the sex industry, we urge you to consider the ways in which legitimating prostitution as "work" does not empower the women in prostitution but does everything to strengthen the sex industry.

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
3. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry.It expands it.
4. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex Industry increases child prostitution.
6. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
7. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
8. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women's health.
9. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women's choice.
10. Women in systems of Prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.


You can read the reasons for all the aforementioned at the link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Posted by: susnow
Lefty
Posted by: susnow on May 18, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have made arguments till the cows come home about the supposed evils of legalizing prostitution.

But guess what: here in the US, where prostitution is criminalized, there is coercion, abuse, trafficking, and slavery. Apparently your method of keeping it criminalized doesn't work.

Whether prostitution is decriminalized or not, there will be coercion, abuse, trafficking, and slavery. But the difference is that in places where it's decriminalized, the sex-worker is in a better position to complain about working conditions, and to get out of an undesirable situation than in places where what she does is criminalized.

Furthermore, the use of the term "buying women for sex" is non-sensical and demeaning to sex-workers who are doing what they do more or less by choice. Most of them do what they do because of economic reasons, but isn't that true of just about every job? Don't female janitors do what they do in order to survive economically? Yet I don't see you using the term "buying women for cleaning" when you refer to female janitors.

Lefty, stick to what you know best, and that is running a domestic abuse shelter, and leave the issue of prostitution decriminalization to the experts, which would be sex-worker advocates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement