I’ll admit I haven’t followed all of the permutations of the current Washington Madam scandal. It does seem clear from today’s reports that Deborah Palfrey is going to “name names”, revealing just who among the DC political class were using her service to buy prostitutes.
Lots of good posts on the topic in the feminist blogosphere, this one and this one by Pam Spaulding were helpful to me in thinking about a response.
I’ve got mixed feelings about revealing the names of men who patronize prostitutes. My first instinct is to say “Keep the list private”. That’s rooted in the sense that our culture is already overly fascinated by the sex lives of politicians and celebrities. Most of the information that comes out of this sort of thing tends to be embarrassing, tawdry, and numbingly repetitive. I’m also reluctant to see the names of the madam’s clients released because I want to spare the families of these “johns” any further humiliation. The sons and daughters and spouses of those who patronize prostitutes don’t need any further pain than they’ve already endured; being the wife or child of a man who pays women for sex is already a sufficiently disheartening experience without prying reporters and cruel classmates all being aware of it!
Yesterday, during an email discussion on the ethics of what to do, I wrote to a number of my feminist colleagues: The names released ought to be only those of public figures whose private behavior is explicitly at odds with their public pronouncements. Like most folks, I find the hypocrisy of Randall Tobias, the deputy Secretary of State who campaigned for abstinence-only education, to be unusually galling. Here’s a man who was one of the leaders of the anti-AIDS fight, a point man for the administration in that worthy cause — and he’s patronizing prostitutes. (We are not informed if he wore a condom). I do believe that public figures who demand that others do what they themselves do not deserve to be unmasked. The validity of any message, after all, is at least partly contingent on the credibility of the messenger.
After a day of reflection, I’m more and more inclined to say “reveal all the names”. I’m not interested, as a liberal, in making political hay. I assume that there are both Democrats and Republicans on the client list, and that both parties will feel some heat as a result of the forthcoming revelations. I want the names to come out because I am convinced that prostitution is never, ever, a victimless crime. Buying the bodies of other human beings for sexual gratification is soul-destroying to both parties in the transaction. Prostitution commodifies the bodies of women who are disproportionately young, poor, and non-white. Though the media invariably finds the occasional telegenic sex worker who apparently enjoys her vocation, those who advocate for women trapped in the sex industry suggest that the vast majority loathe what they do. Most are forced into it ; many come from backgrounds of abandonment, poverty, and abuse. When men — particularly men in positions of power — choose to focus on their own pleasure rather than on the plight of the exploited, then I think these fellas forfeit their right to have their names kept private.
If the men on this list had robbed banks or committed crimes against property, there would be no debate as to whether or not they should be unmasked. If they were corrupt embezzlers, stealing from the public purse, we’d all see the justice in having them be “named and shamed.” Thus when we suggest that prostitution is a “private matter” and a “victimless crime”, we suggest that the women whose bodies were used are worth less than inanimate property. Whether or not these women were well-compensated has nothing to do with whether or not they were exploited (a view I am confident some of my more sex-positive feminist allies will find troubling); money is no balm for profound psychic and spiritual injury.
I teach women’s studies. I put myself out there as a faithful husband, committed Christian, and passionate feminist. If I were caught visiting prostitutes or strip clubs, I ought to be named and shamed. (Ain’t gonna happen, mind you.) As I’ve learned from my own past, it’s only when our secrets become public knowledge, only when we are stripped and revealed, that we can begin the long and difficult road to recovery and transfomation. Honestly, the best possible thing that could happen for these men themselves is to have their ugly, petty, private misbehavior made public knowledge. As all the great myths remind us, the hero is only exalted after first being brought low. The day the truth comes out, in all its ugliness, can be the first day on a journey to justice and transformation.
Let’s name ‘em. All of ‘em. Now.
Hugo - While I agree with you in spirit, remember that Ms. Palfrey herself (and Tobias as well) are claiming no (illegal) sexual activities occurred. Legally, since the government is charging her with running a prostitution ring, I think the list becomes evidence with the potential for public release depending on judicial regulations governing evidence.
In this specific case, Ms. Palfrey herself is releasing her private property (she claims she needs media help in tracking down potential “witnesses”). She claims her business was a “legal enterprise that provided “high-end” clients with services such as nude dancing and massage, not sex.” I suspect you find such services as exploitation, but where’s the ethical line in the media/government releasing private property/information involving legal activities?
I agree with your point that “we suggest that the women whose bodies were used are worth less than inanimate property.” However, remember one difference between prostitution and bank robbery is that, by the law, the “victim” in the former case is also committing a crime. You may argue the balance of guilt or responsibility is predominantly one-sided; nonetheless, you leaving hanging the question of whether the service provider names should be released.
You state “Most are forced into it.” Again, I believe, without having any reliable statistics on hand, you are right. However, Ms. Palfrey claims “She employed 132 “college-educated” women across the Washington area for 13 years from 1993 to 2006. (ABC News Brian) Ross added that the women who worked for the service, potentially as prostitutes, “include university professors, legal secretaries, scientists, military officers.” While even college education women or men could find themselves in desperate situations to resort to prostitution, I suspect those conditions do not exist for the vast majority of these women.
In the specific case of “military officers,” such employment (even if legal) without approval would constitute an ethics violation - clearly in contrast to the behavior demanded of fellow officers and subordinates. Does your guiding principle only apply to the consumer?
Hmm. Hugo, first of all I see nowhere in your post that you would wait to “name and shame” these men until there was incontrovertible proof that those men were indeed guilty of solicitation and not just placed in this woman’s ‘little black book’ in order to blackmail them into coming to her aid. It is quite plausible and possible that she is simply lying in order to do just that, i.e., blackmailing them into coming to her aid.
Next, you’re conveniently ignoring the homosexual prostitution business, one that is reportedly booming among the D.C. political crowd, the likes of Barney Frank and his fellow travelers being notable players. Who knows how the lesbian prostitution business is doing? I’ll bet quite nicely. So I assume that you’re in favor of outing all the gay and lesbian politicians who on one hand rail against exploitation of sex workers (at least if they’re women) and on the other hand utilize the services of hookers as well, right? And how about the likes of both Clintons, who for his part forced an intern into what can arguably called coerced prostitution (i.e., sex slavery), or for her part committed spousal battery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. - all much more serious crimes than availing themselves to the services of a “sex worker?” Like the *accused* “Johns” in this case, both Clintons would be fair game (with Hillary accused of *much* more serious crimes) if your criteria were applied in an equitable manner.
Focusing on the abuses of “men in positions of power” and giving a pass on the likes of Hillary, Diane “Give-my-husband-a-defense-contract-while-I-sit-on- the-appropriations-committee” Feinstein, et al., smacks of double standards.
You also said: “Though the media invariably finds the occasional telegenic sex worker who apparently enjoys her vocation, those who advocate for women trapped in the sex industry suggest that the vast majority loathe what they do.”
Heh. Ever stop to consider that perhaps “those who advocate for women trapped in the sex industry” approach their study samples with very strong biases, and thus the impression that “the vast majority loathe what they do” is simply a reflection of that bias?
Finally, why not advocate for “naming and shaming” false accusers of sex crimes, like the “exotic dancer”in Durham, N.C., who railroaded three innocent men just so she could avoid a probation violation, or the Duke Group of 88 professors who similarly formed a lynch mob against their own students based on their own racist and sexist prejudices? Don’t they deserve a place in your ‘Hall of Shame?’ Or is shame only reserved for heterosexual white men who enjoy the services of professional female “sex workers”? Seems to me if you were truly interested in protecting people you’d be all for naming and shaming a lot more folks than just some white, (likely conservative) males in D.C.
But then, real justice and accountability isn’t really what this is about at all, is it?
Colonel, I’ve long advocated the so-called Swedish model on prostitution: criminalize the buying of sex, de-criminalize the selling. It avoids punishing the victim — even though, in some rare instances, those who are doing sex work may not be victimized.
Mr. Bad, it gets you nowhere to suggest tthat I am inconsistent because I don’t blog about a variety of other topics you would like me to blog about. I’m writing about outing those who patronize prostitutes, end of story.
As for Clinton, I advocated his resignation in the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal. In some ways, I wish he had resigned in ‘98; then we’d have had a President Gore almost certainly win re-election by a handier margin in the popular and electoral college votes.
Hugo, you said: “I’m writing about outing those who patronize prostitutes, end of story.” The problem is you’re not being honest; what you’re really writing about is about outing those heterosexual men who patronize prostitutes. Like I asked Hugo, what about the alleged homosexual prostitution among politicians like Barney Frank, et al.? You say nary a word about them now, nor at the time problems surfaced for Frank and others. If there were a real “outing” of homosexual johns (and janes) in D.C. it’s extremely likely you and your allies would screaming bloody murder about the injustices of such outings.
As for your comment: “I’ve long advocated the so-called Swedish model on prostitution: criminalize the buying of sex, de-criminalize the selling. It avoids punishing the victim — even though, in some rare instances, those who are doing sex work may not be victimized.” This is just as unworkable and unfair as if you were to criminalize buying drugs but not selling them. It’s pretty much exactly the same thing and for all practical purposes what we already have now, except in the case of prostitution you ignore the ‘pusher.’
Clearly what this all boils down to is that you want to hammer heterosexual men and give women a pass. How utterly sexist and predictable.
And with that, Mr. Bad, your commenting in this thread ends.
Hugo:
You know, this post illustrates one of the great advantages of thinking in compartments, of having what Robert Pirsig called a “classical” cast of mind. It encourages focus on specifics, and setting things in the order of importance.
In this case, as Amanda Marcotte points out in a post you link to, the primary ethical issues here involve exploitation based on poverty, race, and nationality. If you go to a prostitute in this society, you stand a good chance of giving your money to someone trafficking in persons. I submit that this takes precedence over all the other issues in this case, including those of betrayed families and constituents, and the vexed question of who can claim to speak for sex trade workers. All that comes after we address the central ethical issue here, the plight of victims of human trafficking.
Mr. Bad:
If you can’t tell the ethical difference between hiring a service which uses “Central American” women as sex workers, apparently without asking any awkward questions about where they came from, and making a slightly hasty judgment in a rape case, then I think you need to consider the context of these issues more carefully. You might want to look into what happens to women of color, particularly indigenous women, in our society.
Word, John; FYI, the two posts at Pandagon were Pam’s, not Amanda’s.
I don’t know.
One side of me says that “naming” is appropriate; if the person is someone whom the naming will shame, they were in the wrong.
What I’m not seeing is how saying that a women has the right to sell access to her body makes her “less valuable than an inanimate object.” Stealing–taking things not yours to take–is the fundamental crime; buying things is a very different issue.
I’m also not seeing how something’s GENERAL exploitiveness has any bearing on it’s “in-this-case” exploitiveness. In other words, I think industrial chicken farms are cruel and bad; I have no problem keeping my 5 hens in the yard. Similarly, if most sex workers are exploited, is that any reason to object to hiring a sex worker who is not?
It seems to me that the key issue has to be morality–sex needs to be in the context of marriage, and getting it elsewhere is wrong–or this is a non-issue.
Please explain your phrase “Word, John”.
As for your FYI, yes, I know Ms. Marcotte did not write the posts, but she did drop a comment on the posts, which I regard as some of the most apposite and sophisticated analysis of Mr Tobias’s behavior/statements so far.
SamChevre:
I don’t much like your analogy of humans and chickens. However: a customer of an escort service really has no way to ensure that the people he or she employs/uses have the freedom to choose. Even if they do, I think serious ethical problems exist with encouraging an industry known for extreme exploitation.
In a long-term relationship with a single person, you can have some assurance they have their freedom. A politician who kept a mistress might have ethical issues, but not the straightforward ethical issues around exploitation and coercion (basically slavery) which arise most prominently with prostitution.
Let’s say someone was a politician.
And let’s say they were corrupt.
But I repeat myself.
Name ‘em all. Throw all the hypocritical rascals out of Washington.
“Word” is shorthand for “I agree completely.”
1. I agree that it was fully appropriate for Randall Tobias (and other public figures) to be outed.
(My pessimistic side thinks that Tobias and Ted Haggard will partner and franchise some sort of category-killer, full-spectrum prostitution service.)
2. I agree that the buying and selling of persons in general is bad. I agree that most street prostitutes are oppressed. Child prostitution, especially, is an affront to human dignity.
3. That being said, your position, applied to this instance, really doesn’t seem to work from an egalitarian perspective. Assuming the workers really were educated women including professors / officers / legal secretaries who chose to supplement their already middle-class or greater incomes, granting them both profits from this enterprise and immunity from prosecution seems improper to many people.
I’m pretty disappointed in the men AND women involved in these transactions. I hope that the professors and military officers also lose their jobs, just like the men did. Otherwise, we’ve simply moved from one double standard (respectable men could visit prostitutes but non-virginal woman were shunned) to another, equally bad one (respectable woman can work as prostitutes and keep their career and reputation but a man who hires a prostitute is shunned and unemployed).
Assuming the workers really were educated women including professors / officers / legal secretaries who chose to supplement their already middle-class or greater incomes
Even assuming this were true….huh? Why does how badly one “needs” the money, or one’s other professional credentials, determine whether prostitution is legal or moral? If a woman is ‘uneducated’ we can’t expect any better, but if she’s ‘educated’ she ought to be seeking her pin money elsewhere? If money from hooking is going to pay off staggering medical bills, that’s all right, but if it’s going to pay for a BMW she’s a ho?
I know you’re going to react angrily, K, but your post is so full of prejudices it’s hard to fathom.
Myth,
I’m not going to “react angrily.” And I have found myself agreeing with a lot of your posts over time, even if I didn’t post a “me too.” Maybe this is easier to fathom:
1. It’s bad for people (male or female) to sell their sexuality
2. It’s bad for people to buy the sexuality of others
3. I have compassion for those in category #1 who are forced into prostitution due to violence or to having no other way to survive.
To make #3 easier to understand, forget about sex and gender and look at theft. Theft is generally unethical. But compare:
Case 1: A wealthy suburbanite gets a 4 year old Grand Prix for his 16th birthday. He decides the car is unsuitable to his social standing and steals a BMW.
Case 2: A Jewish man is denied employment during the Third Reich. He steals a loaf of bread from a bakery to avoid starvation.
Case 2 is clearly an ethical response to oppression and should not be punished. Case 1 deserves punishment.
I think Hugo and I would agree so far. But Hugo seems to put ALL prostitutes in the Case 2 category and I don’t. Therefore, I disagree with his proposal that prostitution should be made a unilateral crime and that society should only prosecute the customers (90% men) and protect the suppliers (90% women).
While I think the discussion as a whole brings up a lot of interesting points, there’s one in particular that I’m surprised hasn’t been responded to: It hasn’t been proven that what happened is prostitution. Both the so-called “madam” and the clients who’ve been spoken to say that no illegal sex acts took place. Releasing her clients’ (and contractors’) names at this point strikes me as a horrible idea, no different from reporting on any other Hollywood/DC sex scandal wherein amoral but not illegal acts were committed. Should every strip club in DC report the names of their every patron?
Hugo, perhaps you’d think so, with the focus on naming and shaming. But I think what’s more likely to happen is that a lot of otherwise good politicians are going to get in trouble with their electorate, lose their jobs to men who happened to get their kicks other ways (many just through different services, or picking up prostitutes on the street without giving names), and learn nothing except that they should have kept their private life more private.
Perhaps if every politician who went to a strip club had his name publicized, it would have a shaming effect; as is, it’s not the action but the publicity that’s bringing trouble, and I think reactions will reflect that.
Sam Chevre: the problem is that a human (or sexual access to one) should not be bought or sold. Sure, women have the ‘right’ to sell their bodies, but would not be doing so if there was not a segment of the population who sees them as inanimate objects. (Same goes for male prostitutes, incidentally.) Johns fail to see sex workers as human beings, and this is the fundamental wrong, because a human can not be bought or sold.
Lisa: maybe I’m a cranky old-fashioned type feminist, but I think that ‘otherwise good men’ who patronize sex workers are not in fact good men. If they are capable of seeing women as commodities, as things to be bought and sold, I don’t want them representing me. Maybe their replacements patronize sex workers too, but I don’t know that. I also don’t see that as a reason to avoid acting on the information I do have.
At first glance, Scandinavian-type laws that penalize the john and not the prostitute seem unfair to me, but as I’ve been thinking it over, it seems like the best way to go. Sex work is so often a survival tactic for women who don’t know what else to do, and who are so often exploited by their pimps/madams that prosecuting them seems like it will make the problem worse. If a trafficked or exploited woman is afraid of prosecution, she will not come forward to expose the real criminals– the ones who are making her exploitation possible, both johns and pimps/madams alike. In this scenario, the women are (apparently) not oppressed, but are still being exploited by people who see them as things. (Incidentally, an untenured professor’s salary is often not enough to support a family on anyway. Ditto for the military).
the problem is that a human (or sexual access to one) should not be bought or sold.
The vigorous market for such access suggests that many disagree with this statement. Enslavement or exploitation is obviously wrong and crackdowns should be aimed at these situations rather than those in this business by personal choice.
Sure, women have the ‘right’ to sell their bodies, but would not be doing so if there was not a segment of the population who sees them as inanimate objects. (Same goes for male prostitutes, incidentally.) Johns fail to see sex workers as human beings, and this is the fundamental wrong, because a human can not be bought or sold.
I don’t think this is really correct. It certainly isn’t fundamentally necessary for sex workers’ clients to view them as inanimate objects. Indeed, many sex workers have stories about clients (perhaps a small minority) who did not pay for sex at all, and spent their time in conversation. On what basis do you claim that all sex workers clients do not view their “service providers” as human beings, at least as human as their barista or waiter?
In fact, one could make a similar argument for almost all forms of physical or mental labor - a client buys/rents access to the skilled hands of her dentist when she has a toothache, or access to the hands of a masseur[*] when her back aches. What makes sex work so fundamentally different? (I agree that it is different, but that this calls for specific regulation, not a ban on the vague grounds that “a human should not be bought or sold.”)
[*] non erotic, let’s assume
I have compassion for those in category #1 who are forced into prostitution due to violence or to having no other way to survive.
I hope we all would. But your post did not say that; what you said was that you had no sympathy for “educated” women with “middle-class or greater” incomes that they chose to “supplement”. That’s a lot of loaded phrasing, and you reinforce it with a ridiculous dichotomy between a victim of the Shoah and a thieving Trustafarian.
Setting aside the inflammatory Holocaust reference, a working-class woman with a GED who turns tricks so she can afford a shiny new truck is OK by your lights, while a Ph.D-holding assistant professor who uses her income as a prostitute to pay for her parents’ comfortable retirement is doing a Bad Thing.
K: Therefore, I disagree with his proposal that prostitution should be made a unilateral crime and that society should only prosecute the customers (90% men) and protect the suppliers (90% women).
It’s hard for me to see where any system which prosecutes the prostitutes can provide a better alternative. The status quo includes essentially involuntary prostitutes (and not even just poor, trafficked or subject to abusive pimps or underage teen runaways) being afraid to get help from police, should they need it, because they’re afraid of criminal charges themselves. It includes entrapment, such as that case in Virginia, where police were found to have spent $1200 getting multiple sexual services from prostitutes, allegedly because they needed to in order to get enough evidence to arrest them.
Be it ever so wrong to buy and sell sex, it’s important that whatever you do about buying and selling sex not have the unintended effect of trapping people into selling sex.
So, what do we do, means test all prostitutes, and make it a crime if they make more than a certain amount of money?
Acer: Sam Chevre: the problem is that a human (or sexual access to one) should not be bought or sold.
I think what Sam’s saying is that, once you’ve gotten rid of the moral principle that sex belongs only within the context of marriage, it’s hard to explain why consenting adults couldn’t properly choose to buy or sell sex (assuming there’s no coercion, etc.). Now, I think you can argue that it’s moral to have sex outside of marriage, but immoral to buy and sell sex (maybe because sex ought to imply some sort of intimacy and concern for the other person, but doesn’t need to imply lifelong commitment?), but it doesn’t make sense to say buying and selling sex is immoral without some larger sense of what sex ought to mean.
Tyler D: What makes sex work so fundamentally different?
I keep seeing people ask this kind of thing, in discussions of porn and prostitution, but it’s hard for me to see how sex work can be other than fundamentally different. I mean, in non-sex-work life, really bad and unwanted sex can wreck sex in the future, while lousy work in a cubicle just wrecks cubicles, or computers, or some such. And every job people pick to compare to sex work winds up either sounding way less intimate in what you’re stuck doing (e.g. food service), or way less optional (e.g. care of children, sick people, and the elderly).
Lynn Gazis-Sax: Now, I think you can argue that it’s moral to have sex outside of marriage, but immoral to buy and sell sex (maybe because sex ought to imply some sort of intimacy and concern for the other person, but doesn’t need to imply lifelong commitment?), but it doesn’t make sense to say buying and selling sex is immoral without some larger sense of what sex ought to mean.
Yeah, that is sort of what I was getting at. Most of us seem to have this strong, intuitive feeling that buying and selling sexual “services” is quite different from table service at a restaurant, a cleaning service visiting your place once a week, or even a more personal service such as spa treatments or massage.
That said, it is inadequate to start from an axiomatic presumption - “buying and selling sex is wrong” - without breaking it down and justifying why this is so.
I keep seeing people ask this kind of thing, in discussions of porn and prostitution, but it’s hard for me to see how sex work can be other than fundamentally different.
Oh, I agree - I think it is different - I just want to get down to the reasons why. Is it wrong because people sometimes do bad things to other, more vulnerable people in the process? (human rights argument) Is it wrong because of the fundamentals of the transaction itself? (emotional disconnect / objectification argument) Is it wrong because it it can contribute to the spread of STIs? (public health argument) All of these arguments are plausible but none of them quite tells the whole story on its own.
I think what Sam’s saying is that, once you’ve gotten rid of the moral principle that sex belongs only within the context of marriage, it’s hard to explain why consenting adults couldn’t properly choose to buy or sell sex (assuming there’s no coercion, etc.). Now, I think you can argue that it’s moral to have sex outside of marriage, but immoral to buy and sell sex (maybe because sex ought to imply some sort of intimacy and concern for the other person, but doesn’t need to imply lifelong commitment?), but it doesn’t make sense to say buying and selling sex is immoral without some larger sense of what sex ought to mean.
Thanks Lynn–that’s precisely what I was saying.
I can’t see an easy argument that works for “sex should not be bought” and does not work for “sex should not be traded for immediate physical pleasure.”
Mythago:
I hope we all would. But your post did not say that; what you said was that you had no sympathy for “educated” women with “middle-class or greater” incomes that they chose to “supplement”. That’s a lot of loaded phrasing, and you reinforce it with a ridiculous dichotomy between a victim of the Shoah and a thieving Trustafarian.
Discussions of ethics and social issues usually begin with clear, almost universally-agreed on boundaries on either side with considerable debate on the middle. You’ll find such “ridiculous dichotomies” are the starting point for almost any ethical discussion. For instance when discussing drinking age and age of sexual consent, it’s not a “ridiculous dichotomy” to say that 3 is too young and 30 is too old, but a 17 year old may be able to legally to do neither, one, or both, depending on jurisdiction.
Setting aside the inflammatory Holocaust reference,
The Holocaust reference was not inflammatory in this context: I was just beginning with universally accepted propositions. The specific example came to mind quickly because my mother and I once discussed her babysitter who had stolen bread to survive the Holocaust. Goodwin’s law would be invoked if I compared you, Hugo, Tobias, or the prostitutes to the Nazis, which I had no desire or intention of doing.
“a working-class woman with a GED who turns tricks so she can afford a shiny new truck is OK by your lights, while a Ph.D-holding assistant professor who uses her income as a prostitute to pay for her parents’ comfortable retirement is doing a Bad Thing.”
I also disapprove of a gainfully employed person selling sex to get a “shiny new truck,” but you essentially have captured my position.
Succinctly, I disapprove of flesh trade. I have sympathy toward those who are forced into it (and it’s probably fair to say that a good portion of the workers are coerced in some way, but virtually none of the customers are coerced to participate). I also disapprove of drug pushers, predatory lenders, and Hummer drivers (though I admit that these actions are more a direct violation of others than prostitution is).
From your other posts, I see that you seem to have a desire to eradicate disapproval of sex workers (as well as reduce the harassment that they face on the job), so that sex work is just another safe, clean, respected job option like dentistry or selling peanuts at sporting events (except, perhaps, the customers should be ashamed). We’re going to disagree on this. I think voluntarily choosing to become a sex worker choice is immoral, but I have also done immoral things and don’t despise and dehumanize people who make this choice.
But I do indeed disapprove of people with other options choosing sex work. It violates several concepts of morality, industry / work ethic, and respect for sex and respect for one’s body. I think I’m entitled to these beliefs, and try to keep them free of racisim, sexism, ageism, and classism.
I’m sure Hugo disapproves (gently and silently) of my meat consumption. I’m not yet willing to give up meat, but I concede that I cannot object to his opinion on grounds of racism / sexism / classism, or any other moral principle. My actions are just incompatible with several of his values and beliefs. So it is with sex workers and my values.
Lynn,
You are correct that there are valid practical concerns about how prosecution (even if it isn’t persecution) of prostitutes could be implemented justly in the real world.
I might quibble about a couple of points you raised (including the fact that entrapment probably runs both ways, and inherently so if prostitution is heavily advertised yet remains illegal), but not with much conviction.
I’m still not quite ready to enthusiastically sign on to carte blanche immunity for only one side of the transaction, however.
Mythago: while a Ph.D-holding assistant professor who uses her income as a prostitute to pay for her parents’ comfortable retirement is doing a Bad Thing.
One other thing: Parents who accept income from their childrens’ sex work are almost universally despised. It definitely happens (as in Madera’s Family Reunion), but the parents are it’s almost always considered to be doing a Very, Very Bad Thing, about up there with cannibalism.
When Chris Rock says “You got to keep her off the pole!,” he’s expressing what many people consider one of the minimum standards of good parenting. I would prefer that he be more egalitarian and say something about raising sons who don’t patronize strip clubs, of course.
You’ll find such “ridiculous dichotomies” are the starting point for almost any ethical discussion.
I have not found this to be true at all. Hence the term “ridiculous”. They’re meant to be inflammatory and preclude, not expedite, further discussion.
I get that you oppose prostitution, but understand that not every prostitute freely chooses to participate. However, you expressed this by stuffing your opinion full of commentary that, yes, is classist and sexist.
From your other posts, I see that you seem to have a desire to eradicate disapproval of sex workers (as well as reduce the harassment that they face on the job), so that sex work is just another safe, clean, respected job option like dentistry or selling peanuts at sporting events (except, perhaps, the customers should be ashamed).
You are seeing what you choose to see. Is there a point in my responding, if you are simply going to construct a mythago-puppet in your head and argue with that? It would save me time and you energy to let you and your imaginary opponent be.
As for Chris Rock, that reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon where Boopsie is hesitant about posing for Playboy, with the line about ‘how would they feel if it were their sister or daughter’. The Playboy photographer assures her not to worry, they never use sisters or daughters in Playboy because they don’t want to upset their readers.
Mythago:
I get that you oppose prostitution, but understand that not every prostitute freely chooses to participate.
Yup.
However, you expressed this by stuffing your opinion full of commentary that, yes, is classist and sexist.
Still not sure I agree with this. To the classism, I realize that everyone has a different cutoff for survival / poverty as eliminating free choice, so I called out professors and military officers as people who clearly aren’t in abject poverty and therefore DO freely choose to participate. And when you brought up a working-class person prostituting themselves for a new truck, I clarified that I would oppose that also.
As to sexism, I disapprove of the clients (men in this case) but only some of the providers (women in this case). I don’t really consider what I wrote sexist. But when a woman calls a man sexist, there’s really not much he can say other than “am not.”
You are seeing what you choose to see. Is there a point in my responding, if you are simply going to construct a mythago-puppet in your head and argue with that?
I think our misunderstanding runs both ways, as you tend to read unintended ill-will into my statements. But I hadn’t thought of making a “mythago-puppet” (though, now that you mention it, it might be kind of fun to do this via Muppet-like replicas…think Janis vs Guy Smiley, though I probably look more like Beaker and am turning into Bunsen as I age and gain weight).
It would save me time and you energy to let you and your imaginary opponent be.
I’m not a mind-reader: all I know about you is what you post. Everything I’ve seen you post is 100% positive toward all sex workers. Then you accuse me of exaggerating and run away, but never correct, clarify, or add any disclaimers or nuance, despite having opportunity to do so. So I will ask directly:
What is your view of those who freely choose prostitution?
What is your view, specifically, of a tenured professor who supplements her income with prostitution vs Mary Kay or delivering pizzas?
Would you like to see “sex work” become as respected as other forms of employment?
What level of sexual harassment is inherent in the nature of sex work?
(and as to Doonsbury: Yup.)
K, your statements were classist and sexist; that doesn’t mean you are a sexist. As I’ve said, rather than point to coercion and economic hardship as reasons not to blame the sex worker, you threw in a lot of chaff about education and socio-economic status. Frankly, it sounded eerily like those arguments about how “career women” with children are harming their kids, unless of course the poor woman has to work.
The subset of people who say “Hey, I could do all kinds of things for fun and profit, but by jingo I think I’ll be a prostitute/stripper/porn star” is fairly small - miniscule, if we look outside the US. (And of course it varies by the type of sex work. In America, there’s a lot less trafficking in porn actors than in prostitutes.) My own experience is that the myth of the co-ed making pin money is just that–a myth. I’ve never worked at a strip bar where less than half of the women there were single mothers.
What I would really like to see is the jettisoning of the double standard (exemplified by Chris Rock), where it’s fine if your brother goes to a strip bar but not OK if your sister works in one, where women are supposed to be sexually available and compliant but not to take money for it. As for being as ‘respected as other forms of employment’, that’s a rather broad brush, don’t you think? Used-car salesman is a perfectly legitimate way to make a living, but most people don’t think much of or trust them.
As for the exemplar professor, I think she’s very foolish, because sooner or later it’s going to come out and she can kiss further career advancement or prestige goodbye. Not to mention the likelihood of handling criminal charges, since prostitution is illegal everywhere in the US but certain areas of Nevada.
That said, I’d note that informal cash-for-sex arrangements seem to be perfectly acceptable (cf. Jessica Cutler or any random Congressman’s most recent trophy wife), and the main difference between the sexual harassment I experienced as a sex worker vs. outside of work was that at work, guys the size of U-Haul trucks would beat the crap out of anyone who harassed me.
K, your statements were classist and sexist; that doesn’t mean you are a sexist.
An important distinction, thank you.
As I’ve said, rather than point to coercion and economic hardship as reasons not to blame the sex worker, you threw in a lot of chaff about education and socio-economic status.
OK, I meant “coercion and economic hardship.” I guess I meant to say that people with very high education and SES are clearly not under economic hardship.
Frankly, it sounded eerily like those arguments about how “career women” with children are harming their kids, unless of course the poor woman has to work.
OK…that’s a rather different topic, of course.
What I would really like to see is the jettisoning of the double standard (exemplified by Chris Rock), where it’s fine if your brother goes to a strip bar but not OK if your sister works in one,
I agree completely, and even brought it up first. I’ve never been to a strip club.
where women are supposed to be sexually available and compliant but not to take money for it.
I think our experiences on this are going to be so far apart that we just can’t understand each other. The women I know seem to exercise complete freedom in regard to their relationships. I’m troubled and confused by the last part of your statement, though: I would prefer that women have sex due to affection or desire, not see it as work / a chore / a burden / obligation that might as well be paid.
As for being as ‘respected as other forms of employment’, that’s a rather broad brush, don’t you think? Used-car salesman is a perfectly legitimate way to make a living, but most people don’t think much of or trust them.
That’s an interesting point.
That said, I’d note that informal cash-for-sex arrangements seem to be perfectly acceptable (cf. Jessica Cutler or any random Congressman’s most recent trophy wife),
Well, they aren’t acceptable to me. But this episode ahs gotten me hinking about how many rich, powerful, and charismatic guys are paying for sex. I almost wonder a little whether part of my lack of romantic success has been my refusal to just shut up and pay for it like so many men apparently do. And the “trophy wife” issue is something I try not to think too much about…perhaps the proportion of sex that isn’t paid or coerced to some degree is indeed rather small (which is a sad reflection on humanity).
and the main difference between the sexual harassment I experienced as a sex worker vs. outside of work was that at work, guys the size of U-Haul trucks would beat the crap out of anyone who harassed me.
I’m sad that you experienced so much harassment in normal life.
I think our experiences on this are going to be so far apart that we just can’t understand each other.
I would recommend you read Gavin de Becker’s books–not because he’s a feminist theoretician, he writes about personal safety, which applies to men and women–but he talks quite a bit about the social expectations put on men and women regarding sexuality.
I almost wonder a little whether part of my lack of romantic success has been my refusal to just shut up and pay for it like so many men apparently do.
If you define ‘romantic success’ as being in any kind of relationship, sure. But who wants a relationship with somebody who is there because you’re paying them?
I don’t think the level of harassment I experienced was unusually high for a woman of that age.