Seriously, I don’t object to the notion of changing our thinking and behaviour; I only object to the notion that you or anyone else can tell us how to think and feel. Tell us what works for you, if you like, but don’t indulge the illusion that it will work for everyone else. I don’t for a moment claim that nothing exists save the pursuit of effective solutions; I only say that we only really meet there. No matter how hard you try to get into other people’s heads, you will ultimately fail. And in failing, you risk dissipating energy that could go into real solutions.

Suppose you focus on the work, the harms and problems most urgently in need of solutions. Suppose you let the work you have to do, rather than some conviction about what people (men) should think and feel, guide you. What do you really give up? What advantage do you personally get from telling other people what they ought to look at, think, or feel? I can’t see that kind of control as anything but the rankest illusion. More to the point, what advantage would people in need of support, in need of solutions gain from it.

I think there’s a great deal of consensus, btw, from animals that they would rather not be killed and eaten. I have no trouble whatsoever making that assumption. I also think that there’s a fairly heavy consensus (and consensus is, for me, the preponderance of opinion, not outright unanimity) among wives and girlfriends that they would rather their boyfriends and husbands direct their sexual energy and thoughts towards the actual women with whom they were in relationship rather than an image on a screen or a page.

Privilege is real — and for me, it is a catalyst for action, not for endless second-guessing for fear of appearing a colonizer.

My point comes down to this: just because the beneficiaries of an act of oppression do not get specific sexual pleasure from that oppression, it does not do to assume they do not benefit from sexual violations or sexual terrorism. Likewise, it doesn’t do to assume exploitation simply because one person entertains another in a sexually oriented manner.

As for behaviour, consumer and otherwise: right on, Hugo, I do have an obligation to live in a manner consistent with my beliefs, which goes way beyond what I do with my credit card. But I have an obligation to behave in a way consistent with my beliefs and boundaries, not with yours. You, of course, have every right to state your reasons for believing what you do, just as I have every right to answer you. I believe, however, that we have an obligation to honour certain constraints, and above all these:

1) Never raise exploitation without a solution

Exploited and oppressed people need help now. If (or example) I have an objection to the raging narcissism of the health and health food movements, I have no right to use the exploitation of farm workers as a club to beat the health food advocates with. Instead, I have an obligation to address and try to help end the exploitation first, and address any concerns I have about narcissism separately. I used that as an example only, by the way. I don’t happen to consider health food eaters more or less narcissistic than anyone else.

2) Don’t set bars for people who want to help

To tell anyone, directly or by implication, that if you want to help in the struggle against oppression and exploitation, that you have to adhere to a particular set of beliefs, you must have a consensus from the oppressed people that struggle works to help. Frankly, I think that in practice, we as hyper-privileged individuals can never assemble such a consensus. Therefore, I believe we cannot go further than to say to others that, in our opinion, they might have healthier and happier lives if they did not watch that movie, go to that show, eat that steak/salad, etc.; I believe that essential act of humility, of willingness to work without control or imposition, actually amounts to a revolutionary renunciation of privilege, and I believe it accomplishes a good deal, as well.

The hyper-privileged, by virtue of their privilege, have a profound capacity to do good when they renounce that privilege, or when they make different decisions. Those of us who can afford to consume, consume, consume all the time have the potential to bring about significant change when our guilt leads us to alter those consumption patterns. I ate a lot of meat and wore a lot of leather and bought a lot of porn in my day. I don’t buy meat or leather or women any more. My relative wealth gave me the great capacity to do harm; my newfound virtue, in as much as it radically changes how I spend and consume, has a tangible impact. When I combine my virtue with that of other privileged folks, we change the marketplace and make it more just — and that has clear benefits for everyone.

I’m a little concerned about the wording of this. The two aren’t equated, but there is a very clear relationship, especially among illegal Russian immigrants. Structural violence facilitates sexual exploitation, even though sexual exploitation can theoretically exist without economic injustice. (I say “theoretically” because the only case I’ve heard of fitting this description is Arianna Jolie.)

1) Never equate economic injustice with sex (or vice versa)

Coercion and economic injustice do not appear the minute someone takes their clothes off; conversely, they very often appear in situations where everyone keeps them on.

2) Sexual/gender ethics and practices involve choices and boundaries

People draw these boundaries differently, and for different reasons. It makes sense to treat those reasons as matters of mutual respect, even when we disagree with them.

3) Dictating someone else’s choices means exercising power

The more personal the choices you attempt to dictate, the greater the power you exercise. As George Orwell wrote, “Power is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

4) Correct exploitation; don’t use it to make a point

A million people feeling guilty about exploitation has less practical meaning to the oppressed and exploited than a single effective measure to end the exploitation.

5) The privileged must never make use of oppression

Hyper-privileged people like me, Robert Jensen, and Hugo have an obligation never to use perceptions of oppression to advance agendas we find personally satisfying. Above all, to set up the choices you want to promote as a litmus test of worthiness to enter the struggle on behalf of the poor and the powerless effectively steals their work from the very people who truly own that struggle; not the hyper-comfortable, but the poor, exploited, and powerless.

Well, sure, MT, you can construct an imaginary scenario however you like to prove your point, since your understanding of sex work seems to be limited to “paying customer”.

Here’s a more typical portrait of an average young woman I worked with: She comes from a poor or working-class background, went to public schools that were average at best, and may not have a degree. The kinds of jobs available to her are not ones where she has a stable, reliable work schedule that allows her to plan for things like classes and homework. (In n’ Out, as I’m sure you know, pays above minimum wage and treats its employees far better than the average.)

So her choices are “take a crappy minimum-wage job now, with no guarantee of being treated well, promoted or given time to go to college or improve yourself,” vs. “take a sex work job where you will make buckets of money, essentially for getting the same attention and harassment you otherwise put up with for free.”

It’s that they can be victimized with relative impunity. Talk to any illegal immigrant and he can tell you stories of how he has been ripped off by employers. And not just employers. Illegals are simply more vulnerable.

The problems for them is that they cannot go to the cops or the EEOC or any of the other check and balances citizens have in this country for fear of being arrested and perhaps separated from their family or worse.

It does not surprise me that illegal immigrant women are sexually abused as well. It would surprise me if they weren’t. The comparison to legal sex workers in this country is misleading and inaccurate.

Second, you’re just repeating yourself concerning “a choice between the lesser of two evils.” To the extent that numerous posts can be constructed as a single argument, your repetition reveals your argument’s ultimate circularity.

You know, I now remember why I don’t usually read blog comments. No matter where you go, privileged white men expect you to do their homework for them. And that is, ultimately, the most insidious kind of troll there is.

I agree that it would be awful to leave behind your country to come to ours to be subjected to difficult conditions, a low standard of pay, no respect, and inability to communicate. Presumably the alternative, staying where you are, is much worse or fewer people would do it. Thus, the concept(ion) of choice, albeit a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I appreciate your arguments and realize that we are talking about difficult situations with few “good” alternatives for either migrant or sex workers. But too many people choose not to migrate illegally or not to work at a strip club for you to convince me that those who do have no other choice.