Tag Archives: sex work

An answer to Carolyn

Carolyn Says:
March 8, 2013 at 4:12 pm

The studies (again actual academic studies…not those done by Farley) on clients actually talk about men wanting an actual emotional experience. That is why ‘the girlfriend experience’ is so popular. The most common activity requested is fellatio. Sex workers and clients alike report that many clients (a) just want to have no-strings attached sex due to being too busy in their careers to have girlfriends/wives or (b) are considered outcasts by society in some way and feel this is the only way to get female sexual contact. Sure there are horrible men that use women – but these are not exclusive to sex work clients – these men exist in society and treat all women in that way. Criminalization only serves to scare the “good” clients who don’t want to get in trouble…leaving all the jerks/abusive men. Like I said before. Is it a great job that people should aspire to? I don’t know. I can’t answer. Many men and women every day do this as their career. Are people victimized? Yes. But people are victimized every day in all sorts of jobs – sex work is not unique in that. We simply treat it as different because it uses genitals. My question/point is that why do we accord female genitals such a prominent place? Are women only defined by their genitals? No. In every career we only use 1 aspect of our bodies at a time. No one is crying out that “oh that poor academic. Look at that university using her for her brain only…don’t they know she is a multifaceted being? Why is she letting herself be used for her brain. Why is selling giving away great ideas/thoughts for money?” To me, I still haven’t received any cogent reason why we should treat sex any different – all the reasons go back to patriarchal and paternalistic notions that sex for women = emotional + sacred + intimate + purity + monogamy, etc. This is not true. Sex can just be sex. And is just sex for countless individuals who engage in recreational sex everyday.

Your understanding of sex as “work” is interesting, something I’ve considered writing on before. In a typical labor relation, there is a boss or many bosses. Generally, the emancipation of labor does not occur when the rest of society decides that labor is not exploitative. It happens when the workers own the means of production. As the means of production in this case is generally considered the woman’s body, that being the way in which she makes her living (not by giving emotional warmth), the idea of women owning the means of production is very little different than her having the completely unfettered choice to fuck for money. This is basically an absurd concept. Women are coerced by capitalism and misogyny, threats to their bodies and their sense of security. Just as others in the capitalist system are exploited for their labor, women are exploited by engaging in prostitution.

Those who seek to overthrow capitalism are seeking to overthrow the unfair conditions in which they live, work, and reproduce society more generally. The leftist’s solution is not to make this labor relation less exploitative in the eyes of society.

So how is prostitution a special case in these capitalist conditions? How does it differ than factory work or academia? Well, first off, these professions are not equal either in income or in occupational hazard. An academic probably makes more and has less to fear from getting killed or hurt on the job than a factory worker than a prostitute. For sure, there are ways of making it safer for factory workers – but why not particularly for prostitutes? In countries where criminalization of soliciting prostitution is low or not existant, conditions are still deadly and exploitative for women. They have been lifted from 120% hell to 90% hell, and then hit a “glass ceiling”. For sure, there are outliers in every profession, but trends are worth always worth studying, not the individual case studies. In any situation, we can find either the Harvard Department Head or an adjunct at a community college. The trends are what are worth studying.

Is there a reason for the trend of occupational hazard and level of income being as it is among prostitutes in both criminalized and decriminalized countries? There must be something in common in all cases. That commonality is probably misogyny, the idea that you can buy a woman to have sex with. No matter if the woman thinks she is selling sexual therapy or her pimp is selling her against her will, johns poll the same: they are paying to have sex with a woman. The conditions of purchase on moral grounds are not particularly important to them. This air of misogyny necessarily is part and parcel of a culture that is hostile to women. Can we destroy, smash this culture by telling ourselves that prostitution is an empowering profession? Can we smash capitalism by telling ourselves that it is a sustainable, fulfilling system in which to live? Can we end violence to women by legalizing and accepting it culturally? Big questions.

postfeminism

Screen shot 2013-03-07 at 8.50.33 PM

What is postfeminism? Allegedly it is the space where we can move past feminism, where feminism no longer holds appeal to women and where it can even be harmful to women. As Melissa Gira Grant writes: 

The patriarchy’s figured out a way to outsource hatred of prostitution. They’re just going to have women do it for them.

Grant, who  is a former sex worker (to be specific: not a pimp/madam) claims that patriarchy, an amorphous “they” not rooted in material reality, has outsourced the oppression of women to women themselves. This is an argument made by many who claim that women are the ones who cut other women in other parts of the world, who participate in forcing early marriage or abuse other women in the family. Then Grant gets more specific:

I wouldn’t advocate for a feminism that’s buttoned-up and divorced of the messiness of our real lives. Your feelings are your feelings, but you’re not going to litigate your feelings about my body. The feminist ethics that I signed up for were respect for my bodily autonomy, that my experience is my experience, and that I’m an expert in my own life.

What is postfeminism? It is a desire for control over one’s destiny. It is the hope that someday, no one will call you any names or discriminate against you based on your sex. Yet, when this individual oppression ends – the oppression against prostitutes, against trans women, against my right to choose, against me, will this have achieved female liberation?

The postfeminism of today is deeply rooted in neoliberal atomization. A single female’s experiences are just as valid as any other female’s experience. A wealthy white woman who “makes the choice” to become a prostitute – her choice is equally valid as the poor woman of color who “makes the choice” to become a prostitute. Postfeminism promises the liberation of individual women, but not females. These individuals are fighting against “patriarchy”, a concept that is not individualized or even rooted in material manifestations. Rather, it is as amorphous as its own concept: a male slapping a woman, a man cat-calling a woman, or a man who makes a sexist remark at work is patriarchy rearing its ugly head from the aether. Yet a culture of objectification, where women are plastered up like slabs of meat for sale in phone booths, where women dance for money, where women continue to make $.70 on the dollar; this is not considered a war against women. After all – a woman may now make the individual “choice” to engage in these acts, in these careers, may make the individual “choice” not to bear children to get ahead in business. Acts of violence against my body are crimes against women – but larger systems of oppression suddenly become more complex, more bogged down in uncertainty as we must learn to understand that these systems are made up of individuals who have the capacity to make “choices”. 

It astounds me that leftists who might otherwise deride the idea of free choice under a capitalist system make all sorts of room for women like Grant to write privileged accounts of the system of oppression called the “sex trade”. Broader women’s movements such as the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network  might feel as though an abolitionist stance on prostitution is right and good, but, as Grant would say, they are “privileged” in that their voices are louder than hers – the voice that enjoys prostitution believes that sex work is feminist work. Indeed, the other voices aren’t heard as loudly as the abolitionists “because they’re working”. This amorphous group of women who are pleased as punch to be working as sexual objects for sale are quiet, a silent majority cowed into silence by angry groups of feminist women who claim that 90% of women want out of prostitution.

If the voice of a “queer woman who dates women in her non-sex-work life and has sex with men for work” is not heard as much as the loud majority of feminists who want an end to prostitution, this is because women who “choose” sex work, who come at it from a political perspective of “empowerment” are in the extreme minority. But the individual reigns supreme over the masses in postfeminism just as it does in neoliberalism. When a woman demands her “right to choose”, she is demanding her right. She is situating feminism in a sphere where she does not feel fettered by her sex, where she personally has the ability to pursue whatever she wants. If she is a stripper and a man touches her inappropriately, this is a battle in the war against male domination – but the very institution that shapes his thinking is not in and of itself oppressive. Male domination is boiled down to the individual, becomes a question of one human exerting his will over another’s in an unfair way. It is no longer about systems of oppression, cultures of abuse, or industries of suffering. We are boiled down once again to our individual experiences.

A single person cannot change the world because change is the prerogative of the people. There is no such thing as a mass movement of individuals – they might all be walking in the same direction, but they are checking their smartphones and turning off onto a side street the moment they are required to check their egos at the door.

Melissa Gira Grant’s views are not just dangerous because they blame women themselves for their own oppression –  either as angry sex-negative feminists or individuals who just make “bad choices”. They are dangerous because they shift the blame away from male violence and domination and continue to trump the experiences of a privileged few over the many. Why won’t these leftist blogs and magazines run a counter article to this kind of perspective? Anything else would be hypocritical. Perhaps it is simply not what leftist men want to hear: that their individual enjoyment is not the purpose of female liberation.