How can the inside of a woman's body be considered a suitable workplace? 'Sex work' is a ridiculous, offensive euphemism to describe a major human rights violation: prostitution
I used to work in academia and the official position is that prostitution is an empowering and liberating experience for women. I once brought a former prostitute into my class and she talked about the horrific experiences she had had, including being beaten within an inch of her life on many occasions. The woke in the class called her an oppressor of women and me an anti-feminist. (I understand if you need to read this paragraph again to be sure you read it correctly)
If you ask the woke if those who do dangerous work for a living--mining, construction, etc.--freely consent to the risks of the job, they will vehemently argue that capitalism deprives the working class the ability to refuse to sell their labour in dangerous jobs and that therefore their consent to those risks is not legitimate. It is coerced.
Unless, of course, they are women selling their bodies for sex. Then the woke see no issue with them exposing themselves to brutal violence, disease, humiliation, and death, for money. If you point out that women who sell their bodies for sex do so from within the same, or worse, economic circumstances as miners and constructions workers, you get a restatement of "sex work is real work" shouted back at you, except a bit louder. If you keep going, you will be called misogynistic and, yes, a transphobe.
I actually agree that opposing prostitution is a form of 'transphobia'. Both prostitution and trans ideology share an underlying ideology: the body, especially those of women, is a commodity. If you're a so-called transwoman, you've achieved this through economic transactions of sorts. You view 'woman' as a collection of parts to be purchased, and as a social entity constructed solely by what she buys: lipstick, dresses, purses, and so on. What separates men and women, according to trans ideology, isn't biology, experience or genetics, but trinkets and imitation body parts that can be purchased.
So, to oppose prostitution because it turns women into commodities is to reject trans ideology as well. Both are forms of female commodification.
Funny, though. Socialism stands against capitalism because the latter, through markets, commodifies the human body. The woke have not only embraced the most dehumanising aspect of capitalism, but they have colonised the language that would allow us to critique it.
Wokism is capitalism on steroids (pun intended). No wonder the corporate world embraces it.
100% this, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis. Isn't the hypocrisy and cultural blindness surrounding these issues simply phenomenal?
The crux of the matter is that extreme misogyny and misanthropy underpins this bodily dissociation movement, which is like a many headed hydra. That is what confuses so many.
Nevertheless, the hatred is real and it is only a matter of time before the majority see that everyone, whether male or female is ultimately going to be harmed by this top-down corporate stranglehold of human rights. We cannot scream loudly enough, sadly.
Yes! You're absolutely right to point out the misanthropic character of these movements. I see the human body as sacred and beautiful just as it, and wokism has chopped it up into something that's no more than the sum of its parts. It's why it's such a depressing movement: it fails to respect and honour the miracle of human life.
The hatred is so real it is screaming itself. I just don't really know why there is such hatred of women. All i can think of is their jealousy of the capacity that women have to create life.
Women are free not to sell sex. We know most of women selling sex are doing so on their own. We also know how they feel about it, because they have interviewed many of them. Trying to blame men for their own decision, of which some of them are proud, is just a sign of misandry. Sure, some do it out of desperation. However, they are still not forced into it by men! They simply did not see a better way out. Them not being prosecuted by law, makes it safer if they do choose to go down this path.
If you want to do something constructive, do something to make it easier for all people who had a rough childhood, or are suffering mental issues, or from some other disease, or any other issue that can bring someone into a situation without any good options. Such situation also make someone vulnerable to human trafficking.
Human trafficking is another issue. And there are many female human traffickers. Statistics are clear on that. Claiming it is about misogyny is dishonest. Men and boys are trafficked too. Even if men and boys are more likely to be used differently, it no less appalling. And needs to be stopped.
I agree with you that men and boys need to be protected also, and that the upstream issues that tend to lead women into prostitution need a lot of attention. But I never said that men force women into prostitution. My point was about the impact of economic forces (e.g. poverty, lack of opportunity, etc.) which render consent to risks less than complete. I think this also links to your point about childhood abuse and mental illness. These are also factors that can limit the kinds of choices available to victims as adults.
We have to be careful about relying exclusively on how prostitutes view their own situations. Viewing something you don't want to do as the result of your own free choice makes that activity more palatable to yourself. I suspect that if we offered prostitutes free education, a safe place to live, and a future career, most of them would take it. And that's the sort of approach I would take to the problem. Sure, maybe some would choose to continue prostitution, and I'd wonder if childhood abuse and mental illness (self hatred) is playing a part in that choice. I support criminalisation of pimps and johns, not of prostitutes themselves, as well as extensive supports for the latter to help them transition into something safer.
The prostitute who spoke to my class worked in a legal institution. They still had security guards scanning the rooms because so many women were brutally beaten by the johns, often. She would joke that the threat of brutal violence in this legal setting was so high that the guards were merely checking to make sure the women were still alive. So I'm not sure legalisation is the panacea we like to believe it is.
Whilst it’s really hard to hear the women in the class call the prostituted woman an oppressor, it’s quite easy to see why; the irony is that they fail to see exactly what they are doing by saying so.
They have become the very oppressors- that which they condemn her for and as- and act as agents of capitalism and the patriarchy ( women often are or can be) active agents in their own oppression - I often like to use the example of high heels glibly as agents of such and you have demonstrated exactly this.
The second and third paragraphs are equally alarming - whilst they see the labour of dangerous jobs as an inescapable coercive capitalist tool, they fail to see the commodification of a woman’s body as such and this can only be because everything is viewed from the lens of commodification which in itself is completely normalised, is therefore total and complete.
Hence we see the wide acceptance both insitututional and personal of Trans-ness - again something that too can be “acquired” like any other commodity; and yes they have colonised not just our bodies but our language too- you are so correct- the capture is complete and it’s really quite hard to see a way out.
I guess the idea of empowering sex work grew out of a perma-online culture where the spaces in which the conversation takes place are often gatekept by porn-obsessed young men.
Yes this would certainly have been a large contributing factor -the pornification of culture as it were where no one bats an eyelid to “pornstar” martinis on restaurant boards and young girls only feel validated when they prescribe to such.
Whilst it’s really hard to hear the women in the class call the prostituted woman an oppressor, it’s quite easy to see why; the irony is that they fail to see exactly what they are doing by saying so.
They have become the very oppressors- that which they condemn her for and as- and act as agents of capitalism and the patriarchy ( women often are or can be) active agents in their own oppression - I often like to use the example of high heels glibly as agents of such and you have demonstrated exactly this.
The second and third paragraphs are equally alarming - whilst they see the labour of dangerous jobs as an inescapable coercive capitalist tool, they fail to see the commodification of a woman’s body as such and this can only be because everything is viewed from the lens of commodification which in itself is completely normalised, is therefore total and complete.
Hence we see the wide acceptance both insitututional and personal of Trans-ness - again something that too can be “acquired” like any other commodity; and yes they have colonised not just our bodies but our language too- you are so correct- the capture is complete and it’s really quite hard to see a way out.
You're so right. It scares me that they have so much power not only in academia but in society generally. The most dangerous form of oppression is that which is enforced by those who see themselves not as oppressors, but as acting for the common good from a position of absolute moral certainty. My hope is that as men increasingly invade women's spaces and activities, society will become increasingly less tolerant of trans ideology. I see that ideology as extremely fragile in its lack of logic and rejection of every day experience. That's why it shuts everyone down who challenges its claims. It can't stand up to reason so it has to silence opposition, and that never turns out well.
"The most dangerous form of oppression...position of absolute moral certainty."
You just described moral crusaders. You know, the people who want the government in your bedroom, your medicine cabinet, your doctor's office, etc. I've lived with untreated pain for over 2 decades thanks to a**holes like you.
Hi David, you have answered a question bobbing around my head for 6 months. Thanks.
On another matter...I'm arguing with a friend about Only Fans. They say it's a woman's right to do what she wants in her own home (while streaming to hundreds/thousands) and that she's 'taking back her own power'.
What would you say to this? I've run out of words.
TIA
(If anyone else reading this feels like adding their opinion, please do)
I think one of the ways the woke have become so powerful--and dangerous--is that they reduce everything to a question of individual rights. What gets excluded are the deeper questions about why women have to prostitute themselves online and why its mostly women who do this (I don't know if I'm right, because I've never looked at the site, but I suspect it's true). By reducing everything to individual choice--a core capitalist ideology--they give patriarchy and economic inequality a pass.
It's quite a libertarian capitalist perspective because it believes that absent direct immediate coercion--the proverbial gun to the head--all choices are free choices. Socialist critique draws our attention to underlying dynamics that are just as coercive as direct force. By focusing on choice over all else, your is reinforcing a capitalist libertarian value system.
The trans movement does the same thing. Something like 85% of trans are F to M. By reducing the issue to one of individual rights and personal intuitions, they fail to ask the pressing question of why do so many girls not want to be women? What is it about our society that our girls want to grow up to be men? The answer, I suppose, is that our girls believe it's more desirable to be a man than a woman in our society. Again, patriarchy gets a pass.
Finally, your friend is ignoring the impact of Only Fans on other women. O.F. endorses the commodification of women and the idea that a woman has the right to commodify herself. I'm not sure that's a great strategy to achieve the empowerment of women given that the oppression of women shares common ground with their commodification.
All of our rights are balanced against the impact of us exercising them on those around us. I don't have the right to play loud music at night because it would disturb my neighbours, nor do I have the right to walk through a grocery store naked regardless of how much someone was paying me to do so. All rights are limited by context, and the fact that reinforcing the commodification of women is not seen as a consequence worthy of limiting that which does the reinforcing is itself a statement about the ongoing power of misogyny.
You've given me more to argue with, I won't change his mind, but it is satisfying , I guess, to win a few points.
And just incase you're bored...
I am 1/3 through Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography 'Infidel'... her and her younger sister, ages about 10 and 7, just informed their father they didn't want to be girls anymore. She really dug herself out of a huge trap.
In the early 90's I took on a weekend job waitressing (they hired 'nice' waitresses in t-shirt and trousers to try to balance the vibe) at Porky's Nite Spot in Kings Cross Sydney, a strip club/brothel. All the girls there were completely mentally and emotionally damaged, except 1, who was a 6'2 transexual, and only did a fire show, not sex.
In my travels I met prostitutes in Thailand and India. Very very sad. They literally have no way out. At a religious play in India a very young girl, no more than 5, done up with extreme make-up and basically princess clothes sat next to me. I looked for any parents, nope. She then began touching me which was a bit weird, but when she touched me sexually.... well.... the horror I felt has stayed with me.
Then I got to London and saw that all the public phone booths were covered on the inside with calling cards offering everything... I was shocked.
What a wake up call those few years were.
Forward 30 years and things have only got worse in the world and so much more normalised. To quote another substacker, girls are now mainly exposed to "porn informed womanhood".
I used to feel like a loser to have never married, and to not have the children I thought I so desperately wanted.
But now, not so much.
Today, when people ask why I'm single, (because I'm tired of the question) I say "I never wanted to be treated like a second class citizen in my own home"
It doesn't sound like your home is like that.
Women can very easily have it tough, Mark, as you seem to be very well aware.
Thanks for replying with so much heart, I really appreciate it. I suspect young girls who want to become boys are partly motivated by what they see in the world and how women are treated. But I like to think that most men see women as equals and treat them with full human dignity and respect.
The stories you talk about are heartbreaking, and equally heartbreaking is that today's so-called Left sees them not as tragedies but as entrepreneurial success stories.
(Didn't get notified about yr reply. Just found it then 👍)
There was a very interesting article posted a few days ago titled I think...
Men who like women and men who don't - we can tell.
If you read the comments, it seems a lot of women feel a lot of men neither like us nor respect us. I for one, would not say 'most' men think of women as equal. But, I live in Australia.
Mark I did not realise the ratio of 85% F to M - that’s high. I always thought there were more autogynephilic males in this arena- interesting they are the ones that shout loudest and get seen more!
I suggest that much of the higher ratio of F to M is possibly girls hating being objectified and sexualised no sooner they hit puberty and see a way out of this as becoming other. Literally removing their breasts in an effort to desexualise as it were.
"What gets excluded are the deeper questions about why women have to prostitute themselves online and why its mostly women who do this"
Plenty of garbage collectors, sewage workers, roofer and deep sea divers would choose to be sex workers if there was a market for it. If these men made money from having sex with women, or showing their naked bodies to women on web cams, I doubt anybody would consider them to be victims of exploitation.
There are very few opportunities fo men in the sex industry because women don't need to pay for sex or male company. Even low class women don't need to pay for sex or male company. It is always available for free at any bar anywhere in the world.
"Socialist critique draws our attention to underlying dynamics that are just as coercive as direct force."
Can you give a specific example of an underlying dynamic that is just as coercive as a gun to the head?
These are really interesting points, thank you for making them.
Let's say you're right that people are engaged in professions that are less attractive and more dangerous than prostitution, and that they'd gladly prostitute themselves sexually than continue working in those professions. So, first off, this isn't an argument, it's a hypothetical scenario and it doesn't really address the fact that prostitution is dangerous for women. Second, even if we agree with the point, the argument doesn't mean that prostitution is less dangerous than I'm suggesting--it simply means that there are more dangerous forms of work than prostitution. That this could be true doesn't mean we should view prostitution in a friendlier light. That some crimes are worse than others doesn't mean we should decriminalise those that aren't the worst. My issue with prostitution is not only that it's dangerous but that it contributes to a perception of women that is harmful to women.
As for an example of economic coercion, I'm reminded of a tragedy that happened in Canada in the early 90's. A mining company was consciously ignoring the build up of a combustible material in one of their mines. The workers pleaded with management to provide them with the means to eliminate the extreme danger to their lives. Management refused and told the workers that they could quit if they didn't want to risk their lives in the mine. The workers continued working because they had families to support and 29 of them were killed in an explosion they knew was likely to occur. In this case, the risk of death in the mine was less forceful than the economic necessity of supporting their families, in other words, the economic forces were more powerful than the risk of death. I'd say that's a fairly serious kind of coercion.
I don't think the metaphor of a gun to a head quite fits in the sense that there's an immediacy to that scenario that adds a horrific element to the mental picture. Far more people are killed at work than are murdered, and these deaths are usually preventable and predictable. People die not because they enjoy risking their lives for X dollars an hour, but because they have no other way of dealing with the coercive threat of economic despair.
For the record, I have no issue with expecting and even requiring people to work, and I think that in some ways capitalism has created a form of coercion that is more humane and tolerable than, say, jailing people for refusing to work. But it doesn't mean that economic forces are any less coercive than direct force. They're equivalent in this regard, and perhaps an even more effective form of coercion than a gun.
I get it. Even though women have more options than men to earn a living full stop - and safer ways to earn a living than men (who cannot sell sex and must clean sewers or forage in garbage dumps or sell drugs etc) - you still care more about women's safety (and social standing) than you do about men. This is perfectly natural. Men are gynocentric by nature (as are women).
This is also why feminist ideology is so ridiculous. We will, as a society, always care more about women's comfort and feelings than we care about men's safety and even men's lives.
"I don't think the metaphor of a gun to a head quite fits in the sense that there's an immediacy to that scenario that adds a horrific element to the mental picture"
Socialists disguise their violence with convoluted systems and plenty of euphemisms, but it is still there. If you don't surrender your wealth (your labour) to the socialist then you will eventually have a gun to your head. This is what distinguishes socialism from charity.
It's possible to care about both men and women. This article is about female prostitution, and the comments logically focus on the risks of it.
Feminism is as much about men as women. It's about getting rid of the stereotypes that limit our freedom to be who we want to be because of our biological sex. It's also about creating a more caring society, one that would care for prostitutes as much as for the drug dealers and garbage foragers you rightly express concern about.
You make a good point about the history of revolutionary socialism. It's too big a point to discuss here, and it's off topic. But I hear you.
I guess another way of thinking about it is 'how much would I have to be paid to let a repulsive man bugger me?' Even when I was skint, it would have been way more than the average street prostitute or rent boy costs.
Good point. I've heard one former prostitute say that all purchased sex is rape because the woman doesn't really want to sleep with you. If she did, she wouldn't want to be paid for it.
I feel ambivalent about that. Bought consent doesn't feel like true consent but equally, if we label all purchased sex as rape, what language are we left to condemn forcible rape. I don't think anyone would argue that a man who rapes a prostitute by physical force is not committing a worse act than a John who pays her for sex.
That's a very good point. I might not have remembered what she said properly, but aside from issues of language, her point was that if you have to be paid to screw someone, then you don't want to screw them.
Trying to wrap my head around this. I guess my stance comes down to this. 1. No-one should be criminalised for prostituting themselves but 2. I can't conceive of circumstances where doing so is really an empowering or liberating experience (although for many women (and men) it may be the least bad option available to them, itself a dismal reflection on our society)
Yeah, it's eye-opening that so many left-leaning liberals pedal the myth of 'sex work' as an empowering choice within a marketplace when, as you point out, we'll happily call bullshit when that argument's applied to most actual jobs.
Yeah, both good points. I still can't get my head around such distorted thinking. I guess it's because I don't pay for sex and I'm not a misogynist....
It's also, I think, very upper-middle-class. People who've never seen street prostitution saying Sex Worker, thinking of something like Belle de Jour, not trafficking, addiction and worse.
Absolutely! I've asked my pro-prostitution students if they'd want their mothers or sisters to do "sex work" and of course the answer is no. As long as they or their loved ones don't have to have sex with men for money, it's ok.
They're capitalists. They believe in freedom of contract, which is a capitalist core value, that is, that the state has no right to regulate economic transactions.
Have you ever asked your students about their attitudes towards the exploitation of other human beings via Only Fans etc? It seems to me that the shift towards the online world has contributed significantly to adherence to the "SWIW" mantra.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that Lola had already asked about that!
That's strange. Because every sex worker that I have ever talked to has said that they've been raped by more police officers than clients. It seems like, if you were really concerned about the safety of these women, forcing them to interact with cops MORE often seems, kinda...bad? Maybe you should have had multiple sex workers come in & talk to your class? But then how would you make sure they stick to the correct narrative?
Something people overlook is how the Drug War has led to a disproportionate increase in the number of women in prison. ⬆️650% since 1980, double the rate for men. For some reason, the TERFs who are super concerned about the safety of women in prison don't seem to care about this fact. Or that the vast majority of rapes in women's prisons are committed by guards. It's almost like you don't actually care, you're just speaking "for" women in prison for the same reason people speak "for" fetuses, children, drug addicts, and the homeless. Bc even when they can speak for themselves, no one listens. And where there are SWERFs, there are bound to be TERFs.
Anyone can confirm their own biases. It takes genuine critical thinking skills to understand why people believe things that are different from what we believe, while respecting their intelligence & right to make their own decisions.
You called me an a hole in your first comment. Your tone is aggressive and condescending. And you attack my character. I see no reason to dignify your demeaning comments with a response.
Historically, rape was an offence against a man, since the woman, who was the property of her father or husband, had been ‘damaged’. The misogyny associated with notions that sex can be work just show us that little has changed since the Middle Ages. Women are still objects for the gratification of men.
What feminists fail to point out is that this way of framing it ensured women got the maximum possible protection. The rapist (by definition) does not fear being beaten to death by the woman he is overpowering. But he does fear being beaten to a pulp by her brothers, father, husband or any of the men in the village.
Feminism tries to frame men's protective behaviour towards women in terms of ownership. This is not far from the truth. Take any person, animal or object (a pen, a kitten, a car, a horse, a child, a woman) and make it your number one priority to PROTECT that thing/ animal/ person for one week. Your behaviour will resemble that of 'ownership'.
There is no way around this. Protection is very closely linked to ownership. For decades feminists have demanded the impossible: to be as free as men are, while also retaining all the protections and safety nets that women have always enjoyed and been entitled to.
This is an impossible demand. To be as free as men inevitably means having to be as vulnerable (unprotected) as men are. This is why feminism's sexual liberation in the 60's and then sex positive feminism in the 90's (ladette culture) resulted in so much trauma, regret and confusion.
It has taken another couple of decades for young women to realise those protections and safeguards offered by men (which feel a bit like being prized, cherished and owned) are actually rather comforting and nice .... and practical.
Over the past few generations feminist women have rejected the idea of being protected and cherished by men, and then have experienced what it's like to not have those protections and loyalty (harsh, unforgiving, traumatic etc), and now a lot of young women are once again embracing their femininity again and welcoming men's masculine protective instincts once again.
We have seen a similar trajectory being played out with FTM detransitioners who rejected their femininity, tried to live like men, found men's gender role to be harsh, unforgiving, lonely and brutal (not the bed of roses that feminists claim it is) before transitioning back to being female again and embracing a feminine identity without all the hang ups that feminists have about traditional (ie natural) gender roles.
Walking a mile in men's workboots seems to always result in the rejection of feminist ideology.
I speak for myself when I say that I am a feminine woman who has always been very happy with myself as a woman. i have not ever wished to be held and cherished by a man. I don't know what that means yet I was married for twenty years. My father nor my brother nor my husband cherishe me or protected me. I have always demanded to be myself , on my own and doing as I pleased when I please. I don't compromise myself. Yet I have had many looks, and men like me for my looks but when they talk to me they realize I am a strong woman and an intelligent and educated person. I am appreciated and respected for who I am. I do not need a man to make me feel good or complete me as a person. i have a great relationship with my ex- husband. But i live on my own and very much enjoy doing my own thing. I have male friends too. To be honest I have always felt a little sorry for men that they really don't have anything real to hold onto like a mother who has birthed a child and held that little thing and fed it and cared for it. I as a woman, is educated, worked and had a family. I have had it all. Now how cool is that!
So, GTO with misandrist hypocrisy. As women are doing the same exact shit. Except that some hypocrites have their heads stuck somewhere obscuring their view of the reality.
Or ugly, fat, or old women who exploit vulnerable men in the developing world. I am sure in your head that is somehow different.
Such a comprehensive piece from you outlining the risks, myths of prostitution. Thank you for your tireless campaigning and writing on this, it’s truly invaluable.
We are very proud of our film, DWORKIN....no one spoke more eloquently and passionately about thie pain that women suffer under the present systems. The film is engaging, ENRAGING and energizing!!
Where can one view your film in its entirety? Last year I saw the film made by Kaali films on Dworkin and had a conversation with the director about some of her interpretations about Dworkin that I was not entirely comfortable with. I would be curious to engage with you about this but first I would love to view your film.
Thank you Julie for relentlessly exposing the misery, degradation and economic exploitation that prostitution represents. The faction who promote the euphemism that "Love is love." in an attempt to cover their sexual fetishes while knowing that there is no love in their sexual encounters only compulsive abuse.
I feel so utterly naive that I know so little about prostitution and the horrors these women go through, it is quite horrendous to think of decriminalising something that causes so much pain and abuse. I truly hope your fantasy comes true and their perpetrators get their commuppance. Thank you for such an informative article and opening my eyes to this.
Women can stop doing it. I am sure it will be beneficial for most men. Do you blame junkies for the drug problem, or the suppliers? It is incredible how some think in this case the rules are reversed only because women are the suppliers.
Nope. Women are the absolutely the main pushers of their own bodies.
They are the ones who enable the pimps to hide amongst them. If they stop selling sex, we will all know that any women selling her body is being forced into it.
I'm not sure I buy this picture of majority willing hookers and minority trafficked/coerced women hidden amongst them. It's a brutal trade.
I do agree however with the broader argument that attempts to rebrand prostitution as empowering, liberating 'sex work' makes it easier for abusers and criminals to play their trade in plain sight.
It also enables prostitutes to seek police protection without fear of prosecution.
And I do not buy into most are trafficked either. Have seen interviews with them, they did not have a pimp, and did explain why hey were doing it.
Like OF girls, some are pretty disgusting humans beings, enjoying exploiting men. You can hardly believe the things they say.
Situation is complex, and I am tired of some people trying to present it as men exploiting women, due to misogyny. Even the men, (we know there are many female traffickers), do not exploit women in such a way due to misogyny. They are simply human trash. They traffic men too. If it was not women, they would be beating and robbing men on the street, or selling drugs to junkies, or whatever nefarious crap would get them money.
Fair point. Personally I'd decriminalise selling your own body because it's your own body to do as you choose but I'd keep laws against pimping etc.
As it happens, my gut instinct would be to decriminalise the buying of sex from someone willing to sell. However, experiments in doing so never seem to have had the intended effect of reducing violence, criminality and exploitation.
Secondly thank you Julie for a well written piece. I have only recently found you and follow your work along with a few of the other greats that I have discovered.
I used to work in academia and the official position is that prostitution is an empowering and liberating experience for women. I once brought a former prostitute into my class and she talked about the horrific experiences she had had, including being beaten within an inch of her life on many occasions. The woke in the class called her an oppressor of women and me an anti-feminist. (I understand if you need to read this paragraph again to be sure you read it correctly)
If you ask the woke if those who do dangerous work for a living--mining, construction, etc.--freely consent to the risks of the job, they will vehemently argue that capitalism deprives the working class the ability to refuse to sell their labour in dangerous jobs and that therefore their consent to those risks is not legitimate. It is coerced.
Unless, of course, they are women selling their bodies for sex. Then the woke see no issue with them exposing themselves to brutal violence, disease, humiliation, and death, for money. If you point out that women who sell their bodies for sex do so from within the same, or worse, economic circumstances as miners and constructions workers, you get a restatement of "sex work is real work" shouted back at you, except a bit louder. If you keep going, you will be called misogynistic and, yes, a transphobe.
I actually agree that opposing prostitution is a form of 'transphobia'. Both prostitution and trans ideology share an underlying ideology: the body, especially those of women, is a commodity. If you're a so-called transwoman, you've achieved this through economic transactions of sorts. You view 'woman' as a collection of parts to be purchased, and as a social entity constructed solely by what she buys: lipstick, dresses, purses, and so on. What separates men and women, according to trans ideology, isn't biology, experience or genetics, but trinkets and imitation body parts that can be purchased.
So, to oppose prostitution because it turns women into commodities is to reject trans ideology as well. Both are forms of female commodification.
Funny, though. Socialism stands against capitalism because the latter, through markets, commodifies the human body. The woke have not only embraced the most dehumanising aspect of capitalism, but they have colonised the language that would allow us to critique it.
Wokism is capitalism on steroids (pun intended). No wonder the corporate world embraces it.
100% this, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis. Isn't the hypocrisy and cultural blindness surrounding these issues simply phenomenal?
The crux of the matter is that extreme misogyny and misanthropy underpins this bodily dissociation movement, which is like a many headed hydra. That is what confuses so many.
Nevertheless, the hatred is real and it is only a matter of time before the majority see that everyone, whether male or female is ultimately going to be harmed by this top-down corporate stranglehold of human rights. We cannot scream loudly enough, sadly.
Yes! You're absolutely right to point out the misanthropic character of these movements. I see the human body as sacred and beautiful just as it, and wokism has chopped it up into something that's no more than the sum of its parts. It's why it's such a depressing movement: it fails to respect and honour the miracle of human life.
Could not have said it better myself.
The hatred is so real it is screaming itself. I just don't really know why there is such hatred of women. All i can think of is their jealousy of the capacity that women have to create life.
Women are free not to sell sex. We know most of women selling sex are doing so on their own. We also know how they feel about it, because they have interviewed many of them. Trying to blame men for their own decision, of which some of them are proud, is just a sign of misandry. Sure, some do it out of desperation. However, they are still not forced into it by men! They simply did not see a better way out. Them not being prosecuted by law, makes it safer if they do choose to go down this path.
If you want to do something constructive, do something to make it easier for all people who had a rough childhood, or are suffering mental issues, or from some other disease, or any other issue that can bring someone into a situation without any good options. Such situation also make someone vulnerable to human trafficking.
Human trafficking is another issue. And there are many female human traffickers. Statistics are clear on that. Claiming it is about misogyny is dishonest. Men and boys are trafficked too. Even if men and boys are more likely to be used differently, it no less appalling. And needs to be stopped.
I agree with you that men and boys need to be protected also, and that the upstream issues that tend to lead women into prostitution need a lot of attention. But I never said that men force women into prostitution. My point was about the impact of economic forces (e.g. poverty, lack of opportunity, etc.) which render consent to risks less than complete. I think this also links to your point about childhood abuse and mental illness. These are also factors that can limit the kinds of choices available to victims as adults.
We have to be careful about relying exclusively on how prostitutes view their own situations. Viewing something you don't want to do as the result of your own free choice makes that activity more palatable to yourself. I suspect that if we offered prostitutes free education, a safe place to live, and a future career, most of them would take it. And that's the sort of approach I would take to the problem. Sure, maybe some would choose to continue prostitution, and I'd wonder if childhood abuse and mental illness (self hatred) is playing a part in that choice. I support criminalisation of pimps and johns, not of prostitutes themselves, as well as extensive supports for the latter to help them transition into something safer.
The prostitute who spoke to my class worked in a legal institution. They still had security guards scanning the rooms because so many women were brutally beaten by the johns, often. She would joke that the threat of brutal violence in this legal setting was so high that the guards were merely checking to make sure the women were still alive. So I'm not sure legalisation is the panacea we like to believe it is.
Whilst it’s really hard to hear the women in the class call the prostituted woman an oppressor, it’s quite easy to see why; the irony is that they fail to see exactly what they are doing by saying so.
They have become the very oppressors- that which they condemn her for and as- and act as agents of capitalism and the patriarchy ( women often are or can be) active agents in their own oppression - I often like to use the example of high heels glibly as agents of such and you have demonstrated exactly this.
The second and third paragraphs are equally alarming - whilst they see the labour of dangerous jobs as an inescapable coercive capitalist tool, they fail to see the commodification of a woman’s body as such and this can only be because everything is viewed from the lens of commodification which in itself is completely normalised, is therefore total and complete.
Hence we see the wide acceptance both insitututional and personal of Trans-ness - again something that too can be “acquired” like any other commodity; and yes they have colonised not just our bodies but our language too- you are so correct- the capture is complete and it’s really quite hard to see a way out.
I guess the idea of empowering sex work grew out of a perma-online culture where the spaces in which the conversation takes place are often gatekept by porn-obsessed young men.
Yes this would certainly have been a large contributing factor -the pornification of culture as it were where no one bats an eyelid to “pornstar” martinis on restaurant boards and young girls only feel validated when they prescribe to such.
It's been around long before the Internet.
No doubt but it's been mainstreamed by social media.
Whilst it’s really hard to hear the women in the class call the prostituted woman an oppressor, it’s quite easy to see why; the irony is that they fail to see exactly what they are doing by saying so.
They have become the very oppressors- that which they condemn her for and as- and act as agents of capitalism and the patriarchy ( women often are or can be) active agents in their own oppression - I often like to use the example of high heels glibly as agents of such and you have demonstrated exactly this.
The second and third paragraphs are equally alarming - whilst they see the labour of dangerous jobs as an inescapable coercive capitalist tool, they fail to see the commodification of a woman’s body as such and this can only be because everything is viewed from the lens of commodification which in itself is completely normalised, is therefore total and complete.
Hence we see the wide acceptance both insitututional and personal of Trans-ness - again something that too can be “acquired” like any other commodity; and yes they have colonised not just our bodies but our language too- you are so correct- the capture is complete and it’s really quite hard to see a way out.
You're so right. It scares me that they have so much power not only in academia but in society generally. The most dangerous form of oppression is that which is enforced by those who see themselves not as oppressors, but as acting for the common good from a position of absolute moral certainty. My hope is that as men increasingly invade women's spaces and activities, society will become increasingly less tolerant of trans ideology. I see that ideology as extremely fragile in its lack of logic and rejection of every day experience. That's why it shuts everyone down who challenges its claims. It can't stand up to reason so it has to silence opposition, and that never turns out well.
"The most dangerous form of oppression...position of absolute moral certainty."
You just described moral crusaders. You know, the people who want the government in your bedroom, your medicine cabinet, your doctor's office, etc. I've lived with untreated pain for over 2 decades thanks to a**holes like you.
Hi David, you have answered a question bobbing around my head for 6 months. Thanks.
On another matter...I'm arguing with a friend about Only Fans. They say it's a woman's right to do what she wants in her own home (while streaming to hundreds/thousands) and that she's 'taking back her own power'.
What would you say to this? I've run out of words.
TIA
(If anyone else reading this feels like adding their opinion, please do)
I think one of the ways the woke have become so powerful--and dangerous--is that they reduce everything to a question of individual rights. What gets excluded are the deeper questions about why women have to prostitute themselves online and why its mostly women who do this (I don't know if I'm right, because I've never looked at the site, but I suspect it's true). By reducing everything to individual choice--a core capitalist ideology--they give patriarchy and economic inequality a pass.
It's quite a libertarian capitalist perspective because it believes that absent direct immediate coercion--the proverbial gun to the head--all choices are free choices. Socialist critique draws our attention to underlying dynamics that are just as coercive as direct force. By focusing on choice over all else, your is reinforcing a capitalist libertarian value system.
The trans movement does the same thing. Something like 85% of trans are F to M. By reducing the issue to one of individual rights and personal intuitions, they fail to ask the pressing question of why do so many girls not want to be women? What is it about our society that our girls want to grow up to be men? The answer, I suppose, is that our girls believe it's more desirable to be a man than a woman in our society. Again, patriarchy gets a pass.
Finally, your friend is ignoring the impact of Only Fans on other women. O.F. endorses the commodification of women and the idea that a woman has the right to commodify herself. I'm not sure that's a great strategy to achieve the empowerment of women given that the oppression of women shares common ground with their commodification.
All of our rights are balanced against the impact of us exercising them on those around us. I don't have the right to play loud music at night because it would disturb my neighbours, nor do I have the right to walk through a grocery store naked regardless of how much someone was paying me to do so. All rights are limited by context, and the fact that reinforcing the commodification of women is not seen as a consequence worthy of limiting that which does the reinforcing is itself a statement about the ongoing power of misogyny.
Mark... I really appreciate that.
You've given me more to argue with, I won't change his mind, but it is satisfying , I guess, to win a few points.
And just incase you're bored...
I am 1/3 through Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography 'Infidel'... her and her younger sister, ages about 10 and 7, just informed their father they didn't want to be girls anymore. She really dug herself out of a huge trap.
In the early 90's I took on a weekend job waitressing (they hired 'nice' waitresses in t-shirt and trousers to try to balance the vibe) at Porky's Nite Spot in Kings Cross Sydney, a strip club/brothel. All the girls there were completely mentally and emotionally damaged, except 1, who was a 6'2 transexual, and only did a fire show, not sex.
In my travels I met prostitutes in Thailand and India. Very very sad. They literally have no way out. At a religious play in India a very young girl, no more than 5, done up with extreme make-up and basically princess clothes sat next to me. I looked for any parents, nope. She then began touching me which was a bit weird, but when she touched me sexually.... well.... the horror I felt has stayed with me.
Then I got to London and saw that all the public phone booths were covered on the inside with calling cards offering everything... I was shocked.
What a wake up call those few years were.
Forward 30 years and things have only got worse in the world and so much more normalised. To quote another substacker, girls are now mainly exposed to "porn informed womanhood".
I used to feel like a loser to have never married, and to not have the children I thought I so desperately wanted.
But now, not so much.
Today, when people ask why I'm single, (because I'm tired of the question) I say "I never wanted to be treated like a second class citizen in my own home"
It doesn't sound like your home is like that.
Women can very easily have it tough, Mark, as you seem to be very well aware.
Thanks so much for your time 😊
Thanks for replying with so much heart, I really appreciate it. I suspect young girls who want to become boys are partly motivated by what they see in the world and how women are treated. But I like to think that most men see women as equals and treat them with full human dignity and respect.
The stories you talk about are heartbreaking, and equally heartbreaking is that today's so-called Left sees them not as tragedies but as entrepreneurial success stories.
Thanks Mark.
(Didn't get notified about yr reply. Just found it then 👍)
There was a very interesting article posted a few days ago titled I think...
Men who like women and men who don't - we can tell.
If you read the comments, it seems a lot of women feel a lot of men neither like us nor respect us. I for one, would not say 'most' men think of women as equal. But, I live in Australia.
Mark I did not realise the ratio of 85% F to M - that’s high. I always thought there were more autogynephilic males in this arena- interesting they are the ones that shout loudest and get seen more!
I suggest that much of the higher ratio of F to M is possibly girls hating being objectified and sexualised no sooner they hit puberty and see a way out of this as becoming other. Literally removing their breasts in an effort to desexualise as it were.
"What gets excluded are the deeper questions about why women have to prostitute themselves online and why its mostly women who do this"
Plenty of garbage collectors, sewage workers, roofer and deep sea divers would choose to be sex workers if there was a market for it. If these men made money from having sex with women, or showing their naked bodies to women on web cams, I doubt anybody would consider them to be victims of exploitation.
There are very few opportunities fo men in the sex industry because women don't need to pay for sex or male company. Even low class women don't need to pay for sex or male company. It is always available for free at any bar anywhere in the world.
"Socialist critique draws our attention to underlying dynamics that are just as coercive as direct force."
Can you give a specific example of an underlying dynamic that is just as coercive as a gun to the head?
These are really interesting points, thank you for making them.
Let's say you're right that people are engaged in professions that are less attractive and more dangerous than prostitution, and that they'd gladly prostitute themselves sexually than continue working in those professions. So, first off, this isn't an argument, it's a hypothetical scenario and it doesn't really address the fact that prostitution is dangerous for women. Second, even if we agree with the point, the argument doesn't mean that prostitution is less dangerous than I'm suggesting--it simply means that there are more dangerous forms of work than prostitution. That this could be true doesn't mean we should view prostitution in a friendlier light. That some crimes are worse than others doesn't mean we should decriminalise those that aren't the worst. My issue with prostitution is not only that it's dangerous but that it contributes to a perception of women that is harmful to women.
As for an example of economic coercion, I'm reminded of a tragedy that happened in Canada in the early 90's. A mining company was consciously ignoring the build up of a combustible material in one of their mines. The workers pleaded with management to provide them with the means to eliminate the extreme danger to their lives. Management refused and told the workers that they could quit if they didn't want to risk their lives in the mine. The workers continued working because they had families to support and 29 of them were killed in an explosion they knew was likely to occur. In this case, the risk of death in the mine was less forceful than the economic necessity of supporting their families, in other words, the economic forces were more powerful than the risk of death. I'd say that's a fairly serious kind of coercion.
I don't think the metaphor of a gun to a head quite fits in the sense that there's an immediacy to that scenario that adds a horrific element to the mental picture. Far more people are killed at work than are murdered, and these deaths are usually preventable and predictable. People die not because they enjoy risking their lives for X dollars an hour, but because they have no other way of dealing with the coercive threat of economic despair.
For the record, I have no issue with expecting and even requiring people to work, and I think that in some ways capitalism has created a form of coercion that is more humane and tolerable than, say, jailing people for refusing to work. But it doesn't mean that economic forces are any less coercive than direct force. They're equivalent in this regard, and perhaps an even more effective form of coercion than a gun.
I get it. Even though women have more options than men to earn a living full stop - and safer ways to earn a living than men (who cannot sell sex and must clean sewers or forage in garbage dumps or sell drugs etc) - you still care more about women's safety (and social standing) than you do about men. This is perfectly natural. Men are gynocentric by nature (as are women).
This is also why feminist ideology is so ridiculous. We will, as a society, always care more about women's comfort and feelings than we care about men's safety and even men's lives.
"I don't think the metaphor of a gun to a head quite fits in the sense that there's an immediacy to that scenario that adds a horrific element to the mental picture"
Socialists disguise their violence with convoluted systems and plenty of euphemisms, but it is still there. If you don't surrender your wealth (your labour) to the socialist then you will eventually have a gun to your head. This is what distinguishes socialism from charity.
It's possible to care about both men and women. This article is about female prostitution, and the comments logically focus on the risks of it.
Feminism is as much about men as women. It's about getting rid of the stereotypes that limit our freedom to be who we want to be because of our biological sex. It's also about creating a more caring society, one that would care for prostitutes as much as for the drug dealers and garbage foragers you rightly express concern about.
You make a good point about the history of revolutionary socialism. It's too big a point to discuss here, and it's off topic. But I hear you.
I guess another way of thinking about it is 'how much would I have to be paid to let a repulsive man bugger me?' Even when I was skint, it would have been way more than the average street prostitute or rent boy costs.
Good point. I've heard one former prostitute say that all purchased sex is rape because the woman doesn't really want to sleep with you. If she did, she wouldn't want to be paid for it.
I feel ambivalent about that. Bought consent doesn't feel like true consent but equally, if we label all purchased sex as rape, what language are we left to condemn forcible rape. I don't think anyone would argue that a man who rapes a prostitute by physical force is not committing a worse act than a John who pays her for sex.
That's a very good point. I might not have remembered what she said properly, but aside from issues of language, her point was that if you have to be paid to screw someone, then you don't want to screw them.
Trying to wrap my head around this. I guess my stance comes down to this. 1. No-one should be criminalised for prostituting themselves but 2. I can't conceive of circumstances where doing so is really an empowering or liberating experience (although for many women (and men) it may be the least bad option available to them, itself a dismal reflection on our society)
Yeah, it's eye-opening that so many left-leaning liberals pedal the myth of 'sex work' as an empowering choice within a marketplace when, as you point out, we'll happily call bullshit when that argument's applied to most actual jobs.
Yeah, both good points. I still can't get my head around such distorted thinking. I guess it's because I don't pay for sex and I'm not a misogynist....
It's also, I think, very upper-middle-class. People who've never seen street prostitution saying Sex Worker, thinking of something like Belle de Jour, not trafficking, addiction and worse.
Absolutely! I've asked my pro-prostitution students if they'd want their mothers or sisters to do "sex work" and of course the answer is no. As long as they or their loved ones don't have to have sex with men for money, it's ok.
That isn't even genuinely woke then. These types are just pathetic hypocrites.
They're capitalists. They believe in freedom of contract, which is a capitalist core value, that is, that the state has no right to regulate economic transactions.
Have you ever asked your students about their attitudes towards the exploitation of other human beings via Only Fans etc? It seems to me that the shift towards the online world has contributed significantly to adherence to the "SWIW" mantra.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that Lola had already asked about that!
I wish women would stop exploiting vulnerable lonely men on OF. I am sure those men could do something better with the time and money.
That's strange. Because every sex worker that I have ever talked to has said that they've been raped by more police officers than clients. It seems like, if you were really concerned about the safety of these women, forcing them to interact with cops MORE often seems, kinda...bad? Maybe you should have had multiple sex workers come in & talk to your class? But then how would you make sure they stick to the correct narrative?
Something people overlook is how the Drug War has led to a disproportionate increase in the number of women in prison. ⬆️650% since 1980, double the rate for men. For some reason, the TERFs who are super concerned about the safety of women in prison don't seem to care about this fact. Or that the vast majority of rapes in women's prisons are committed by guards. It's almost like you don't actually care, you're just speaking "for" women in prison for the same reason people speak "for" fetuses, children, drug addicts, and the homeless. Bc even when they can speak for themselves, no one listens. And where there are SWERFs, there are bound to be TERFs.
Anyone can confirm their own biases. It takes genuine critical thinking skills to understand why people believe things that are different from what we believe, while respecting their intelligence & right to make their own decisions.
You called me an a hole in your first comment. Your tone is aggressive and condescending. And you attack my character. I see no reason to dignify your demeaning comments with a response.
I wish you the best.
Historically, rape was an offence against a man, since the woman, who was the property of her father or husband, had been ‘damaged’. The misogyny associated with notions that sex can be work just show us that little has changed since the Middle Ages. Women are still objects for the gratification of men.
"Historically, rape was an offence against a man"
What feminists fail to point out is that this way of framing it ensured women got the maximum possible protection. The rapist (by definition) does not fear being beaten to death by the woman he is overpowering. But he does fear being beaten to a pulp by her brothers, father, husband or any of the men in the village.
Feminism tries to frame men's protective behaviour towards women in terms of ownership. This is not far from the truth. Take any person, animal or object (a pen, a kitten, a car, a horse, a child, a woman) and make it your number one priority to PROTECT that thing/ animal/ person for one week. Your behaviour will resemble that of 'ownership'.
There is no way around this. Protection is very closely linked to ownership. For decades feminists have demanded the impossible: to be as free as men are, while also retaining all the protections and safety nets that women have always enjoyed and been entitled to.
This is an impossible demand. To be as free as men inevitably means having to be as vulnerable (unprotected) as men are. This is why feminism's sexual liberation in the 60's and then sex positive feminism in the 90's (ladette culture) resulted in so much trauma, regret and confusion.
It has taken another couple of decades for young women to realise those protections and safeguards offered by men (which feel a bit like being prized, cherished and owned) are actually rather comforting and nice .... and practical.
Over the past few generations feminist women have rejected the idea of being protected and cherished by men, and then have experienced what it's like to not have those protections and loyalty (harsh, unforgiving, traumatic etc), and now a lot of young women are once again embracing their femininity again and welcoming men's masculine protective instincts once again.
We have seen a similar trajectory being played out with FTM detransitioners who rejected their femininity, tried to live like men, found men's gender role to be harsh, unforgiving, lonely and brutal (not the bed of roses that feminists claim it is) before transitioning back to being female again and embracing a feminine identity without all the hang ups that feminists have about traditional (ie natural) gender roles.
Walking a mile in men's workboots seems to always result in the rejection of feminist ideology.
I speak for myself when I say that I am a feminine woman who has always been very happy with myself as a woman. i have not ever wished to be held and cherished by a man. I don't know what that means yet I was married for twenty years. My father nor my brother nor my husband cherishe me or protected me. I have always demanded to be myself , on my own and doing as I pleased when I please. I don't compromise myself. Yet I have had many looks, and men like me for my looks but when they talk to me they realize I am a strong woman and an intelligent and educated person. I am appreciated and respected for who I am. I do not need a man to make me feel good or complete me as a person. i have a great relationship with my ex- husband. But i live on my own and very much enjoy doing my own thing. I have male friends too. To be honest I have always felt a little sorry for men that they really don't have anything real to hold onto like a mother who has birthed a child and held that little thing and fed it and cared for it. I as a woman, is educated, worked and had a family. I have had it all. Now how cool is that!
Women are still objects for the gratification of men. Yes. And nothing much has changed. Isn’t this the real truth.
After you hear women speaking about men, you realize that you are simply a liar.
Who is a liar?
You! Posting some lame tropes as truth.
That’s a matter of your opinion - I don’t even know what a trope is so spare me that- have you no idea of the historical oppression of women?
The commodification and objectification? You must live on some parallel planet or universe.
We have see how women act around strippers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxdAAmJ0TD4
So, GTO with misandrist hypocrisy. As women are doing the same exact shit. Except that some hypocrites have their heads stuck somewhere obscuring their view of the reality.
Or ugly, fat, or old women who exploit vulnerable men in the developing world. I am sure in your head that is somehow different.
Such a comprehensive piece from you outlining the risks, myths of prostitution. Thank you for your tireless campaigning and writing on this, it’s truly invaluable.
Damn right.....we've got to get ANGRY about this...and get ACTIVE about challenging all the systems that promote and enable this distortion....
Please check out: https://www.jaxsplace.com/
We are very proud of our film, DWORKIN....no one spoke more eloquently and passionately about thie pain that women suffer under the present systems. The film is engaging, ENRAGING and energizing!!
Thank you for your insightful articles!
Where can one view your film in its entirety? Last year I saw the film made by Kaali films on Dworkin and had a conversation with the director about some of her interpretations about Dworkin that I was not entirely comfortable with. I would be curious to engage with you about this but first I would love to view your film.
Sex work is neither sex nor work.
Faking orgasms is not sex; if you can't list it on your resume, it's not work.
Thank you Julie for relentlessly exposing the misery, degradation and economic exploitation that prostitution represents. The faction who promote the euphemism that "Love is love." in an attempt to cover their sexual fetishes while knowing that there is no love in their sexual encounters only compulsive abuse.
I feel so utterly naive that I know so little about prostitution and the horrors these women go through, it is quite horrendous to think of decriminalising something that causes so much pain and abuse. I truly hope your fantasy comes true and their perpetrators get their commuppance. Thank you for such an informative article and opening my eyes to this.
New Zealand's going to the dogs. And Australia is right behind them. Not as bad as Geneva by the sounds of things.
Sure is
Thank you for your tireless campaigning Julie. 👏
You have given me the language and confidence to now speak up about this, and other women's rights issues in a way I couldn't have before.
Hi,
I would love to talk about this too....
Thank you for your interest in my film...it is based on the first of three interviews that I did with Andrea back in 2004 shortly before her death.
Please check it out here:
https://jaxsplacetv.vhx.tv/
Let me know your thoughts!
Best,
Roberta
If sex is work then rape is slavery...
Women can stop doing it. I am sure it will be beneficial for most men. Do you blame junkies for the drug problem, or the suppliers? It is incredible how some think in this case the rules are reversed only because women are the suppliers.
In your analogy, women are the dope, pimps are the pushers.
Nope. Women are the absolutely the main pushers of their own bodies.
They are the ones who enable the pimps to hide amongst them. If they stop selling sex, we will all know that any women selling her body is being forced into it.
I'm not sure I buy this picture of majority willing hookers and minority trafficked/coerced women hidden amongst them. It's a brutal trade.
I do agree however with the broader argument that attempts to rebrand prostitution as empowering, liberating 'sex work' makes it easier for abusers and criminals to play their trade in plain sight.
It also enables prostitutes to seek police protection without fear of prosecution.
And I do not buy into most are trafficked either. Have seen interviews with them, they did not have a pimp, and did explain why hey were doing it.
Like OF girls, some are pretty disgusting humans beings, enjoying exploiting men. You can hardly believe the things they say.
Situation is complex, and I am tired of some people trying to present it as men exploiting women, due to misogyny. Even the men, (we know there are many female traffickers), do not exploit women in such a way due to misogyny. They are simply human trash. They traffic men too. If it was not women, they would be beating and robbing men on the street, or selling drugs to junkies, or whatever nefarious crap would get them money.
Fair point. Personally I'd decriminalise selling your own body because it's your own body to do as you choose but I'd keep laws against pimping etc.
As it happens, my gut instinct would be to decriminalise the buying of sex from someone willing to sell. However, experiments in doing so never seem to have had the intended effect of reducing violence, criminality and exploitation.
No one in their right mind supports pimps and human trafficking.
Secondly thank you Julie for a well written piece. I have only recently found you and follow your work along with a few of the other greats that I have discovered.
I could never understand how in NZ my country this was decriminalised.
This piece was just sauce. LOVED every word. MORE!!!
Thank you Julie.
I’ve learned so much about the human atrocity of prostitution from you.