Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!
Before I begin my contribution, I'd like to thank Elizabeth for the honor of being a part of this long overdue discussion. At first, I was inclined to respectfully decline her offer, since my expertise involving sex work is restricted only to general interest in the professions as a sex-positive activist and a thinking sex radical and political Leftist who wants to integrate such values into a general Left/Progressive political program and theory. I have not solicited nor have otherwise been involved in sex work of any kind, though I am involved tangently through my cyberfriendships with many women who are active sex workers or sexual liberationists. However, Elizabeth convinced me that even I can make a positive contribution to the discussion, so I am here.
My initial inquiries for now will deal with the general attitudes towards men who use and consume different levels of sex work; including clients of prostitutes (often derided as "johns"), users of sexually explicit media (what is commonly named "pornography") and those who are regular consumers of other forms of sexual media like "phone sex", "cybersex" and sexually-oriented consumer items such as sex toys, vibrators, and other peraphenalia.
It is no surprise that the dominant cultural impressions of men who consume sexually-oriented media and products is generally seen as ranging from negative to down-right threatening; even though such goods are promoted to an extreme just as aggressively. Although much has been said about the "double standard" regarding sexual attitudes between women and men -- where male sexual attitudes are justified and accepted in a way that women's sexual attitudes are denied and constrained -- it is not acknowledged enough how much male sexual attitudes are often just as constrained and distorted as women's are. No one would deny, of course, the many restrictions and assumptions that women who deliberately seek to explore and enjoy sex for its own pleasure have to endure; but it is often assumed that men have a virtual carte blanche when it comes to sexual exploration.
These assumptions about men and their alleged licentuousness apply with special fury to the topic of sex work, in particularly men's consumption thereof. According to the more strident opponents of sex worker rights, men simply use sex work as they would use sex in general: as a tool of control over women; as a means of projecting their own sexual desires and wants onto women who would otherwise reject such desires as offensive and disgusting at best, and threatening and injurous at worst. The idea that men can actually seek sex for mutual pleasure, or that men are even entitled to seek personal pleasure at the hands of willing and able and consenting women, seems to get lost in the heated anger and loathing over sex as defined as male power over women.
And, unfortunately, not even active sex workers who make their living providing such sexual services to these men (and women, it should be noted) are immune to those negative stereotypes. Often, they are based on the actual experiences with abusive and offensive men who, thanks in large part to their internalization of all the negative stereotypes of women who are overtly sexual, do manage to treat them as nothing more than the reduction of "sluts" and 'whores" and "bitches" and "tramps". But, not all or even the majority of men who seek sexual services are motivated by as much woman-hatred or sex-hatred. Some simply seek sexual companionship which, for whatever reason, is denied them in their real-life relationships; others simply seek a warm body to get them through the day.
My first inquiry to the rest of the esteemed panel here (whether active sex worker, sex worker activist, or mere supporter of such) is this: How do we as sex-positive activists challenge the overall dominant cultural stereotypes of not only the women and men who actively participate in sexual commerce and sexual media, but also the women and men who happily and freely seek such services? Considering the impact of such anti-sex work activists as Melissa Farley, Kathleen Barry, Shelia Jefferys, Sam Berg, and other antiporn/antiprostitution activists in setting the agenda under a distinctively sex-negative foundation, how can such "sex-positive" sex worker activists challenge this restrictive paradigm with a more humane, realistic, and liberatory theory and practice.
I will leave you to think that over and await your response (and the rest of the festivities).
Again, thanks to Elizabeth for inviting me here to speak my peace as an outsider and strong supporter of sex-positive sex work activism.
Anthony Kennerson
The SmackDog Chronicles Blog
I think that your point and Anthony's go together, Ren; one of the things that's always bothered me about the so-called radical feminists (SCRFs) is that they're not really terribly radical. I think we need more radical feminism, not the same old sex neuroses dressed up for a night on the town. Few, if any of the truly loud SCRFs have been able to question the old idea that male sexuality is rapacious and indiscriminately demeaning, and that most men would stick it in mud if it were warm. And after all, this is the same story that generations of patriarchs fed their daughters before sending them out on their first dates. One of the most offensive things for me about feminist anti-porn efforts is how their analyses assert that "men who watch porn think this or that about women," but never actually ask the men why they watch porn or go to sex workers in the first place.
I can already hear certain feminist bloggers characterizing this thread as saying "Oh, no, what about teh menz?" especially since it's the first one in the forum. But I do think that it's something very important to consider in thinking about the welfare and dehumanization of sex workers. The fact that "johns" can be written off immediately as creepy or exploitive also opens the gate to pathologizing sex workers as enablers. Ren, you have intimate experience with this via the vicious attacks characterizing you as a woman who hurts other women through your work. This is the SCRF version of the virgin-whore dichotomy: you can either be a passive "prostituted" woman, or you are an enemy of women, using your cunt to oppress other women. In essence, you have failed in your proper role to control the animalistic male lust.
There's also the fact that people who are shamed about their sexuality are dangerous. This was one of my main points in my recent review of Bob Jensen's book, and it's something that a lot of approaches to prostitution completely bypass. Unless sex work is not just legalized but destigmatized, it's going to continue to be dangerous to the women and men who do it.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Politics is, as has been noted, "the organizarion of hatreds". Thus political speech in regard to sex work and sex workers will be oriented towards hating SOMEONE.
Most recently the GOP push for anti-gay sentiment in support of DOMA and similar acts. It should be noted that Bill Clinton didn't stand in their way. With respect to sex-work, neither party will want to take a "pro-sex-worker" position.
In Cleveland, even relatively "liberal" columnist Regina Brett applauds "crackdowns" on prostitution - and derivitively the prostitutes and customers themselves under the rubrick of remedying urban blight. As long as sex-workers are an easy mark, and illegalization help make them so, they will prove a politically useful object of hatred.
One possible way to combat this is to select some columnists to try to cover these things and actually engage sex workers. I may try to enlist a local Cleveland columnist to at least look in on this discussion.
Roy, I think your idea of enlisting a local columnist is a great one. It made me think that a "public relations" resource list would be a wonderful thing to put together out of this forum. If we could compile the names of all the journalists, local and national, who've taken the issue of sex work seriously and not reflexively written about it with prohibitionist assumptions, we'd be able to feed information to those folks to help them write the kinds of stories that would re-shape the sex work and trafficking discourses.
I'm thinking immediately of people like Debbie Nathan (who has written so well about the Kurt Eichenwald/Justin Berry story, but who also has a great primer on pornography and who wrote about the day care sex abuse panic of the 80s) and of Judith Levine (who wrote Harmful to Minors and who, with Debbie Nathan, serves on the board of National Center for Reason and Justice ). But it would be really useful to have the names of regional/local journalists in a range of cities.
If I start a forum thread just for collecting the names and some of the stories written by journalists who've covered sex work, trafficking or just plain old controversial sex issues seriously and thoughtfully would people put names and links to stories in it?
Oh, and this might be a good moment to plug the Sex Positive Journalism Awards . Anything you submit in the thread I'm proposing would probably be a good nomination for a Sexie :)
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I don't think we can make the kinds of changes you point out until we establish that sex is not bad, in fact that it is good, and that it need not be contained only within committed marriage-type relationships. The idea that people deserve to seek sexual pleasure for its own sake is a radical one. If that were widely accepted, then the buying and selling of sexual experiences might not be framed as the same kind of problem it is framed as now.
Exploitation occurs in many kinds of production. Clothing, for example, is often made under extremely exploitive conditions by women who have been locked in dorms and factories in export processing zones but we don't stigmatize the wearing of clothes because of the conditions of the industry. Some activist groups have drawn attention to the condition of sweatshops and have pressured large corporations to change their practices -- a little bit at least -- for fear of their brands becoming stigmatized, but the enjoyment of fashion has never come under fire. So could it be with the production of sexual entertainment and sexual services if we didn't stigmatize sexual pleasure outside of marriage-type relationships in the first place. We could be intensely critical of the conditions under which some sexual entertainment is produced or some sexual services provided without condemning the seeking of them in the first place or the providing/producing of them in the second.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
How do we as sex-positive activists challenge the overall dominant cultural stereotypes of not only the women and men who actively participate in sexual commerce and sexual media, but also the women and men who happily and freely seek such services?
I agree with all of the points made here about the impact of sexual stigma on both consumers and workers. But I think the question that we need to ask is what role does consumer responsibility play in the continued stigma and what responsibilities do the 'women and men who happily and freely seek such services' have?
This is a very interesting topic because in many aspects of the sex industry, cetainly in the most restricted aspects of the industry, the consumer is often paying for privacy and anonymity as much as they're paying for the service. Obvously it would not be sensible to threaten these markets by expecting clients to "come out" and put a human face on "The Men Who Sleep With Prostitutes ." But obviously there are ways for consumers to make wise decisions in their sex-spending, whether in video stores, online, toy stores, wherever.
Obviously sex workers stand in solidarity with clients and are working to oppose policies that are harmful to clients. We're doing the visible work to challenge the stereotypes and negative attitudes toward sexuality. And it's a really difficult, scary fight. I think that consumers need to identify ways that their role as a consumer can contribute to the changes that they want to see and find ways to provide support to free speech efforts that don't make them feel compromised.
I met somebody at a party and we had a friend in common who works with a sex worker labor union. He told me that his web development company consulted her because an escort agency wanted to hire them to build a site. Some people felt that the company should not do it just because it was an escort agency. She was able to speak to women via the union who actually worked at the agency and told the web developers that the agency was decent and they should build the site.
The sex industry is a business like any other. Financial decisions affect change and consumers need to be supporting sex worker organizing efforts so that people who are thinking about these things have a place to go for information so that they can make good decisions, so that we can say we're keeping people safe by providing fact-based information about sex worker safety to consumers and associated businesses.
Responding to Elizabeth:
I don't think we can make the kinds of changes you point out until we establish that sex is not bad, in fact that it is good, and that it need not be contained only within committed marriage-type relationships. The idea that people deserve to seek sexual pleasure for its own sake is a radical one. If that were widely accepted, then the buying and selling of sexual experiences might not be framed as the same kind of problem it is framed as now.
A great point, Elizabeth....except for one caveat.
There are many strongly sex-positive theorists who would disagree with a promotion of sex as innately good or bad; but good AND bad depending on its context. Merely saying that sex is good regardless of circumstance would open up the person to charges of "licentuosness", and implying that ANY and ALL sex acts are innately liberating and positive, regardless of the context or the situation. In this case, it becomes the mere mirror image of the moralists who insist that sex or certain sexual acts or positions or practices are fundamentally bad and disgusting and must be bridled within certain restrictions of "intimacy" or "love" or procreative marriage.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't move towards a more libertarian progressive model of "all consensual and freely sought after sexual activity that brings mutual pleasure to all involved is definitely a GOOD thing; just that we should be very careful about absolutist pronouncements.
Dr. Charles Glickman has a wonderful text that was posted to the Electronic Journal for Human Sexuality back in July of 2000 that included these paragraphs that spells out my own thinking about approaching sex:
Working to break down sex-negativity is much like working to break down racism or homophobia- it's a process that takes a lifetime. Rather than being a goal you can reach, it's more like an asymptotic approach; no matter how close you are, you can always get a little closer. Although words like anti-racism exist to describe one version of this process, anti-sex-negativity is rather clumsy (as well and being a double negative) so most people call it sex-positivity.
One common definition of sex-positivity is that it's the belief that sex is good. Perhaps some of us would further describe the mind/body, male/female, good/bad division that various political and religious structures have adapted to their needs. However, it can be more useful to reframe our definition of sex-positivity from “sex is a positive thing” to “working towards a more positive relationship with sex.”
There are several different reasons for making this shift. First, it acknowledges that sex is neither good nor bad. Just like food, the benefit or harm comes from what you do and how it affects you. This takes the argument out of “sex is bad/sex is good,” no small feat when this has been where the whole discussion has stalled for so long. Second, it recognizes that sex is a subjective experience and we each have a different relationship with it. Third, and perhaps most salient, it holds on to the idea that our relationship with sex always has room for improvement. All of these can be compared to the ways some people with eating disorders can change the ways they see food, another way in which the food/sex analogy works.
Dr. Charles Glickman: The Language of Sex Positivity
Recognizing that people do have a different relationship to/with sex is one of the most important means to approaching sex-positivity....and is an absolute must for those wanting to break through from sex-negative attitudes.
Let's keep this going....I'm beginning to like this.
Anthony
I like the Glickman piece you quoted, Anthony, and I think it would be fantastic if we could get to a place where sex was neither good nor bad, but simply sex. From that position the implications of different kinds of sex and different personal relationships to sex could be more clearly understood.
That said, I find myself coming back this: I want to live in a society where the overall understanding of sex is that it is a source of the good that humans can do in the world. That probably sounds hippie-ish, and I understand that even things that are usually good can be harmful in the wrong contexts or when used abusively. But still, this set of things that we can do with our bodies and our minds that is capable of creating such pleasure, and such connection - within us and between us - I want that to be understood as part of the goodness in people.
Perhaps this is the catch: If sex was perceived as such a "good" thing, might we again find ourselves in a society where it couldn't be bought or sold legally because it would seem to sully the goodness that is sex?
Perhaps neutrality really is the better goal.
Thanks for prompting that reflection Anthony!
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I will confine my comments to men who purchase sex from women because that drives prohibitionist ideology and hence shapes public opinion and policy. The dominant discourse depicts exploitation of women by men, in very simple terms it demonises the client and depicts the worker as a victim requiring state protection.
So what do we know about exploitation? At least within the indoor market, analysis of narratives suggest that if anything it is the provider who exploits because she is feeding a fantasy and need, there is little content that supports a sense of being exploited. (Sanders 2005)
What then do we know of clients? Till recently this was relatively neglected just as the much larger indoor market was ignored in favour of the the more accesible street scene. A review of client studies, especially those drawn from general population studies reveal no significant differences to the population as a whole. The most recent work on this (Sanders 2008) reveals men in search of intimacy as much as sexual gratification, who are looking for long term relationships, the so-called 'girl-friend experience'.
So again, examination of myths by sociological research can go a long way to refuting claims. However it takes more than academic research to shift deeply held attitudes that are based on moral panic.
Sanders T. Sex Work: A risky business. Willan, Cullompton 2005
Sanders T. Paying for Pleasure: Men who buy sex. Willan Cullompton 2008
see also:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/booksex.htm
Michael, I'm so glad for your posts because the remind us to go back to the data. And I'm also glad for the recognition that "it takes more than research." I think an important potential benefit of forums like these is that the add a kind of "echo chamber" effect that sends ripples through the dominant discourse as they get circulated and cited/linked/blogged about.
And the more spaces people have to talk about these issues from this perspective, I hope the more likely they'll be to extend those conversations into other settings that might be less hospitable. Last, I hope that the expanding network of sites like yours, like Desiree Alliance and this one, and blogs like Bound, Not Gagged, and Blog for Pro Porn Actiivsm, and the blogs of individual sex workers and sex worker advocates becomes a resource for journalists who have even more power to shape the dominant discourse.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I think you are correct, media studies point to the problem that if any statement is repeated often enough it aquires the authority of truth regardless of the actual facts. Two comonly cited examples are that the Football World Cup in Germany resulted in thousands of women and children being trafficked into the country to service the fans, the other being that you can be denied social assistance in Germany unless you are prepared to work in a brothel. There is no substance to either story, and thr latter was a hoax, but they both rapidly aquired the status of Mosaic inscriptions. Given the common forms of information flow, one technique you will see I have used is to host the myth and its refutation in juxtaposition. This dilutes Google's tracking of the unrefuted sites.
However attitudes are based on more than facts, they are often needed to reinforce deeply held beliefs, to which truth would be unacceptably disturbing.
