sex workers sharing experiences....
i put out an appeal for support in posting here re abolitionism and its effects and most workers expressed that it was not safe for them emotionally, they did not think could weather being attacked in the way we were in the thread yesterday and that it was wasted energy to engage with those who refuse to hear our voices...
i was sorry to receive the feedback but thought i would share their sentiments with people here so you understnad why they don't want to take part in discussions.
also, time bandit commented last night that i stated that all sex workers opinions were welcome but then seemed to demand references or other back up for statements made by some thread contributors....that only the voices of sex workers who had been project coordinators or done social justice work were valid.
i just would like to clarify and was attempting to when the thread was locked.
sex workers and formerly prostituted people should be allowed to share their personal experiences and have every right to express the experiences good or bad about being involved in the sex industry.
the problem comes when broad sweeping statements about the emotional injuries or status of all sex workers are being asserted with no back up info or project reports to prove the statement is true.
it is one thing to say "i was abused as a child, i experienced exploitation" but entirely another thing to say "most sex workers were abused as children" or "every sex worker experiences exploitation".
this may seem like splitting hairs but its not. experiences of people who endured exploitation and violence in the sex industry are extremely important if we are to work towards preventing those things in the future.
stating unsubstantiated claims of 100 sex workers all being rape victims and abused as children does not constitute "facts" and is not a personal experience. its seems to be a reference to the melissa farely data which claims 90% of all sex workers were abused as children and which we know to be unethical data collected in a way which does not reflect canada's federal policies on research involving human beings.
another example is the often used is "servicing 100's of men a day"...
a quick calculation shows that to service 100 men at 20 mins a guy requires 33.33 hours...or in clearer terms is impossible.
abolitionists often inflate numbers in order to bolster their position but as a sex worker reading their assertions, i can see through them and frankly it diminishes their arguements. why lie? why blow things out of proportion? it shows that they are not basing their assertions on fact but rather willing to say anything to achieve their goal of abolition including to distort statistics in a way that palys in to mainstream fears about sex work.
we all agree that exploitation of youth or any person is unacceptable. we all agree that people who take part in the exploitation should prosecuted.
why can't we agree on that but work with sex working people towards the best way to address this violence? we are open and willing. abolitionists however refuse to accept that for some people sex work is a choice and the best choice for them. they inflate numbers, belittle and dismiss sex workers voices and continue to undermine the work we are doing to bring stability and a better quality of life to our community.
so, while all sex workers shoudl be able to freely express their personal experiences and opinions, i will always challenge broad sweeping statements about our lives in particular when they are unsubstaniated and add to the stigma and judgement we face everyday.
susie
Folks wanted some links. Here are some links. One poster in the other thread likes the UK Guardian stories, so here is another one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/03/prostitution-humantr...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exagg...
The first shows how researchers looking for funding deliberately go about presenting the funding friendly 'facts'. And the second shows how some real estimated figures of sex trafficking went from an assumed 140 to 25,000, in order to support initiatives and funding for special interest groups.
I could find more links and more stories debunking the mythology of the drug addict abused underage girls who are supposedly the majority of all entry level sex workers, but i would prefer to allow the non-sex worker allies to go and do their research and find this information for themselves. That or instead of repeating the nonsense, then back up their claims with links to the research that was done to support the claims. It is one thing to say you "know' these things to be facts, and another thing to prove that.
At no time do I believe that anyone with any real research into this business can ever prove that "all' or even just 90% of all sex workers and former sex workers fit into that neat and tidy little exploited and vulnerable box that so many people want to force everyone into.
I don't mind having a real exchange of information and ideas, but I think in a forum that specifically says it is for sex workers and their 'allies' that I don't expect to have to wade through the rhetoric and false and misleading comments that have no basis in anyone's true reality.
This is another article that may be of interest to someone without preconceived bias.
http://www.lauraagustin.com/sex-at-the-margins-reviewed-in-gender-develo...
There are a lot of assumptions made on the behalf of sex workers. I have found on this site, and others, that certain types of people just 'don't want to hear' another POV. And I see very little difference between an anti-sex work POV and a bitter and biased client of sex workers who posts on online review sites. Both seem to have something to gain from bashing and trashing sex workers.
And in some cases, both want to profit in some way by doing this. And both seem to want to keep the sex workers themselves from telling their truth. I think it is shameful that sex workers are marginalized not just by abolitionists and feminists, but also some clients, and then pile it on by the straight crowd and the media, who also seem to be afraid of just accepting our truth and our stories in our own works. If not for the supportive clients and other sex workers, we'd likely would be suffering from this stigma and constant attacks, emotional ones, not physical ones. Even now a sex worker who does have an issue with harrassment, can feel like she has a voice, and her words will be supported in different places. And even now that same sex worker would be told, oh well, then just quit, and not just by anti sex work advocates but by bitter clients who seem to resent us for the very services we provide. They'd just prefer to get the services for free. And that is probably the extent of the 'violence' experienced by sex workers: someone doesn't like them on the internet.
Funny thing is, that I can come here and find non-clients who don't like me posting about what they think they know about me, on the internet. With no interest whatsoever in hearing what I have to say about it. So thank god for the majority of sane and sincere men and women who are my clients and supporters and allies. Because without them this work would feel pretty lonely, and isolated. Not because clients are all violent rapists, but because the ones who pretend to care so much they want to save me don't really care enough to find out that I have no need of salvation.
Thank you for reopening this debate. I'm not going to participate, apart from moderating. I'm here to read and learn and ensure the discussion meets the needs of the participants, as stated by the participants.
Cheers,
RW
yeah there was a couple articles making the rounds a month or so ago re: Atlanta, Georgia and exaggerations for funding there
Large world events like World Cup or Olympic hosting seem to have a large potential for feeding the perception of others about what is actually taking place
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/WhyIMade.html
posting this link again, because it is very valuable to this discussion. as everyone knows, farley is a "respected" researcher, and her work is often cited by people like murphy, and other abolotionists. i know sex workers are judged and stigmatized because of their occupational choices. i understand the right wing hates us based on their morality (albeit a misguided one), i understand society hates us because we are seen as "bad" or "damaged" (based on false stereotypes).
what i don't understand is the vile behvaior and hate feminists give us. please read that link i posted. and then tell me feminists don't judge me or don't hate me. tell me after reading that link that feminists respect me, and my choices. tell me feminists care about what i have to say. tell me why i should trust farley, or why i should trust any feminist who posts her research? farley's little joke (assuming it was a joke) is victim blaming and slut shaming to the max. daniel tosh and seth mcfarlane probably had a homoerotic masturbation session after reading the hilarious misogyny on her page. but if, macfarlane or tosh had posted that bullshit, it would have been deemed misogyny, and made headlines. when a "feminist" does it, it's standard operating procedure, and nobody says anything.
and after that piece on an academic professional website, you want me to believe farley is on my side? you want me to believe feminism is on my side? you want me to believe there is no war on sex workers? i expect lies and hate from the patriarchy. i have seen it, lived it all my life. but that couldn't prepare me for the tears and pain caused by feminists. feminists who tell me i am a traitor to women. feminists who tell me i cater to the patriarchy, that i deserve to be raped and beaten. feminists who tell me i can't choose sex work, because i perpetuate rape culture or am too stupid to know i am brainwashed. feminists who insist that the only choices are pro sex work or anti sex work, team feminism or team patriarchy, and choosing sex work makes me team patriarchy in an instant.
why should sex workers trust feminists? why should trust people who are supposedly trying to help us? besides, feminism doesn't need my story. it had fakers like stella marr to make a better image. and it has people like farley to shame me. really, i guess, feminism doesn't need me, and i am not sure i need feminism.
I don't understand the context behind the comments on the link you posted Nina but at first glace they seem hateful and oppresive. I wouldn't consider anyone who wrote that as open minded or an ally.
thanks nina, yes, melissa farley has done wide spread damage to the fight for rights and equality for sex workers. the fact that media outlets allow articles using her biased data to be published at all is yet another failing and shows how entrenched bias against us is.
there are supposed to be ethics in journalism. journalists are supposed to check their facts. perpetuating myhts about the lives of sex workers by allowing this kind of hatred to be the foundation of belief is confusing the issue for many canadians and as i said before, in particular in this time of our emmancipation.
journalists who use the farely data are no better than tabloid writers playing into mainstream fears about sex workers and sex work. if this remains the norm and editors/media outlets allow this continue it will be(well, it already is) a disaster for our community.
one has to wonder, how is it that the supreme court have called this data out for what it is, the APA are hearing a complaint about unethical research practices against farley but still her work permeates the discussion where ever i go? how can those people/journalists who claim to have our best interests at heart continue to allow it to define peoples perceptions of sex work?
no one checks, no one looks at research methods, no one cares to be sure that the information they are putting out is actually correct. they only care about one thing, achieving their goal of abolition, no matter the cost in humilation and lives.
not one of the posters in the other thread cared to answer my questions about the harms being caused by proliferation of these lies on the prairies. is it because we get what we deserve? it seems to me that that's what it comes down to. i have even been told directly by abolitionists that i should do something else, choose not to be s sex worker, for the "betterment of all women".
well, what should i do? laura augistine tells me that its because they(abolitionists- generally women of privelege) want us to be their maids. is that it i should clean your toilettes and be greatful for the job? should take solice in my poverty that at least i am "bettering all women"?
i have news for you abolitionists! it's against the international charter of human rights to comprimise the rights of one group in favour of another!!!
it would be nice if the abolitionists just came out and said it, "we don't like your kind, we want you to to be gone, we don't care how"
i will never quit sex work. i love my job. the man whose penis was amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is not a rapist. we are a community and we will make our own choices about access to our bodies.
love susie
that is exactly my point. that page is straight off of melisa farley's website. melissa farley,phd, the sex work researcher, advocate to sex workers. because she wrote that, i am offended that people use her research at all, and doubly offended that feminists claim there is no war on sex workers. how can anyone who uses farley as a reliable source suggest there is respect for sex workers? and yet feminists/abolitionists cite her studies all the time. just think about it, they cite the work of the person who wrote that piece, which you correctly identify as hateful and oppressive. but i am supposed to think there is no war on sex workers? really?
May I ask a clarification of terminology, "abolitionist" in this context... When I first started reading this thread I though it might have meant "one who wants to abolish laws criminalizing sex work" but I clearly misunderstood.
Is this word being used because the pro-criminalization crowd sees all sex work as a form of slavery, and "abolitionist" is word that was historically used as being anti-slavery? I ask because I've heard a lot of discussions on sex work and this usage is new to me.
Sorry for the intrusion - I thought it might be friendlier to ask here, because this usage appears mainly on web sites advocating that point of view, and not in any sort of neutral definition context.
I found the link offensive.
abolitionist is this context means a person or organization who wish to abolish all sex work, that means porn, prostitution, exotic dancing, web cam.....no matter who they hurt to acheive their goal of no more sex as work. they veiw sex work as hurting all women and as causing violence against women.
abolitionist= whore hater, the point of all this is they do not care to save us, but rather only care about their goal, to be rid of us.
love susie
^this. their theory is that sex work hurts women, strengthens the patriarchy, and women cannot choose sex work. choosing sex work means a) a woman has been brainwashed by the patriarchy into thinking this is her empowering personal choice, or b) it's financial/social circumstances that lead to sex work, but other alternatives would be perferred by the sex worker in question.
the theory also suggests that sex work reinforces the idea that women are commodities that can be bought and sold, so this obviously hurts all women, and helps maintain sexism and gender roles.
hence sex work, porn, strip clubs, etc... should be eliminated.
Thanks for the explanations.
#NotYourRescueProject
It has absolutely nothing to do with hating people in sex work. I know people in sex work, and some are friends. I certainly want to eliminate the production of private cars. I also have relatives and friends who are auto workers. Obviously the reasons are different, but it has nothing to do with "hating" any proletarian - just hating social outcomes such as pollution and urban sprawl, or the commodification of human beings.
I do hate the capitalists who control and promote such industries.
well said
An interesting column by David DesBaillets.
http://looniepolitics.com/harper-governments-antipathy-harm-reduction-wi...
Why do the Liberals have no real response to this ruling? We cannot let this law-and-order government move the lives of these workers back in the shadows. Let's hope the opposition will be vocal in order to create a valid environment for these people.
this thread was bumped for the sake of a link...did any of you follow it? did any of you hear the voices of sex workers?
for me, the increasing numbers of sex workers becoming vocal is telling...apparently i am not alone and the "exception" to the rule. apparently there are many sex workers from diverse backgrounds who share my position...shocker....
lagatta you are responding to a post i made last march...check the link.
#notyourrescueproject
good twitter posts
worth re bumping
That is a nasty attack. Clearly I am not in the feminist forum.
I am an abolitionist and I can assure you that while I would love to see a day when sex is no longer work for anyone it will not be achieved through law and it is a lot like working towards world peace. I'm not holding my breath, but it's a valid goal.
Perhaps there is some projection going on as this respected and experienced sex work activist admits:
Even she does not appear particularly interested in the experiences of these women:
Contrast that with this:
…………..
It seems at least some women would rather make lotions and potions even if it doesn't pay as well.
Abolitionists are not evil women forcing salvation on unwilling prostitutes living a joyous life. Sex work promoters are not all altruistically motivated.
This abolitionist: http://ruthjacobs.co.uk/2013/01/12/in-the-booth-with-ruth-dublin-call-girl-interview/ is not evil.
nasty attack? talk about the pot calling the kettle....
the feelings of sex workers who experienced violence and exploitation are important, i never said they weren't. but the abolitionist approach of ignoring those of us who choose and do not want strangers defining access to our bodies helps no one.
the exploitation experienced is not inherent to the industry.
unless of course 9 supreme court justices are liars and in league with pimps...
I'm not sure why this anti-sex worker abolitonist spammer is allowed to intrude in this supposedly protected forum:
"A place for sex workers and their allies to discuss issues around, and advocacy of, sex workers' rights."
Perhaps she-he claims exemption by virtue a being a particular version of "feminist"
To make the neo-Puritan ablotionist argument plausable here, and elsewhere, they struggle hard to lump together those women who are coerced or trapped in prostitution with those who prefer it to other work.
The abolitionist is too circumspect to actually use the word "whore" for those women who fail to pass their ideological test, but their rhetoric is nevertheless dripping with paternalistic pity or contempt whenever they actually admit many such women exist.
It is a bizarre form of "feminism" which wants to deny agency and choice and insist on the "victim" designation for women who fail comply with their ideological world view.
As de facto punishment for that dissent, abolitionists are quite content to make life much more dangerous for sex workers.
Yes Susan, that is a nasty attack.
Calling them whore haters doesn't seem very supportive to me.
Nobody is ignoring you. We hear you loud and clear. We just don't agree with you.
That is not what the judges said. I do believe they pointed out that the violence originated with pimps and johns. The laws did not create the dangers. The judge took care to point out that they were not making a judgement on whether or not prostitution should be legal. Their decision was entirely based on prostitution being legal, and the purpose of the laws being to curtail public nuisance. All Harper has to do is change the reason and design of the law to be for the protection of women, which will be easy to do given that there is an existing model gaining popularity in Europe.
That is why Alan Young made that comment about "playing the cards you draw". He knows what is about to happen. That's just my opinion of course. Maybe it means something else. Maybe I am wrong and Harper will let it slide.
pondering, i knew you would disect my post...line by line as always....thankyou.
I am not anti-sex worker and I am not a spammer. Most of my posts are in response to posts that were directed at me. There are a lot more of you than there are of me. If anyone is being swamped it's me. Many sex-workers are abolitionists. Not all sex-workers believe sex work should be legal.
Abolitionists have been attacked in this forum and I think there is a right of self-defence . I think I have shown plenty of restraint.
I don't lump them together. I fully acknowledge that there are women who prefer prostitution to any other form of work and indeed many who consider themselves sexual therapists and are very proud of what they accomplish professionally.
You turn to character assassination because you know your arguments are full of holes and your fairy tale version of prostitution is a small minority. You and Susan are the one's using the term "whore" while trying to pin it on abolitionists. Maybe you use the term so easily because you think it refers to women lower on the ladder than yourselves so you look down on them.
I think it is way better than disappearing the victims because they don't fit with the pretty woman version sex trade promoters want everyone to focus on. They resent you trying to stamp out the word "prostitute". I assure you I do not see either you or Susan as victims. Have no fear of that.
I don't want strippers to be forced to become prostitutes or lose their jobs the way they were forced to become lap dancers. Do you care about those sex workers? Do you care about the wages being driven down by competition? Do you care about the increase in child prostitution? Or do you just care about the opportunity to grow the sex industry?
You do not have a monopoly on caring about prostituted women whether they are there by choice or not.
Why do I have a hunch you don't think stripping should be legal, either? Maybe that's "next year's fight". It'll go nicely with the porn block.
Pondering has been informed that she/he is not welcome in this forum.
I'm not disagreeing with your decision, Rebecca, and maybe this is a question better suited for Reactions. What is the best way and forum for a debate to take place between abolitionists and others on the issue of prostitution on this Board? I have no interest in participating in the debate but I would assume the debate would be educational for me , and perhaps others, as well.
There is a thread in the Feminist Forum that presents a variety of positions on sex work. This forum is intended as a safe space for sex workers and others to discuss sex work without fear of being attacked for their position.
http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/progressives-abandon-class-analysis-pro...
Thanks, Rebecca. I'll focus my reading there.