The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices which they would not have made if they had seen what the realization of their choices involved. – A.J. Ayer
In prohibitionist regimes all over the world, the first feeble rays of light are beginning to creep into the brains of those who, while perhaps not actually prohibitionists themselves, have always gone along with government policy on the matter. Judges, legislators, police, journalists, academics and other “pillars of the community”, secure in the status quo, have long accepted prohibitionist rhetoric about the “necessity” of suppressing the sex trade, whether that rhetoric is traditional (social morality and “public health and safety”), legalistic (“neighborhood deterioration” due to streetwalkers and the self-reinforcing “associated crime” argument), hysterical (“sex trafficking”) or neofeminist (prostitution as “inherently degrading and exploitative”). But now the internet has made our once-invisible world (the demimonde as the French call it) far more visible to outsiders, enabled articulate sex workers to write about our lives and views, restricted the ability of prohibitionist governments to hide the truth from those who care to look beneath the propaganda, and enabled intelligent, informed citizens to criticize repressive policies and expose misinformation. And because of this, many of the aforementioned pillars of the community are beginning to realize that, whatever personal discomfort they may have with prostitution, either the prohibitionist laws themselves or at least the ways in which they are enforced are in violation of basic civil rights and create dangerous conditions for real, living women. In today’s column I’d like to look at a few recent examples of writings by such people; none of them seem to like whores very much, but all of them apparently recognize that attempting to abolish prostitution altogether is not the answer.
I first started thinking about this last Tuesday morning when Kelly Michaels called my attention to this article by a retired New York City police detective (on a police technology website, no less!) which, though it mentions the same old tired excuses for criminalization, also contains this paragraph:
I had seen his face hundreds of times before, but never knew his name until now. He lives in a beautiful house, just off the “Members’ Tees” at the 11th hole at my golf club. A pleasant looking chap in his mid-sixties…after seeing his name and photograph in my local newspaper I seemed to recall that his wife had died a couple of years ago. Sad, but death is a natural part of life. Sad, too, was the reason that his name and picture were in the newspaper: patronizing a prostitute. Yes, a police “sting” operation had finally brought him to justice. This depraved individual was now off the streets. Society was now safe from his need for companionship, or simple sexual satisfaction. We were all safe, now that his crime was exposed for all to see. All it took was some hot looking babe with big breasts and a short skirt, and, oh yeah, a badge.
I think of this story every time I get to the 11th Tee. I must admit; I do have mixed feelings about investigating and enforcing the prostitution laws. There are some very good reasons behind the various state statutes…[but] there is also a very good, time proven reason for prostitution to exist: the human need for sexual contact.
Considering the source, that’s practically a shout of “Decriminalization now!” But he’s not the only cop who’s beginning to recognize the damage done by criminalization; in England, the Association of Chief Police Officers has called for a debate over prostitution laws so as to change them to protect prostitutes from violence. While some local jurisdictions in England (such as Liverpool and Merseyside) have adopted a progressive approach to reducing violence by tolerating prostitution, others (such as Blackpool and Bradford) prefer American-style antics which endanger women by forcing them onto the street; decriminalization (or at least law reform) would put an end to such irresponsible and asinine behavior by prohibiting it from above.
Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, the Western Gazette of Canada published an editorial supporting decriminalization; though the editorialist seems to consider it a given that most women want to leave prostitution and makes the absurd statement “It would be ideal if society had no prostitutes or sex trade industry,” he also places partial blame for the murders of prostitutes on prohibitionist laws and includes the following paragraphs:
Laws criminalizing prostitution do more harm than good. By striking down these laws, Ontario has modernized its view of prostitution, putting the province more in line with European countries. Governments overseas abandoned the perspective that criminalization was the cure for society’s woes long ago.
The United States has taken that approach for years with their infamous War on Drugs. The country poured billions into criminalizing drug addicts to no avail. This not only forced addicts into even more peril, but it failed to stop the drug problem. Addicts, like prostitutes, often have few alternatives once they enter their situation. Making laws to deny them safety and protection just adds fuel to the fire.
Though comparing whores to addicts is both ignorant and insulting, the author at least recognizes that prohibition is not only dangerous but also ineffective in accomplishing what it was supposed to accomplish. Meanwhile, in Vancouver, a group named “FIRST” has become the only mainstream feminist organization in North America to advocate decriminalization; this article not only advances that position, but also debunks the ridiculous myth that vast numbers of prostitutes flock to major sporting events such as the Super Bowl, Olympics or World Cup:
However, there is no evidence of dramatic, let alone “explosive,” growth in sex industry activity at large sporting events. In 2006, we saw headlines that 40,000 women would be trafficked into Germany for soccer’s World Cup. The Swedish government funded an independent report that conclusively found that an increase in human trafficking did not occur, either during or after the World Cup. The report concluded, “The 40,000 estimate was unfounded and unrealistic.”
After the last four [Olympic] Games (Turin 2006, Athens 2004, Salt Lake City 2002, and Sydney 2000), there were almost no confirmed reports on the numbers of sex workers, level of violence or other associated factors. Notably, almost all anecdotal reports suggested no obvious change in level of activity. During the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney, where sex work is legal, only a marginal increase in prostitution was reported. In Salt Lake City, one confirmed report indicated that city licenses for escort services increased by only 12 per cent in the period leading up to the Winter Games.
A few individual mainstream feminists outside Canada have also seen the light. This article about Wendy Chapkis, a professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Southern Maine, makes many of the same points as I and many other whores make about the advantages of our profession and the reasons for decriminalization. And in the Philippines, legislator Susan Yap advocates that prostitution be decriminalized and police resources directed toward chasing the “pimps” who “lure prostitutes into the business.” Yap’s stated goal is to eradicate prostitution by hunting the men she assumes force most of the women into it, which probably means anti-brothel and “living off the avails” laws as in the UK and Canada, but that’s still a step in the right direction from Manila’s current policy of US-style criminalization.
Slowly but surely, anti-whore attitudes founded in ignorance and maintained by propaganda are beginning to erode, and even some who would prefer to see our profession abolished are beginning to realize that prohibition is not the answer, and indeed endangers the women it claims to be interested in protecting. Reluctant allies like Susan Yap and the editor of the Gazette may not be as helpful as educated advocates like Wendy Chapkis and the women of “First”, but I’ll take them over trafficking fetishists and Swedish Model proponents any day of the week.
I find it understandable that cops should be among those beginning to change their views. I imagine that, all in all, cops are people like everybody else, and those who have seen sufficiently many prostitutes arrested and cases similar to that john who was busted in the sting operation may have seen enough to begin to realize that the mainstream view of their being only victims is exaggerated.
In fact, the one prostitute that I briefly befriended when I was in grad school actually mentioned one such cop who was also ‘beginning to realize’ the wrongness of what they were doing and who helped her escape arrest a couple of times without expecting anything in return.
Slowly but surely, anti-whore attitudes founded in ignorance and maintained by propaganda are beginning to erode, and even some who would prefer to see our profession abolished are beginning to realize that prohibition is not the answer
That is true. For a while, however, even though probably actions and law will slowly move away from the ‘pure’ prohibitionist model, the target will still be to curb the number of prostitues down as low as it will go — if possible to erradicate prostitution completely. This probably means that the Swedish model will become more popular (curiously enough, there is still opposition to it on the basis that it does in principle make prostitution legal — something that many people would still find unacceptable on principled grounds, no matter how extremely difficult the criminalization of johns makes the work of prostitutes) before society can move beyond it.
The last battle will probably be the ethics of prostitution itself–whether or not it victimizes all/most/a significant percentage of prostitutes, or whether it is ‘demeaning’ to women in general (as the radfems say, even if there indeed are specific prostitues who are happy with their careers, they are still sending ‘a message of support to gender oppression’, etc. etc. etc.). These ideas are still taken for granted even by people who are beginning to oppose criminalization, and they probably will be the last to disappear. Old ideas die hard.
The idea of “prostitute as victim” is not an old one; though it has cropped up periodically in the past, it did not become a mainstream notion until the late 19th century and did not become a popular mainstream notion until the late 20th. This is why it’s important to fight it wherever it appears; we don’t need another insulting, harmful fallacy to become entrenched, especially not one which undermines our arguments by painting us as emotionally damaged incompetents. 🙁
That is actually true — Laura Augustín also said that in her blog. My bad!
Maggie, do you happen to know what were the most popular visions of prostitutes before the 19th century? Especially ‘popular’ prostitutes, not those in the king’s court? What have people thought throughout the time after the fall of the Roman Empire about those who sell sex? Do you already have a post on that?
It’s tough to know what the common people who lived before the invention of the poll thought about common prostitutes; all we have to go on is the fact that throughout most of history 5-10% of the adult female population at any given time were prostitutes, and there doesn’t seem to have been any great outcry against them. To be sure, most “good” women looked down on them, but no more than they might look down on others they considered morally suspect. Prior to the birth of the “Purity Movement” in the mid-19th century pushes to regulate, control or abolish prostitution were always imposed from the top down by government, clergy or others who thought they had a right to tell others what to do. It was only when the people were successfully convinced of the “evil” of prostitution a century and a half ago that wholesale prohibition became possible.
My column of November 26th discussed the Catholic Church’s historical views on the subject, which you may find interesting.
Indeed. Thanks!
I’d love to believe that the snowball will only grow from here. But these things are fickle and tend to stagger rather than run… or even walk. Things show hints of getting better, but then they will get worse somewhere else, and then better…
It’ll be two steps forward, one step back, except when it’s two steps back, and (hopefully very rare occasions!) when it’s three steps back. The progress is still in a forward direction, but with no way of knowing if you will be going forward, backward, or standing still on any given day.
But yes, these are at least the hints that we will soon be stepping forward again.
One way that I like to judge the ‘public’ opinion in regards to news stories or commentaries on the subject of prostitution is to read the comments that are left by readers afterwards. A general trend I see in most of these is the legalize and tax it statements along with ‘Oh great job, meanwhile real crime cases are growing cold while cops are out getting freaky with women to try and bust them.’ It would be nice if those in power read those public comments.
I agree; I discussed that in my columns of September 28th and November 4th. 🙂
Oops! I’m still catching up on my reading here from before I found your blog 🙂
Don’t apologize, girl! I’m so damned long-winded I expect most of my readers who came in after day one have a lot they haven’t seen; that’s why I like to link pertinent articles. And you did me a favor anyhow because my WordPress statistics show that the column from September 28th has been read fewer times than almost any other one. 🙂
Nah, you clearly have it all wrong. The only reason prohibition fails, whether it be about gambling, drug use, pornography, or prostitution, is simply because the enforcement isn’t aggressive enough. We just need to pump more money into it, hire more cops, arm them with more modern weapons, make the penalties MUCH more harsh, and force people who get caught into mandatory re-education facilities (known as concentration camps in the good ol’ days of law and order). You people who talk about legalization are a bunch of criminal-coddling pussies whose only answer to crime is to surrender to the criminals.
(I tried to be sarcastic enough so anyone reading the above would know I wasn’t being serious, but the problem is there are people out there who really think like that, so sarcasm isn’t always recognizable. — Pretty fucking sad, huh?)
😉