Do you come from a land down under?
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover. – Ron Strykert & Colin James Hay
Perhaps it’s due to their geographical isolation, the reversal of the seasons, or their exposure to the Aurora Australis or some esoteric exhalation from the Antarctic regions or South Pacific. Or maybe it’s something in the food down there, or a frontier environment which fostered individualism without the congenital tumor of Puritanism which still afflicts America. But whatever the reason, it seems as though the people of Australia and New Zealand are a lot more practical and sensible than the rest of the English-speaking world about a lot of things, including sex work. As we’ve discussed before, New Zealand decriminalized prostitution entirely in 2003, and though our trade is only legalized in Australia most of the laws aren’t nearly as arbitrary and onerous as those of most legalization regimes. On May 12th the Prostitution Licensing Authority of the State of Queensland released an analysis of the Swedish Model, essentially dismissing it as a load of politically-motivated codswallop unsubstantiated by facts. The report is a joy to read; its arguments are lucid and its viewpoint so well-informed that I honestly had to keep reminding myself that it was a government report rather than a tract released by a sex worker rights organization! Here are a few highlights:
Gunilla Ekberg, Co-Executive Director, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and former Special Advisor to the Swedish Government…has previously said that: “My whole life has been about ending male violence against women”. That Ekberg could [make this] claim…indicates a peculiar zealotry. Her extremist, one-dimensional views are evident from this statement, describing clients of sex workers as sexual predators and rapists: “In prostitution, men use women’s and girls’ bodies, vaginas, anuses, mouths for their sexual pleasures and as vessels of ejaculation, over and over and over again. Prostitution is not sexual liberation; it is humiliation, it is torture, it is rape, it is sexual exploitation and should be named as such. Consequently, males who use women and girls in prostitution are sexual predators and rapists.” All sex workers are seen through the prism of passive victimhood and the proponents of the Swedish model deny that any person could ever freely choose to work in the sex industry. Ekberg argues that…the dominant position of men in society means that for women freedom of choice is illusory because it is not possible to choose from equal alternatives…Laws which in any way give legitimacy to the sex industry by legalising or decriminalising prostitution are decried as legitimating violence and abuse of women by males and entrenching patriarchy…
After a section describing the British flirtation with Swedish-style laws and a profile of Australian anti-prostitution crusader Sheila Jeffreys (which is so good I’m saving it for tomorrow), there is a discussion on “a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body, who she wants to have sex with, and the form that sex will take,” concluding with these paragraphs:
The problem with the radical feminist perspective of sex work is that it is inherently simplistic and relies on stereotypes. So that sex workers are all from marginalised and impoverished backgrounds, are poorly educated, drug addicted, have been abused as a child, are homeless, have been trafficked or coerced, and generally have no other choice but to prostitute themselves. This not only appeals to, but reinforces, commonly held community prejudices about sex workers. This is clear from…Swedish Government publication[s]…[which] ignore…that there are women (and men) in sex work from a wide variety of backgrounds who have consciously chosen to enter the sex industry after considering a range of options, and who have diverse motivations for selling sex. High earnings (without requiring formal qualifications) in combination with flexible working hours are generally cited as the predominant reasons for sex work…The Selling Sex in Queensland 2003 report found that about one in four sex worker respondents had completed a university degree. Similarly, the June 2009, Working in Victorian Brothels report found that, “sex worker respondents to this study revealed high levels of training”. This would tend to indicate that these individuals were involved in sex work not because of lack of education and other skills, not as a result of not having any alternative employment options but because they had chosen to sell sex…This certainly does not support the claim of Ekberg that, “99% of the women in prostitution are certainly not willing to be there”.
There are undoubtedly individuals who are selling sex who are unhappy and would rather not be doing it but the same could be said of any occupation. To some extent, freedom of choice is an illusory concept. If we were truly free, how many of us would be in our current jobs? An annual survey of United States job satisfaction found that only 45 per cent of respondents were happy with their jobs in 2009, down from 49 per cent in the previous year. This means that more than one in two workers are unhappy in their job. Why do they turn up to work each day, however reluctantly, even though they have no job satisfaction? Because they have a standard of living to maintain, mouths to feed, and a mortgage or rent and bills to pay. Because despite the drudgery, monotony and unpleasantness of dragging themselves to work each day, the consequences of not working are too awful to contemplate. Why should it be any different for sex workers?
…the inherently condescending and paternalistic (although maternalistic would be more apt) nature of the Swedish model…tells all women selling sex that they are victims and that they need saving, even if they do not realise or are incapable of realising it. It tells them that there is no way that they could possibly have chosen to be a sex worker or in the terminology of radical feminists, a ‘prostituted woman’. The Swedish law fundamentally infantilises women and tells them that they are incapable of making rational choices. It is the state telling those women, we do not actually care what you think, because we know best. In this regard, it is instructive that sex workers or sex worker organisations were not even consulted on the Swedish law. It would be hard to think of any other area of policy where the major stakeholders, those most affected by the law, were not even consulted. Rather than being supportive of women, some sex workers and commentators have argued that it is oppressive…
I promise, I had nothing to do with writing this report! The reason it sounds so much like what I write on the subject is that it’s the truth; two intelligent authors who respect the rights of individuals to self-determination, both looking at the same set of clear facts with open minds, are bound to make similar observations. The next section is an analysis of the claims made about the Swedish model; it draws upon work by Petra Östergren, Laura Agustín, Nick Davies and others to reach the same conclusions as Dodillet and Östergren did in the paper I quoted in my column of May 22nd. And here’s its conclusion:
The available evidence does not match the widely heralded rhetoric of the success of the Swedish model in practically eliminating prostitution. Even the best that the Swedish Government’s own Skarhed Report can conclude is that prostitution has not increased in Sweden. Hardly a ringing endorsement. There is some evidence that the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services has driven the sex industry underground and sex workers feel less secure and consider themselves at greater risk of violence. The law does not protect sex workers who have been left worse off as a result. Trafficking is conflated with prostitution, so that all migrant women engaging in prostitution must be victims of trafficking and exploitation. One of the worst effects has been to marginalise an already stigmatised group in society. Sex workers have described how they feel like second rate citizens and they are infantilised by being told they could not possibly have freely chosen to enter the sex industry. They are not prostitutes, and certainly not sex workers, but prostituted women. They are told that they are disempowered victims of male violence and exploitation, even if they are incapable of comprehending that themselves because of a false consciousness syndrome. Their own views and experiences are discounted. They are deprived of their autonomy and agency as individuals. This is incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy. Conversely, a harm minimisation model respects the right of adults to freely choose to enter the sex industry but puts in place measures to better protect the health, safety and welfare of sex workers and clients.
As I’ve said before, it’s really reassuring to know that at least some people who are not themselves sex workers get it.
This is awesome. Gives me some extra material, too.
Maggie, I’m going to be tapping you pretty hard for info. Some good news.
That’s OK; I like to be tapped hard. 😉
Doh! LOVE it. Did you send a copy of this report to the Farleys?
Oh, I’m sure they have it; maybe it’s wrong of me but I can just picture Sheila Jeffreys and Gunilla Ekberg getting their knickers in a twist over their very unflattering portrayal in a government report. 😀
Historically, some immigrants (Italians were particularly known for this) would come to the US to work until they had the amount of money they wanted and then return home. When the cash ran out, they’d return to the US and repeat the process, a practice called sojourning.
Are these women perhaps doing the same thing? Coming to the West (I can’t think of a better term) to work as a prostitute because it’s a way to earn a good amount of cash quickly and then returning home?
Are there American prostitutes who do the same sort of thing in the US? Work for as long as it takes to earn as much cash as they want and then quit working until the cash runs out?
Yes to all questions. Laura Agustin’s current column is about Chinese women doing that in New Zealand, European university students (especially Swedes) often work for the summer in the Middle East, and I knew a Mexican girl who spent each summer working in “Boys’ Town” in Nueva Laredo. The girl I’ve called Barbie used to do it, and several others I employed as well.
@Jason, a concrete example: I met a woman in a local club some time ago, where she was dancing. A famous beauty in South America, she had come to the US with the dream of opening a bar/restaurant. A year or so later, while dining at an (extremely) popular new restaurant, I glanced up to see the very same woman giving instruction to a number of staff – I asked the waiter who it was and, well, you guessed it: “that’s the owner,” he said.
“There are undoubtedly individuals who are selling sex who are unhappy and would rather not be doing it but the same could be said of any occupation”.
That’s the understatement of the millennium… any millennium. As Philip Larkin put it:
Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life?
Can’t I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off?
Six days of the week it soils
With its sickening poison –
Just for paying a few bills!
That’s out of proportion.
http://blue.carisenda.com/archives/cat_philip_larkin.html
This is indeed good news. Glad I decided to read this while drying off. I’m going to be at con for the weekend, and will likely not be here again until Monday (though Saturday morning is a dim possibility). It’s good to leave with good news. I’ll see you Monday.
Good News!
Do gooders always run the risk of discovering that the Common Man (or Woman), when offered what the Do Gooders believe they SHOULD want. will run in the opposite direction with some speed. This is why, as a class, Do Gooders despise freedom in all its forms. The Religious Do Gooders cannot abide Freedom of Religion because some people will inevitably choose the Wrong One, and thereby deprive themselves of the Do Gooders’ advice. Similar detestations exist for Dietary Do Gooders (who are currently running amok in our society), Drug Use Do Gooders, and (of course) Sexual Do Gooders. And the most glaring example comes with the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive Do Gooders, who have maintained since the end of the 19th century that they want a vast let’s-consult-everybody mechanism for setting prices, but who hate the free (or somewhat free) market – which more or less DOES consult everybody – precisely because it allows people to ignore them.
Good on the Diggers! I hope they have the courage to KEEP telling the Sexual Do Gooders where to get off.
Sounds like corporatism. Not what most people nowadays call corporatism, but what they called corporatism in the 1910’s to 1940’s when corporatism was considered a good thing.
Great stuff once again Maggie! As far as prostitution goes: Yes, it should be legal! Yes, what two or more consenting adults do is their own effing business! If you’re going to legalize it, you can’t do worse than the Nevada state model Thanks very much–you’re my new hero! 🙂
I’ll do my best to live up to it, Colin! 😉
There are some key cultural differences between Australia and the US. Far less religious influence, for one, right from the very start. You guys had the Puritans, we had Irish and English convicts. There’s no strong need to talk up one’s religious convictions to win elected office here, and our current Prime Minister is an atheist.
Many of our religious institutions are rather more progressive/liberal than yours. And, frankly, “progressive” and “liberal” are not dirty words here. Despite more overt government involvement in business we’re arguably more “free”.
All that said, NZ is much more sensible about a lot more.
The sad thing is that the Puritans and their ilk were greatly outnumbered by more sensible folks even here, but somehow they managed to cast an outsized shadow from which our whole culture has never been able to escape. 🙁
I’ve noticed over the years watching US politics and culture that at an institutional level the US really isn’t good at dealing with change. In almost all stable systems there’s a heavy resistance to change, but you guys take it to a whole new level: even with plenty of evidence that a specific change is a good idea, the response is always along the lines of “we’ve done it this way for 200 years, that it works somewhere else is not enough because America is Different”.
A lot of American culture has its roots in the early settlement period, and that was a much more religious time. Australian settlement came much later, religious zealotry in Britain had reduced considerably, so our starting point simply wasn’t as rigorous. Throw in that while we’re a quite conservative country we’re less resistant to change than the US, and we’re going to do some things you guys simply can’t, like legalised prostitution, universal healthcare, and varying levels of drug decriminlisation.
(Just three examples plucked out of the air, not saying any of them have much to do with any of the others.)
(Here I step away to put on my historian’s hat) (OK, now I’m back!)
It is commonplace to ascribe America’s “puritanical culture” to the Puritans. The Puritans certainly have had a lot of influence here in America. I think though that their direct influence was limited to their own era — mid-1600s through late 1700s. The influences that followed that era, I think, were responses to later events (which I’ll mention in a minute) from later groups who had no direct connections to the Puritan/Congregationalist New Englanders.
From perhaps the mid-1700s onward, the main cultural divide between Americans was America’s “settled society” and America’s frontier (which moved ever-westward of course). The American frontier always a lot more free-and-easy than “settled society” in America — and the various “Great Awakenings” in American history prompted Methodists and Baptists to try to “bring [the frontiersmen] to Jesus.”
What they were really trying to do, of course, was as much to “reform” the behavior of the frontiersmen as to “save the souls” of the frontiersmen. To change the frontiersmen from being “renegades” (as Thaddeus Russell calls them) into “civilized people” (as thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson — no Puritan, he! — would probably have called them).
Of course, part of being “civilized people”, in the 1800s, was to have that English Victorian-Era mindset. (Stiff upper lip; “lie back and think of England.”)
I recently finished reading Edith Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence” (1st Pulitzer-Prize winning book from a female author). It is set in the early 1870s, in the very tippy-top of the upper-most upper crust of New York’s highest society: the very few families in it were all connected through a very few people.
The whole of the book is told in the voice of a young man who grew up in that social setting. He is torn between the totally-predictable “respectable” life that his fiance promises, and the excitingly unpredictable (and disreputable) life that his attractive and notorious cousin might promise.
And *at no point in the novel* does the young man *ever* voice any of this turmoil to *either* of the women in his life — or to any other living soul. For, in that society, to say *anything* unexpected … to raise *any* topic that lay outside the boundaries of “respectability” … was Simply. Not. Done.
Even this ambivalent young man, who had a dim vision of a “life more interesting,” could not find words for that vision, and could not put words to it for his fiance/wife or beloved cousin.
This “civilized behavior,” I think, was also connected to what turn-of-the-century social reformers such as George Bernard Shaw called “middle-class morality.” (See Albert Doolittle, in his play “Pygmalion.”)
Was this behavior “Puritan?” That statement would be dubious, I think. I think it’s more important to propose that Aussies have retained a larger proportion of “renegades” than Americans have.
Which would translate into Australia perhaps having fewer *conventional* people — like Jefferson (and his probable mistress) and like the people in “The Age of Innocence” — than America has had.
“Civilization.” “Social conventions.” “Respectability.”
Defended by American evangelical protestants, of course — but not invented by them.
IMHO. YMMV. And the rest of the usual Internet disclaimers.
I first entered the world of sex work at 19. I was working as a cashier at a convenience store, making no money, and always at risk of being robbed at gun point for minimum wage. I got the chance to go to work in a strip bar, and that was the best choice for me. in 22 years of stripping, porn and escort work, I was never treated with as little respect as in retail.
This whole “Oh, you’re a helpless stupid victim” thing drives me mad. Everything I did in my career I agreed to.
Then, of course, they argue that there’s something wrong with me for agreeing to it.
That always makes me crazy as well, Comixchik; as I said in my “Prohibitionist glossary“, they think that “Swimwear modeling and $1000/hour escorting are exploitation, but cleaning toilets for minimum wage is not.” It’s impossible to argue with people whose minds are so closed to reality. 🙁
What drives those of us mad who are against prostitution for ourselves but choose to give sex away, keep it as free as possible, etc., is being called stupid also (how stupid you choose to not charge for sex, etc.). Also: have NO morals in any part of our lives or loose morals (at best…eyeroll), are having sex with anyone at any time (funny, but I’ve had certain standards on who I’ll have sex with from BEFORE the day I started sex only friendships. HHMM…yes, I compromised them a few times and plan to never do that again. But, overall, I’ve stuck to them. If I really think I’m so “pure” and “above” the women who DO charge, I wouldn’t ever say the above about how I have compromised my own standards at times. I would hide the fact to APPEAR “above it all” and “more pure”, etc.), we’re drunk/on drugs all the time or most of the time; we cry rape every chance we get when we’re drunk, etc.,; we have NO self-esteem; we’re literally dirty; we’ve had at least 1 STD; we really DO charge for sex by insisting on the men always paying on dates (I’ve never practiced that 1), insisting on gifts, etc. I could go on, unfortunately. The 1’s who say this about self-esteem wouldn’t like hearing about my life! My self-esteem GREW GREATLY once I put myself out there to SEE if: I really was horrible (like my abusive Mother told me for years); No man would ever want to have sex with me OR a relationship; No man would ever want me for even sex because I was big (have an eating disorder, etc.). ALL this was disproved QUICKLY. Yes, I self-destructed in at least a few ways during the majority of years I had sex only friends. BUT, that doesn’t take away from the fact that literally going out there to see if these things WERE true raised my self-esteem greatly! I’m so glad I took these chances! I disproved many lies I heard from my Mother PLUS many in society. ###*** these stereotypes/blanket statements! I’ve really learned from this place how the stuff said about women like me (who choose not to charge) and those who do (the prostitutes/ex-prostitutes on here) are pretty much the same. We have more in common than we let on at times (yes, I’ve been guilty of this at times also). I’ve needed to learn this. It’s very sad to me these things are said of both types. Also horrible that some won’t even WANT to be your friend if you’re EITHER of these types.
Laura, it’s not the payment or the lack thereof that causes moralists such outrage; it’s sexuality, period. To a moralist, sex is something disgusting and filthy which must be “sanitized” in some way; traditional Judeo-Christian religion sanitizes it by confining it within marriage, hiding it in the dark and sanctifying its result (motherhood), neofeminism sanitizes it by restricting it to lesbian activity, etc. The moralist reacts to unsanitized sex in the same way normal people would react to someone defecating on the floor of a public room.
This observation, too, hits the nail squarely on the head, I think.
I think that the horror with which “nice” people recoil from the thought that a woman might enter sex work of her own free will is deeply connected to the horror with which those same people react to the notion that a woman might actually be willing to have sex with someone she’s not married to.
The horror is all the greater if the woman actually *wants* to have sex with ditto.
“Inconceivable! Unthinkable! Someone must — MUST, I say — be lying about this!!!”
I’m suddenly reminded of a quote from Richard Burton, about Liz Taylor’s many marriages and divorces. Someone had called her “immoral,” because of her many divorces. Burton replied, “No, Liz is a very moral woman. She refuses to sleep with someone she is not married to.”
*shrug* I believe he said that in the 1960s.
Consider how many people use the words slut and whore interchangeably, and both as insults. What do those two words mean, and what do they have in common?
a) They are applied to women, and
b) they both mean that she is having sex with more than one guy.
The only difference is that the dirty nasty whore gets payed and the dirty nasty slut does not. But the reason that both are dirty and nasty is because they’re having sex with different men.
If one does not believe that having sex with multiple men makes a woman dirty and nasty (I don’t, and most of you don’t), then again, what’s the difference between the woman who charges multiple men for sex and the woman who gives it away to multiple men? Not much.
Dear Sailor B, the thing is there ARE some differences and some of those come from WHY are they doing it? There’s less differences than are made out, yes! And ###*** anyone who says that the reasons for doing things a certain way in the sexual area are literally “dumb” or you think you’re “above it all”, “more pure”, etc. The thing is that stuff can be said by women who charge and those who don’t. Is it right if either side does that? NO and it shouldn’t be. How about focusing on what’s in common and work for a better understanding instead of analyzing things to death, making ASS-umptions, etc.? Some POSITIVES, which are very needed in this society where so many negatives and cynical, defeatist mindsets are pushed constantly.
What’s funny is that whenever you hear “dirty nasty whore” or “dirty nasty slut” it’s usually in porn or said by men online who consume porn and use the services of sex workers. (The moralists may think it, but they don’t use that language). So it’s not just the overt moralists who are setting all of that up. It’s men – moralists and johns alike – against women – all women. Moralism doesn’t have much to do with it. It’s patriarchy.
You obviously have never read much from neofeminists; they are far more abusive to other women than any man who isn’t actually sociopathic. “Patriarchy” as feminists portray it is a load of nonsense, like the neofeminist version of the Illuminati or the Elders of Zion, and just as imaginary.
I actually have read a little by neofeminists, and I have never heard any of them call a woman “a dirty nasty whore.” Correct me if I am wrong. As for patriarchy, I respectfully disagree. I will concede that everyone in this society hates women, and most of all whores. But I don’t think you can pin it all on the moralists and the feminists. Regular guys certainly contribute their share.
I have never received the kind of hatred I get often from women from any non-fanatical man, ever. And I’ve known a LOT of people in almost five decades on this planet. And yes, they call us “nasty whores” and much worse; one of their most popular ones right now is “toilets”. Let that sink in.
Yes, I believe you. Of course, you would know. I”m sorry you were treated like that, especially in the name of feminism.
‘It would be hard to think of any other area of policy where the major stakeholders, those most affected by the law, were not even consulted.’
Unfortunately, I can think of many examples in which that is the case, drug laws being the most obvious.
That’s true. How often are acid droppers or ecstasy eaters asked about what should be done with LSD or MDMA? Who cares what a stoner thinks of marijuana laws?
Reformed druggies, repentant druggies, oh hell yeah. But the Man never seems to care what the people most affected (for good and for ill) by drug use thinks about drug laws.
“and though our trade is only legalized in Australia most of the laws aren’t nearly as arbitrary and onerous as those of most legalization regimes.”
This is completely incorrect. Every state and territory in Austraia has different models of regulation. NSW was first to decrim sex work in the world in 1995…. South Australia on the other hand it is completely criminalised under laws from the 1930’s and is heavily policed. every other state and territory has very onerous and arbitary forms of regulation and criminalisation. like mandatory testing. like police registration. like having to work alone etc etc etc (different laws for each state, all policed)
I apologize for the error; I only found out about South Australia’s laws after writing this, and I’ve reported since on your drive toward decriminalization (including a link one of your own articles). Unfortunately, as an American every kind of legalization looks better to me than what we have!
Australian parliamentary reports are very often the epitome of well researched good sense, bringing contributions from a wide range of stakeholders and experts together into a surprisingly coherent whole. They are generally well balanced and highly educational to read.
Which is why the parliamentary parties generally ignore them.
Two of the three parliamentary inquiries into forensic DNA evidence in which I participated brought down recommendations so close to my own thinking I could almost have dictated them. The legislation they were supposed to inform reflected nothing of that.
Reblogged this on Pycraftsworld’s Weblog.
Having been reading chronologically through the blog from day 1, I’ve just experienced a huge relief that, at last, the triumph of reason and good sense over discriminatory rhetoric and moralising use of force has dawned.
Tho I’ve never engaged the service of a Lady of Negotiable Affections before, I agree with the view that it is, in essence, a service industry exchange between consenting adults; each chooses to engage in an instinctive human drive with the other, and this is separated from their motivations and rewards for being intimate. In the best circumstances, each is concerned with the wellbeing of the other, seeking not to cause harm, but to prevent or even relieve it.
Those genuinely coerced into the industry, wether by intimidation or force, whom I agree are in the minority when objective scientific truth is established, deserve *protection when they request it*, not prosecution. The latter is both morally and socially repugnant, and turns the *state into a worse abuser than thier original coercers*.
Personally, any woman making a free choice to consent to sex with me, thus having the will to see past my obvious physical undesirablity, would have my respect, admiration and desire to reciprocate her favour (in the old courtly sense of that word, a usage that has become rarer). I fail to understand those who treat them with disrespect, anger and violence; this is anathema.
“The world needs all its lovely ladies” – Derek Morgan