I’m nobody, who are you? – Emily Dickinson
It’s a kind of black joke among sex workers that everyone is an expert in our lives except us. That poorly-named, rare quality called “common sense” would tell anyone who possessed it that in order to understand what any given profession, trade, lifestyle or other social phenomenon is actually like, one must talk to those who actually live it. But because so-called “common sense” is anything but common, all too many fools are all too ready to listen to people who have never done sex work, yet proclaim themselves experts in our lives. What’s worse, they insist that they know them better than we do, that we are suffering from “false consciousness” and are therefore unfit to talk about what sex work is like…unless we agree with them, of course, at which point we instantly and miraculously become experts not only in our own experiences, but those of all other sex workers of every background, type and temperament in every country in the world.
And so, barely the week passes that we don’t see some new, self-appointed “sex trafficking” expert crawl out from under a rock, seeking to gobble up as much attention and money as possible before the hysteria ends. Interestingly, when these “experts” first appear, they often make unorthodox statements; before too long, however, they fall into line with the catechism, and nobody ever notices that they’ve changed their tunes. Here’s an example of one of these hyenas; I’ve chosen to feature her not only to demonstrate the rhetorical shift I mentioned and to highlight the nonsense these revolting opportunists vomit out, but also to share a rare example of whores being able to orchestrate an effective rebuttal to one of the yellow articles which mindlessly parrot the dogma. Her name is Lindsey Roberson, and I’m sure everyone reading this totally believes that her sex appeal had absolutely nothing to do with obtaining a spotlight for her wicked crusade against other women who use their sex appeal to make a living:
The elemental difference between sex trafficking and freelance prostitution is in who has the control and who is keeping the money, Roberson says. If a girl or a woman is being forced or coerced by a pimp to perform sex acts without monetary gain, that’s trafficking…Educating law enforcement, injecting hope for victims of sex trafficking and fear for the perpetrators of it in North Carolina has become 31-year-old Roberson’s mantle…[she helped write]…the…Safe Harbor bill…[that] would allow prostituted women to wipe their records clean…and…instill harsher penalties for pimps…the North Carolina Coalition to Combat Human Trafficking ranks North Carolina in the top 10 states for the problem. The convergence of three major highways connecting much of the East Coast, the state’s large transient military population, agricultural roots, and ports…all make it attractive to traffickers, Roberson says…Roberson’s interest in trafficking started with…New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and articles he wrote about sex trafficking…she…is also on the board of a new faith-based effort…called the Centre of Redemption… “Prostitution is not just the oldest profession…it’s the oldest oppression, and it has to stop.”
This hodgepodge is a lot more telling to those of us who are actual experts than Roberson might like. Of course there’s North Carolina’s unusually-idiotic entry in the King of the Hill competition (which bizarrely claims that low-population areas are especially attractive to “traffickers”), but we’ve seen that one before. No, the really interesting part is that though she’s solidly a fundie (who claims God wants her to persecute people), she’s “inspired” by arch-“progressive” nanny-state cheerleader Nick Kristof and is happy to use neofeminist terms and slogans, thus demonstrating once again the absurdity of the artificial “left-right” framework and showing that puritans will get into bed with anybody to advance their war on consensual sex. But though back in July Roberson admitted that many prostitutes were in the trade of our own free will and even seemed to imply we’re the majority, somebody must have “corrected” her because by late August she was saying this:
…Roberson adds that public misconceptions about sex trafficking are also part of the problem. “There’s this myth of choice, that a woman chooses to get into this. Find me a college educated, well adjusted woman who’s had tons of opportunities in her life, who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one and then chooses to sell her body for sex. Nobody does that. These people are coming from situations of desperation.”
The rest of the article is the usual “300,000 children-average age of entry is 13-Backpage is evil-selling their bodies” idiocy, right down to the Profession of Faith. But for some reason Roberson’s vile attempt to slander nearly every sex worker I know, her wicked attempt to erase us from existence, her disgusting declaration that I either don’t exist or am a liar, really pissed me off. So I commented on the story and then went onto Twitter to ask others to do the same: the result is an unbroken string of 11 women, mostly university-educated, repudiating Roberson’s claims. If any of you reading this haven’t added yours yet, please do so; we want everyone who reads that story to see the truth right next to Roberson’s lies. Will it do any good? Probably not discernibly so. But minds are changed one at a time, and I know I’ve changed many with this blog and via Twitter. If even a couple of people reading that story see through the “trafficking” scam because of those comments, the slight effort we had to expend was well worth it. And one day, after the hysteria collapses and we’ve repeated this sort of action umpteen thousand more times, the public will at last collectively come to realize that even if they don’t like our choices, they were ours to make and no mythic “pimps” or cartoon-villain clients forced us into them.
As a man I have to agree with your statements
It is really surprising how many critics of sex workers don’t really know anything about what is going on. Many educated women do this work for profit on the one side and the excitement on the other side.
How does anyone have the right to judge those women? They don’t judge others.
Based on her own logic shouldn’t she be focused on giving women a college education and “tons of opportunities”? By all means give prostitutes scholarships: if they are sold >50 times per night they should be awarded Ivy League places, <50 get a full ride to state school. If they continue to be trafficked during college then she can pay for their graduate school tuition
Back again to this fucking myth that somehow a college education “makes” a person. As if … you’re only a “half-person” if you didn’t complete college.
Here’s a news flash – in the wake of Katrina I retired from the Navy (no college degree) and was hired into a PhD position for a government contractor. I was hired DURING the interview. I told the interviewer … “this job’s a PhD position? You know I don’t have one right? I don’t even have a batchelor’s nor an associate’s”.
After meeting me – she didn’t care what my level of education was.
I managed a government contract with 13 contractors working under me. 12 programmers and one secretary. Me, at the top of the contract, and the secretary at the bottom – were the LEAST educated of the lot. I was paid more than any of them – at least 1.5 times more than the highest paid college grad there.
Sorry – but I didn’t find these college boys and girls to be any better than the 18-24 year old non-college educated ENLISTED kids I led in the Navy. In fact – I found them to be much worse. These “college grads” had horrific writing skills – I began to think my only function on the contract was to translate for these barely literate computer “geniuses”. I had to constantly be on these guys and herding them, like cats, toward the goal.
Conversely – the Enlisted kids I led aboard the ship were “fire and forget”. They made ME look like a great leader. Give ’em a task … they ran with it and reported back when they were done. I really didn’t have to supervise them at all. When I was at the White House – I led a unit of 100 enlisted kids – my fucking God – these kids were so smart and so far out in front of the ball all I did I was get them the tools and resources they needed to do their job.
Heh … Imagine if I said something like … “Well show me a girl who’s been in the military who chooses to enter the business of prostitution.”
Imagine if I said … “Meh, you don’t really have a clue in life, or a work ethic, unless you’ve served in the military.”
You guys would be all the fuck over me.
And yet – somehow – this COMPLETE MYTH that somehow college educated people are the only “REAL PEOPLE” on this planet is an accepted myth?
Give me a break.
And don’t give me this bullshit that college degrees earn more money over the course of their lifetime. I earn a six figure salary and I deliberately took a DRASTIC cut in pay when I left that contract manager position. All those statistics don’t take into account the numerous ways I MAKE money. I don’t have one job – I have SEVERAL – and I also heavily invest in stock on the side.
Give me a fucking break – 90 percent of the college English Professor’s aren’t even remotely in MY league.
And by the way – just how “legitimate” is this anonymous parade of women in a dick measuring contest supposed to accomplish anything? Hell, I could log in and assign myself a female name and claim I was an Oxford grad. It’s a wasted effort unless the girls want to “out” themselves publicly.
Not at all; it only needs to impress the idiots who believe whatever they read on the internet, like ridiculous and unsupported claims about “sex trafficking”.
A parade of anonymous personalities isn’t going to impress even the idiots – because “Tushy Galore” and “Busty Bruiser” don’t have college degrees – at least not with THOSE names printed on the diploma. Most of the “idiot” crowd is still smart enough to suspect anonymous internet personalities. Brad Paisley even wrote a song and made a video with William Shatner about it and it’s hilarious …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ
This woman’s “crime” is elitism – which is a much more embarrassing crime to attack her on.
Once you eliminate the military not having a college degree is only working against you. You will have a better chance of getting a good job. A college degree does not guarantee that someone will be a success or even make more money but it does improve the odds. It’s great that you have been able to make such a success out of yourself without an advanced degree but don’t think every high school graduate is going to be able to duplicate what you’ve done. Some people are natural born leaders and others are followers. Obviously you are the former.
I’m absolutely NOTHING SPECIAL – that’s what makes this all hilarious.
It’s not the college degree that makes the difference – it’s having a plan, or at least knowing how to move the ball down the field until the plan becomes clear. If college is part of the plan – then great. If it’s not … that’s great too – if it’s a good plan.
The problem is – we tell every kid that he’s nobody unless he graduates college – so all of ’em go! A lot of those kids really don’t want to be there – but they’re there because society told them that’s what they have to do. John Kerry makes a statement saying study hard for an education – or you’ll end up in Iraq … and those with college degrees just bob their heads up and down because THEY DON’T KNOW there is another route.
It’s elitism – and I’m sick of it. I went to college for three semesters but I SUCK so bad at math – I was limited to the liberal arts stuff – which I’m good at – but I knew it wouldn’t pay anything. When I dropped out – I felt like a failure, at the age of 20. I didn’t drink or smoke or party – I was just trying to move down the pipe that society told me to move down – and when it didn’t work, I felt I had failed.
For a little while – and then I started seeing the light.
When I was the CMC of a cruiser – I started having all these college graduates showing up to work in Deck Division – painting the ship. These kids did what society told them to do – GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES. They did … and these kids were so loaded down with debt they couldn’t get even a SECRET clearance (which is really easy to get for anyone). The only thing I could use them for was manual labor – painting the ship, chipping rust – really shitty jobs (by most people’s standards anyway – I used to enjoy chipping and painting). Anyway – it didn’t work out for them, and they joined the Navy because we agreed to pay off huge chunks of their college loans … and give a “sign on” bonus to boot. They were the most expensive paint chippers the Navy ever recruited and the American taxpayer footed that whole bill!
If I could have gotten those kids right out of high school – I could have gotten them the clearances they needed and fitted them to a job they LIKED – something that might have even given them a lifelong career. I did this with a lot of kids. Fuck, I know an inner city kid who was a GANG MEMBER who reported to my ship and he started out at the very bottom. But even with his gang involvement – he was able to get a clearance (which is why I say it’s easy to get)! LOL – we found him a job he liked – and now he’s out of the Navy making six figures working with Raytheon overseas. He loves it!
But you WILL NEVER see that guy highlighted on any “success story” program because he did it without a college degree and the catechism states flat out that success without one is almost impossible!
I totally agree; some of the stupidest people I’ve met were university educated. Some were even professors, lawyers and politicians.
What’s worst about college grads is not their “education” (which is often not as good as they think it is, especially if it is in a worthless field like Women’s Studies or Cultural Studies or some such guff). It’s their preening sense of superiority. You can feel it wafting off them in waves as they serve you your grande caramelatte. LOL.
{–College attending non-graduate here. I’m pretty smart and I’ve done okay for myself. 🙂
She isn’t just saying that a college education makes one too good for prostitution, she’s wanting “a college educated, well adjusted woman who’s had tons of opportunities in her life, who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one” to be her example. Not just college educated, but basically a perfect life.
I don’t see anybody here bitching and moaning about how you’re only a “half-person” if you aren’t in a “healthy relationship,” or if you don’t have “tons of opportunities.”
Just think of all the jobs this wondrous woman probably doesn’t take: maid service, burger flipping, waiting tables, garbage collection. After all, if you have both a college education and tons of opportunity, (and are well-adjusted and in a healthy relationship to boot) there’s no reason to settle for anything less than middle management for starters, or maybe go straight into astronaut training.
Take it from someone who used to be a classical music arts manager’s associate (an allegedly high-powered, “glamorous” job) and just this past week began a job at a tea shop: opportunities and education are not accurate predictors of happiness or satisfaction. I’m much happier now than I was in the field I was educated for.
Of course I have friends and relatives who think I’m “wasting” myself in retail. Sigh.
And you seem pretty well-adjusted to. 😉
Um, sure, whatever you say, big guy. 😉
I read Maggie’s column regularly; I also read Popehat (see “Friends of Whores”). Popehat has A LOT to say about the Prenda shysters, Charles Carreon, and other disgraceful lawyers. Prosecutor Roberson, do you want to make a name for yourself? Do you want to be more than just another pretty face? Do you want to be on the cover of Time? Instead of going after low-hanging fruit like prostitutes, become the bane of North Carolina crooked attorneys. Of course, you’d find yourself getting disinvited from a lot of law-school buddies’ Christmas parties, so I can understand why you’d pass up the chance.
I will never forget those two women, whom I met behind windows over here in the Netherlands, who both had their laptops with them, so they could spend time on their studies in between tricks. Both of them were students from Amsterdam, working out of town.
I even ran into one of them in Amsterdam a couple of months later. She (actually, one of the nicest people I ever met) was with a bunch of fellow students in front of one educational institution there. I know for sure, it was her, if only because ostensibly she recognized me first, and had a very individual haircut. So now I knew absolutely for sure, she was a student indeed. And a happy one, on top of that.
All too true. However, for quite a few occupations I think you have to actually do them for a time to really understand them and talking to somebody that has done that will only show that talking about it is not enough. No idea where sex-work falls, but I am quite happy if those that work in this field say it is fine for them.
“Find me a college educated, well adjusted woman who’s had tons of opportunities in her life, who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one and then chooses to sell her body for sex.”
This whole sentence is a trick, first of all because of “who’s had tons of opportunities in her life.” I read this as “a ton of attractive job opportunities that are better than sex work.”
I suppose that if a woman is given the choice of CEO at Hewlett-Packard and putting ads in Backpage, it would be unlikely that she’d choose sex work (unless the stress of the CEO job was horribly unappealing).
That’s not why women choose sex work in my experience. They’re usually choosing between a bunch of poorly paid, low prestige jobs… or supplementing their income at a high prestige but low paid position ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900867.html ). Incidentally, the unfortunate Brandy Britton would seem to fit the exact example that this woman is claiming never happens.
So, the first thing she does is take the idea of sex work as a job out of the equation. (I guess poor, uneducated women who do sex work to make ends meet don’t matter in this equation at all.)
Then we get a bunch of nonsense on stilts: “well adjusted” “who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one” “chooses to sell her body for sex.”
Here we have commercial sex work conflated with the idea that promiscuous women are mentally ill. The idea that women get involved in sex work for reasons other than high pay and short hours. If a woman is an independently wealthy heiress or has a great “normal” career, she can still choose to take as many lovers as she pleases. Nothing stops her.
More importantly, while she may be judged for this activity, she will not be arrested for it. (In fact, I think that sex workers act as a fortress wall here. If sex work could be eradicated, the next group under attack would be women who are promiscuous for free. )
Women may be promiscuous because it’s fun for them, but women do sex work for money. Why do the antis never get that?
You wrote, essentially, what I was about to comment until I read yours.
Besides the fact that by “it’s-a-matter-of-fact/we-all-know-this” establishing this “woman” as the standard, Roberson is inadvertently disparaging any women LESS than “college-educated…etcetera”, her opening statement is crafted with rhetorical and logical fallacies. Her opening statement:
1) Creates her “model woman” by utilizing subjective if not ambiguous qualifiers (“…well adjusted”…”tons”… “opportunities”…”understands”… “healthy”…”relationship”…”actually experienced”…) which allow Roberson, “ad hoc rescue,” to disqualify any women who might seem to meet those criteria (e.g. by subjectively asserting that a prostitute who says she’s had “opportunities” hasn’t actually had ADEQUATE opportunities).
2) Fails to provide even one example of a woman who meets all her criteria.
3) Proceeds from the premise that such a woman as she describes would never choose to sell her body for sex work, yet never offers evidence such as statistics or survey research to prove her premise.
4) Employs the imperative “Find me” to impact readers with a sense of “my statement is unassailable, how dare anyone believe otherwise”, giving herself the status of “I’m an expert/authority” and tactically intimidating if not shaming readers for any questioning of her premise.
Heck, if Roberson ever leaves the anti crusade, she ought to go into advertising and craft infomercials. Or, politics.
It’s pretty obvious that Roberson considers herself to be such an exemplary of female humanity. So basically we’re back to “Well I would never do that, so NOBODY should ever do that!”
…yep, I agree Sailor.
I could at least respect Roberson for honesty if she’d straight-forward said just that.
Actually, I know of at least one. A lady I frequented in my “salad days” calling herself Cindy Moore. Gave up her assistant professorship at a local college to enter the business. Smart, well-read on a variety of subjects. I used to book her for an extra half-hour when I could just to talk about different subjects.
“The brain is the greatest sex organ of them all.”–Robin Williams
Exactly, freegirard, as others have also personally anecdoted, and as the women mentioned in Maggie’s post expressed about themselves.
My own anecdote: during our marriage, my own wife, to whom I’ve been married nearly 35 years and with whom I have several now-adult children and grandchildren, and whom people would describe as a “normal, regular wife, mother, and neighbor, ” has been doing part-time webcam sex work for a couple years and did a little escort sex work for a few years. My wife could have worked at other jobs, but chose sex work because it better suited her situation.
My point was that Roberson had the burden to provide evidence supporting her premise that no such sex workers exist, yet did not. She built her conclusion on air using intimidation.
And, of course, Roberson’s”seem-to-describe-something-but-really-specify-nothing” open-ended qualifiers are malleable enough to allow her to define them however she needs in order to disqualify your acquaintance, the women Maggie mentioned who rebutted her, my wife, and anyone else who “dares” rock her illusionary boat.
Having met Maggie in person, I would also add her to that list.
Uglymugs Ireland published a survey recently. It was self-reported, so open to the usual biases. About 75% of the respondents had third-level education — that is, university or “further/higher” education beyond 18 years of age.
http://uglymugs.ie/wp-content/uploads/ugly-mugs-september-2013.pdf
You know, Maggie, we should try an experiment. Throw a dart at a map of the United States. And whatever city it lands on, write an article about how its unique characteristics make it “a top ten hub of trafficking”. Send it to a newspaper or put on a blog and watch everyone jump all over it. I guarantee you coudl write that article and have it believed for any city in America down to East Bumble, Population 5.
Hmmm…you may be on to something…
Don’t throw a dart – you could hit New York.
Just choose Agricola, Mississippi – which would be completely laughable as a human trafficking “chokepoint”. LOL
Peoria?
If you read the actual article, it actually says:
“Though state officials don’t know how many sex trafficking victims flow through the state yearly, the North Carolina Coalition to Combat Human Trafficking ranks North Carolina in the top 10 states for the problem. The convergence of three major highways…”
So even they don’t know the size of the problem in NC (nor can they measure the size of the problem in any other state) but they KNOW they are in the top 10!
How can any reasonable, thinking person read that statement and believe it?
How can any reasonable, thinking person read that statement and believe it?
Dan, that question answers itself. 🙁
Hahaha, what do “agricultural roots” have to do with SEX trafficking?
I live in North Carolina and work as an escort, and from what I can tell there are more women working in the industry of their own free will than there are clients to go around. Can’t say I see much of a market for coerced 12 year olds here…unless its at the Smithfield pork plant or the tobacco farm.
Migrant workers, I believe.
Maggie, on Monday, 23 September, at 10.00pm, there’s a programme entitled “Sex: My British Job” on UK TV Channel 4. Hsiao, a Taiwanese civil servant, went undercover as a cleaner at a brothel in Finchley employing Chinese women, wearing special eye glasses which incorporated a camera..
The article in “Radio Times” entitled “Specs Trap” ends with this quote:
“This sustained chronicle of life in a brothel undercuts common assumptions. There are no brutal male pimps in evidence, for instance. MOST OF THE WORKERS IN THE CHINESE SEX TRADE ARE DOING IT VOLUNTARILY, says Hsiao, adding, THERE ARE VERY FEW TRAFFICING CASE.”
That’s interesting. I wonder how much publicity THAT got?
The efforts of the anti-traffickers may have a Christian theological basis, though such people are probably unaware of it. Basil of Caesarea (fourth century AD), in one of his sermons distinguished between two types of prostitutes:
“One prostitute has been sold to the pimp and is in evil because of necessity, for she must provide her body for the work of her wicked master But there is another who gives herself to sin voluntarily, because of pleasure.”
So, if you follow his reasoning, there is a much greater advantage to you and to the woman if you save her from her enforced life, whereas the voluntary worker is beyond redemption. Therefore, the greatest benefit, the greatest salvation, comes from saving as many as possible, and therefore you must label as many as possible as being enforced, that is trafficked. And you are also collecting heavenly bonus points for your work, a celestial “win-win” situation.
And you might also conclude, at least in the western world, that all anti-prostitution efforts are an expression of the Christian ideas of sin, purity and salvation no matter how such efforts are actually portrayed.
Basil isn’t someone you’d automatically think of in arcane theological debates; but I think that his legacy, and the legacy of others like him, has entered a collective (un)consciousness. Before Basil, prostitution in the Roman Empire was an unremarkable, everyday ubiquity. We can’t know, however, just how co-terminus the slave trade and the sex trade might then have been.
Maggie, thanks for drawing attention to how the state of North Carolina is restricting the freedom of its citizens. It has come about because of the usual alliance of social conservatives and liberal feminists and their allies.
Any legislator who might have been inclined to vote against the new law was scared of going on record against the law, because his vote would be used against him in a subsequent election. I’m absolutely sure that some of those who voted in favor of the law are clients of one or more of the many (though now fewer) outstanding escorts in the state.
Excellent article – another one knocked out of the park – and interesting comments as well. But, as you suggested, it is a bit of “a battle for the hearts and minds” that requires on-going efforts to “show the flag”, to correct various erroneous views, and misconceptions. Apropos of which is my own comment on Ally Fogg’s blog wherein I’ve quoted you, and a comment from the WECT article.
Although, in passing, I suppose that “krulac” might have a point about questioning the veracity of the comments following that article. But, then again, I suppose we might also question his description of his own employment history, and talents …. 😉
However, as somewhat of a point of reference as I touched on the issue in that comment of mine, I wonder whether you’ve written much about the issue of trafficking in general. While I’ll readily concede that there does seem to be somewhat of a hysterical “moral panic” aspect to the views of many on the issue, it also seems that there is at least some evidence to justify some part of that – “where there’s smoke, there is (frequently) fire”. Apropos of which, I remember seeing the documentary The Natashas – Inside The Global Sex Trade by the Canadian journalist Victor Malarek. While one might reasonably question how much of that might be propaganda of one sort or another, the situations described and shown looked rather grim to say the least.
I’ve written a tremendous amount on it; so much, in fact, I wouldn’t even know where to tell you to begin.
“Search: trafficking” seems to give me more than enough reading to keep me out of the pool-hall for a while. 😉
Though, offhand and from the little I’ve skimmed through so far, I can’t see anything you’ve written that acknowledges there might be a problem somewhere – if not in America then in Europe and in the “Global Sex Trade” with Russia. I’m certainly not saying there is in either case, just that, in the process of supporting the legalization of the profession, I’d hate to think that a lack of “due diligence” allowed some people to fall through the cracks.
Not that I think legalization isn’t the best option – or further extensions of that here in Canada – only that the details of its implementation need to be addressed with some care.
But somewhat apropos of the spectrum of opinions that even feminists exhibit on the question, and to defend – for a change – at least some feminist groups, you might want to take a look at this recent post by one “feminist” attacking another “feminist group” over the question of legalization:
http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/feministe-is-apparently-never-going-to-learn-this-lesson/#comment-3602
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/09/07/guest-post-dear-feminists/
Nope. “Trafficking” is simply a return of the “white slavery” hysteria; it is a calculated attempt on the part of governments to stop migration of poor people from the Global South, to deport them to the “homes” they so desperately wanted to escape, and to look “humanitarian” while doing it instead of racist. Here’s a basic starter list of posts on the subject, and here’s my answer to another person who brought up Eastern Europe. But if you’re going to discuss this subject at all, you absolutely must read Dr. Laura Agustin’s Sex at the Margins and say not one more word until you do, because she destroys all the patriarchal, colonialist basis on which the entire narrative rests.
Thanks for the links, and for the book recommendation – I’ll move it to the head of my reading list. Agustin certainly looks like she has her head screwed on right – I had occasion to look at her site because of previous discussions, notably her observations on the efforts of some of the religious crazies in our government to influence the judiciary on the question – which fortunately failed.
However – not to belabour the point, particularly as I’m largely ready to concede it, not that I’ve ever really argued very strenuously against it – it seems to me that there are, in fact, cases that are entirely consistent with the premise or hypothesis of trafficking, even if the number of them is quite debatable. For instance, I remember seeing in that Canadian documentary I mentioned earlier – The Natashas – Inside The Global Sex Trade – cases of young women in Russia being tricked into applying for nanny-type jobs in, I think, Turkey, and then being forced into brothels there – passports taken, no way out. In addition, I note that the post by Ken White at Popehat in response to your Friday the thirteenth call seems to concede the same point:
While I very much sympathize with the case that you and others, including White, argue that trafficking is “an airhorn issue”, I think it unwise to try to sweep under the carpet those cases that are at least consistent with that hypothesis. Generally speaking, one can quite readily question the conclusions, inductive leaps, and inferences that people wish to draw from a set of facts, but denying those facts tends to be rather problematic.
In any case and in passing, while you didn’t actually give much credence to the idea, I tend to be rather skeptical about the largely “feminist” concept of “The Patriarchy”, at least as they misuse it since it seems more like a reification than something of much explanatory power. But then again, maybe I’m biased. 🙂
Nobody’s sweeping anything, but the “trafficking” paradigm is fatally flawed. People are coerced, so let’s call it that and prosecute it using the existing laws instead of making up a bullshit narrative. The existence of coercion no more proves the “trafficking” narrative than the existence of lightning proves the existence of Zeus.
Not really trying to be argumentatitve, and I’ll apologize if what I’m saying comes across that way. It is, no doubt, a pain to repeat one’s arguments, but the nature of the beast seems to be that we are all learning. One might even suggest that, unless one is repeating one’s arguments to the same person, or to the same group of listeners, doing so is at least a hopeful sign of progress.
In addition, I might point out that I am, and have been, a rather vocal supporter of sex worker rights, both as a client and as one who sees the intrinsic ethics of the profession as entirely acceptable if not commendable, and have even stuck my neck out in a rather public fashion in support of them. Although that primarily in an environment – Canada – where the costs of doing so aren’t quite as high as in the U.S. So it is unlikely that I’ll be terribly sympathetic to any calls to join any “moral panic” to thwart them.
So I’ll concede that, probably, the “trafficking paradigm is fatally flawed”, although one might wonder just what set of attributes, the sine qua nons, you might think constitutes that paradigm – maybe Agustin’s book will clarify that for me. But one might argue that the situation is somewhat analogous to “feminism” which apparently encompasses some 17 different ideologies and, probably, at least as many different concepts and ideas, some of which seem rather contradictory. Or to Christianity with its 38,000 different sects. Such things tend to be a spectrum and it isn’t easy, I think in any case, to decide where a particular term has or doesn’t have any relevance.
Likewise with your “trafficking paradigm”. Seems to me that your myth post – quite a good one, I might add – acknowledges a fairly comprehensive set of problematic attributes – i.e., “some women coerced into prostitution”, “some hookers are underage”, “some women tricked by evil men”, “conditions that are deplorable”, “predatory men who use violence” – that many would seem to accept as a reasonable definition of the “trafficking paradigm”. But while I will concede that many of the other attributes you suggest – “international criminal cartels”, “[assertions that] women who refute … are lying or delusional”, “rights of all women … must be suppressed” – are in themselves, at least, highly suspect if not egregious claptrap, I’m not sure that everyone else agrees that they are necessarily intrinsic to the definition of that paradigm, or that they would outweigh the first group in terms of what motivates people to block the legalization of the profession.
In which case, it seems to me that those most interested in seeing that legalization come to fruition – workers and clients primarily, although not exclusively – should be the ones most interested in trying to find solutions to that first group of problems. Maybe you’ve already addressed this, although I think it is “a non-trivial problem”, but one would think that, apart from the legalization itself, some sort of licensing program – like that for doctors or lawyers or therapists or other professionals – might go some distance in forestalling some of those problems. And in making legalization more of a palatable option.
Steersman, it is so fatally flawed it’s achieved zombie status. The Poppy Report in the UK estimated that there were 80,000 victims of human sex trafficking in the UK. A year long effort by police, busting brothels and massage parlors turned up 167 people who “might” have been victims.
See my OpEdNews articles: “Making Sex a Crime,” “Rebel With a Cause, for more on the subject.” Shortcuts available elsewhere.
Thanks for the links.
And I will readily concede – if I haven’t already – that there is a great amount of hysteria surrounding the issue, that the ensuing “moral panic” tends to wind up inflating the issue to problematic if not ridiculous levels. However, I think Maggie’s own phrasing – i.e., “some women coerced into prostitution”, “some hookers are underage”, “some women tricked by evil men”, “conditions that are deplorable”, “predatory men who use violence” – suggests at least some substance underneath and motivating some of that hysteria and rhetoric. Maybe we should be trying to quantify that problem a little more accurately.
And trying to understand the underlying reasons for it. One of which is, I think, some rather antedeluvian if not twisted attitudes towards sex in general, and towards the purchase of it in particular, manifested in the apparent dearth of “johns” willing to support the sex workers in their efforts to legalize the profession. While the workers have more of a vested interest in that objective – it is their livelihood after all, I figure the clients should be taking a more proactive role, if not because the entire situation looks to be a travesty of justice and empathy then because of an “enlightened self-interest”. Maybe they – we – should be having a day for wearing “I’m a john” buttons. Or be selling and using relevant bumper stickers – “I support my neighorhood professional. Shouldn’t you? Vote for the legalization of prostitution”.
Certainly seems that more should be and could be done on that front.
It is actually a simpler idea than that, going back to when the Patriarchal nomadic tribes (Hittites, Aryans, etc.) overran the peaceful, matriarchal, farming societies of the Mideast and South Asia. Women went from sharing power to having no power. The only way to insure that was with women essentially becoming property of males. The temple prostitute went from becoming a conduit to the gods to being lower than sh*t. See Riane Eisler, “The Chalice and the Blade.”
Okay Maggie, I left a comment telling the North Carolinians that they’re wrong, and referring to my two OpEdNews articles as evidence. I am now getting ready for the “sh*tstorm” that is sure to follow. I would appreciate contributions of Handi-wipes. to clean up afterwards.
By the way, for those of you who are unfamiliar hear are shortcuts to the articles.
“Making Sex a Crime”
“Rebel With a Cause”
@Maggie
Interesting blog. Thanks for some of the links in your comments. 🙂
“Find me a college educated, well adjusted woman who’s had tons of opportunities in her life, who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one and then chooses to sell her body for sex. Nobody does that.”
This comment is so classist that I cringed when reading it. Is she trying to say that only college-educated women with tons of opportunities in life are the only women who are able to make decisions for what we do with our bodies? What about women who are educated by life? Also, who is she to imply that women who lack college-educations and-or tons of opportunities in life are not well-adjusted and do not know what a healthy relationship is?
Furthermore, this assumption that sex workers cannot be college educated is false. Considering that college costs money for many people, some people do sex work to pay for college or to pay of student loans. However, this doesn’t mean “looking down our noses” at people who don’t attend college or have college degrees.
Reblogged this on Celian Chan – The investigation on self and commented:
There’s this myth of choice, that a woman chooses to get into this. Find me a college educated, well adjusted woman who’s had tons of opportunities in her life, who understands what a healthy relationship is and who’s actually experienced one and then chooses to sell her body for sex.”-> there were/are many people who decide to sell sex despite all the options available, for example the money and time are not flexible and instant enough for people to live on.
There’s a key phrase there that informs us of the speaker’s emotional bias : “sells her body”.
This is an attempt to frame the sexworker as having no agency, and no bodily autonomy, in three words.
Did you also notice how it ignores sexworkers who aren’t women, as well?
It attempts to say “the sexworker is a slave” without using that word slavery.
The truth is that the sexworker is selling her company, skills and her time; that’s like me writing a computer program, or an accountant doing my tax return. It’s work.
Yet that one trite phrase seeks to demolish the reality by going right to people’s Lizzard Brain with a “save the poor slaves” emotional appeal.
Unfortunately for sexworkers and the Truth, its entirely too successful if people aren’t prearmed to watch for it.