|
30.12.04
Decriminalizing Prostitution: Part III
For the previous posts to this series, please follow the links:
Introduction
Part I
Part II
Here begins Part III in my series which will address the presence of child prostitution and human trafficking in prostitution.
Though statistics vary, millions of children are sold into prostitution or sex slavery outside of the US. Human trafficking refers to the selling or coercing of adults into sex slavery. This is a disgusting practice that needs to be stopped, however, it has nothing to do with prostitution. Too often anti-prostitution activists like to lump this in with prostitution undertaken by autonomous adult women and men when they know (or should know) such grouping is unfair and biased. They do this because the phrases child prostitution and human trafficking are buzzwords.
Millions in third world countries work in sweatshops, often against their own will too. However, you will not hear activists who are anti-sweatshop lump those in with factories that people work in of their own free will and try to say it's the same thing. I think the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations would have a problem with that. So why does prostitution get picked on? Because it's dealing with that naughty sex most people (especially Americans) hate on one hand but are absolutely obsessed with on the other?
To combat child prostitution, we need to first combat poverty. Then we need to combat the belief that another person can sell you for whatever amount they deem worthy. I know what anti-prostitution activists would say to that, "That's what prostitutes do to themselves." No, they set the price on their services, not anyone else. It is up to the client whether or not they want to pay that. Just like in any other monetary arrangement including marriage, career and school. And no, unlike the delusions of anti-prostitution activists and asshole clients alike, that does not put power in the clients hands.
The only way a client would have power in his or her hands is if they get the prostitute to lower her price to what they think is appropriate. If any abolitionist actually looked at escort websites, especially, several make the quip, "I'm not Wal-Mart. Don't ask for a discount". In one of my favorite books (which I have listed in the sidebar), the author lets her anti-prostitution stance come through loud and clear despite her claim of being pro-sensual pleasure.
Riane Eisler says on pg. 336-37 of Sacred Pleasure that:
For be it in a man's relation with the 'cheapest' streetwalker or the most expensive call girl (or in his relation with a male prostiute taking the subordinate role of the woman), the crux of the matter is that the man gets to do the choosing and the woman (or man taking the woman's traditional role) is there for the client's use and all too often abuse. Thus one prostitute describes the relationship between the male buyer and female seller as follows: "What they're buying in a way, is power. You're supposed to please them. They can tell you what to do, and you're supposed to please them, follow orders."
In short, prostitution is inevitably a transaction between unequals: one where the buyers set the price, deciding what kinds of women (or little girls or boys) are worth paying for, and the sellers have little if any power to determine how their bodies will be used. This is why prostitution is not amenable to reform-
Though she later acknowledges that there are times when the situation is not like that, it seems as though she thinks that is in the minority. Of the prostitutes I've spoken to, Riane Eisler's situation is rare. There are those few clients who act like assholes. However, from the 'cheapest' streetwalker to the most expensive call girl, they don't roll over and play sub just because they're prostitutes.
It makes me wonder whether Eisler has actually spoken to any real pros and not the amateur she quoted in her book. That particular prostitute is just a weak woman no matter what situation she will be put in. Take a look at escort websites, especially the more expensive ones. Their language is very deliberate and chosen to get their point across about bed etiquette without having to name particulars because of prostitution laws, especially in the US. Most I've seen outright tell you that if there's no respect, she's walking and she has every right too. Even streetwalkers will say, "Hey, I don't do that pal."
As far as the choosing Eisler talks about. The assholes she's describing would prefer not to pay a damn thing for the sex. Why? Because they're assholes and that determines their attitudes even in the absence of money. I'd bet all the money in my pocket that assholes like that were demanding and domineering when they're getting 'free' sex from girlfriends, wives and casual encounters. If I said, "It will be $700 for the hour" and a client agreed to pay then I controlled the price. But if he or she said, "Well, I think all you deserve is $300" I would say, "Goodbye." Oh, yes, but I'm not in control.
And I doubt that this very expensive courtesan takes any BS, just because she charges a great deal ( click here for an interview with Agente Provocateuse). Many of the high class escorts and the few true courtesans out there will also mention that if a potential client cannot easily afford them, then don't contact them. Why? Probably so they won't have to deal with any feelings of resentment. The women who are true professionals aren't stupid. They protect themselves and their clients.
Okay, back to the child prostitution and human trafficking smoke screen. Also to combat this societal ill, beyond combatting poverty we need to combat slavery in general. In this dominator, patriarchal society, slavery still exists because it's still okay to want something for nothing. A slaver wants labor and a product without giving anything.
Decriminalization is one of the main arguments pro-prostitution activists, such as myself, offer as a tactic to wipe out the problems of child prostitution and human trafficking especially when they come to countries where prostitution is not tolerated. Victims should feel safe approaching the police in any country to report such crimes. Instead several are well aware they could too become criminally charged. Many adult women are forced into prostitution because of high organized crime levels in their home country or because they were tricked through fraudulent advertisement (ie. au pair services).
In those cases it is a matter of fraud or coersion, which is already against the law. Not of prostitution. All the crime that can occur in or masquerades as prostitution (most of it at the streetwalking level and very little above that) is already against the law: stealing, rape, murder, fraud, coersion, false advertising, loitering, noise violations... Already on the books folks. But of course, such crimes that happen to prostitutes cannot be easily enforced if prostitution remains against the law. So, what continues to be the problem against prostitution?
Oh, is it sex? Or the money? Or is it the sex for money? Anyone who's had any kind of sex outside of 'hamburger' sex (insert A into B. Repeat) knows that it takes skill and talent to truly learn the sensual depths of sexuality. The phrase, "Good lovers are made, not born" is most definitely true. If it wasn't millions wouldn't be complaining about their sex lives because we'd all naturally be good lovers. But to acquire such skill takes intelligence and patience, which is in short supply among many. Why else would sex advice columns be so popular?
The money. Those who have been in relationships based on the ever-fleeting 'love' know that free sex is rarely free. Especially within marriage. More prostitution goes on within the binds (yes, binds) of marriage than on the street in New York City. BOTH husbands and wives barter and trade sexual favors for household chores, money, jewelry and various other items that all have monetary value. This is to be expected considering there is a marriage contract and vows which is nothing more than an oral contract to be backed up by the paper license. You have to pay money for both.
No one gets married thinking, "Whew! Now I don't have to have sex anymore!" Quite the contrary. Most get married (though very few will admit it) because they realize for the rest of their lives they can domineer their lover and demand sex and get it under the thin veneer of love ratified by a state-issued contract. So, this version of sex for money, which usually puts the woman at a disadvantage as far as sex and enjoyment of it, is okay but prostitution is not. Though abolishonists will disagree, it the fact that the woman prostitute is in such control of her sexual autonomy, most can't stand it. She decides when, where, with whom, how much and under what circumstances she will have sex. No one else.
I think I've proven my point here. The abolishonists who like to use child prostitution and human trafficking as their anti-prostitution fortress don't seem to understand that they are also exploiting the ones they claim to want to protect. By jumping behind that sacred cow, they don't have to explore the real causes of the exploitation, which have nothing to do with prostitution. Likewise, they don't have to give the real power back to the prostitutes, where it belongs.
Posted at 10:42 pm by La_Libertine
 | | | Lyly
December 31, 2004 12:27 AM PST
"No one gets married thinking, "Whew! Now I don't have to have sex anymore!" "
I name a couple of people who did just that. Of course, they married to prove that they could conform to the religious norm. One is divorce, the other two currently are in rocky marriages. Anyway, yes, when the marriage goes bad, sex is used as a weapon to hurt a person. Or withheld.
(However, this possibility is not a reason to avoid marriage. I'm not trying to talk you out of it... but it does have many complications.)
Yes you did prove your point. Anti-prostitutionists are too narrow minded to see that the rest of us don't want to live in an asexual Disneyland like a UFO cultist. | |
| | | Jezebel
December 31, 2004 01:45 AM PST
I have various reasons to be anti-marriage, mainly because it's not a natural state for humans to be in and the fact that I'd prefer for the government to stay out of my sexual and love affairs.
Add to that it's archaic and was created in its current form to control women's sexuality and the paternity of any children she produces. | |
| | | Lyly
December 31, 2004 11:43 AM PST
Good point. If I could do it all over again, I have no idea where I'd be right now. I *do * know I would have gone to school in LA, not Boston. | |
|
|
