Women's Rights

Much like the kid who's told he can't have that cookie, it's always going to come down to what the punishment will be because he will plot for that cookie when your back is turned. We are not going to stop the trade nor stem the tide of those looking for some sort of love in all the wrong places. It always comes down to how to punish such acts. Stippers, for example, have to pay taxes on their strip club wadges and report tips. It may be frowned upon but it is all too legal to strip. Get a club full of people riled up sexually, legally mind you, and send them out into a street where a girl doing the same thing but closing the deal gets arrested and possibly worse in an unregulated, unprotected yet scarily similar profession. I'm not saying it's right or proper. I'm saying it happens and it's not fair if we're talking legality.

Look, I'm a realist. This country has long denied what goes on in plain view—and often times in our own homes—with a myopic vision of a holier-than-thou, Puritanical utopia and an eye on "what the neighbors might think". Picking battles with seemingly no adgenda for the rhetoric, except for projection and displacement of ills in our own lives onto other who seem to be doing something we wouldn't. I'm a 'preacher's kid' and even I know better. Please don't get me started that it was God-fearing, church-going folk who corralled Native Americans, advanced the slave trade and made for certain no Blacks could eat anywhere near your children. Good, Sunday-worshipping, bible-swinging church folk.

And let's be real; We're talking about 'sex' here people. Nothing really too deviant about it. Past the fact that a minute number of us actually waited until after marriage, get over it. As comedian Chris Rock might say about prostitution, I wouldn't do it, but I understand.

I say regulate it.

Alex & Steve - I'm really enjoying your comments here! Not only could decriminalizing prostitution change views on that industry, but maybe it would all make everyone re-evaluate human nature and sexual tendencies - for men and women. Sex - especially as a product that is being bought and sold - is something that the puritanical American doesn't always want to think about but certainly doesn't avoid.

"Picking battles with seemingly no adgenda for the rhetoric, except for projection and displacement of ills in our own lives onto other who seem to be doing something we wouldn't."

WHOA!  This is probably one of the best comments I have read on this blog so far. 

I smiled when I read the line about prostitution not being legal in Vegas.   :)  Living here, I can say that it's no secret where the legal counties are. 

Regulate it.  Sex is the one power women have, some use it to make money, some don't.  Let them be safe doing it. 

"As comedian Chris Rock might say about prostitution, I wouldn't do it, but I understand."
Amen to that.

"Sex is the one power women have, some use it to make money, some don't.  Let them be safe doing it."

Initially, my eyebrows shot way up at this statement. After all, it seems to play pretty well into the typical stereotypes of women: we are dangerous because we can manipulate and control men through our sexuality. Furthermore, it plays into the pretty well engrained fear of strong feminitity that I think still dominates a lot of society. (And yes, I do mean global society, not just the US.)

Then I thought about it a bit more:

My dislike of statements such as this stems not so much from my disagreement (because in some ways I do actually agree), but from the way that it posits this "one power" in supposed - and I believe, erroneous - contrast to some collection of other powers that only men have.

Because at the most basic level, I would argue that each gender's power is dervied from sex and sexuality. It is no coincidence that the language of domination and submission is often so similar to the language of sex.

But the thing is, that's all at a very basic, theoretical level, one on which the general population doesn't spend their time thinking on a daily basis. (Or am I wrong?) Because of this, statements like "[s]ex is the one power women have" are dangerous, because they posit women in a light that I don't think is helpful or true to the modern day feminist.

Thoughts?

I agree, it's not the ONE power that women have. A simple grammatical change would probably make this a very effective and positive statement. Sexuality is an amazing power that women have in spades! It's not to say men don't have it but it's female sex and sexuality that is on the table here with regards to prostitution. That's just truth. Not THE amazing power, merely one of the amazing strengths. It's a blessing of being the female of our species. In some animal worlds, the males have all the plumage but in our animal kingdom, it's the women who have those tools. Trust me, as a somewhat decent-looking gent, raised by his mama and with a sense of style and social maneuvering… I still cannot pull off the effects of sexuality and sensuality the way that even the most slightly-aware woman can. It is a blessing, not a curse. The curse of it comes in when the uses of such an effect become trivialized and reduced to withcy-pooh cunning and mystical ills over the supposedly steadfast, upstanding men of the world. Please. I myself love women, the thought of women, and all the amazing things that women are capapble of. But I'm biased being raised as the sole male and the very young head of the household I grew up in.

The one thing that I think denying such a power does is create a lie. A false facade. It makes women deny a part of themselves to further gain acceptance or prove worth in other areas, figuratively cutting out, or off,  a part of themselves to be seen as 'more'. Now what sense does that make logically to subtract and then become 'more'? Is the beautiful businesswoman any less stunning because she's a head of industry? Is the artist or creatively-minded woman any less 'sexy' or 'sexual' because she is thinks on deeper levels or makes moves artistically? Think about it… The 'slut' (used only in example of social comparison here, please forgive) in college was the girl who was admittedly or at least overtly sexual, but the 'artist' was a respected young woman. I happen to know a few 'artists' who put the so-called 'sluts' to shame by way of sexual activity & frequency of practice.

I'm getting to a point here; There is a very defined line of US v. THEM when talking about good & bad or right & wrong. You're either a bad girl/boy or a good girl/boy. No middle ground. It boils back down to acceptability. What is deemed as socially acceptable is then given all the supposed rights and priviledges of being with the side labeled 'good'. There are numerous examples of just such things:

- I'm old enough to remember when "ass" was bleeped on TV. Now "bitch" is damn near Disney-status.

- Strippers were—and still are—almost always seen as low-esteemed deviants. yet, taking your clothes off for fine art reasons is seen as a high-minded and classy thing that a strong, gutsy woman would do.

- Gay lifestyle was seen as most certainly deviant and alternative. Now a gay male friend is a must-have social accessory, as seen in popular media such as Sex in the City. 

If prostitution gains at least a modicum of acceptance even only for means of regulation and safety, then it may be able to shed some of that defining taboo that is truly only there because of an ingrained, learned behavior to be fully ashamed of our sexual nature going all the way back to Eve where, post-fruit snacking, the couple was said to be ashamed of their nakedness and covered themselves. We were all out of luck at that point huh, let alone actually acknowledging sex or sexuality as a good thing or even just a mere truth of our species.

Sex as a product is everywhere but admitting this is is seen as low-brow, off-limits or bad form. Thusly, the forbidden will remain supremely tantalizing. We all know this to be proven.

" A simple grammatical change would probably make this a very effective and positive statement."
Agreed.  I probably should have left off the "THE" in my original statement!!  duh, lisa. 

I guess to clarify what I originally meant was that sex is a way in which women have some control in their lives.  Men, like those that patronize strip clubs or prostitutes, appear to be under the "power" of sex.  Some men jog, some men go to clubs.  And the women who make money off of this weakness are powerful indeed. 

I know a woman (here in Vegas) who was an "exotic dancer" for a year.  She told me the amount of money she made was insane!  And all because men were just throwing money at her.  So, to me, that makes her powerful in a situation where men were "weak."

Now.... that's not to say all men are weak when it comes to sex!  Or all women are powerful.  Just that some women chose to take advantage of the situation (while their boobs are still up where they are supposed to be & before babies stretch their bellies out!!) and they should be able to do this in a safer environment. 

All I can say, though, is this whole discussion keeps my mind going back to the show "Firefly" where the companion (aka prostitute) is THE most respectable person on the ship and in the society!! 

I agree fully Lisa… my grammatical shift was in support of your point because I feel you are correct and your further explaination cements that.

And you brought up a most perfect example with "Firefly"/"Serenity", a very future-casting, forward-thinking show. (a reason it was such a hit)

The "companion" was indeed the steadying force, the learned person, the most high of the social order. Men clamored to keep her company and be seen with her in the most public of arenas… and she was a known and admitted prostitute. Plain and in full view. A perfect example of how 'acceptance' would change the perception and perhaps even the actual profession and it's very requirements, self-assessments and operations.

(Plus… You absolutely ROCK for bringing up "Firefly"! Too Cool.)

"A perfect example of how 'acceptance' would change the perception and perhaps even the actual profession and it's very requirements, self-assessments and operations."
It's interesting, too, how she had to submit to health exams, licensing requirements, and other procedures in order to keep her status.  Granted, she was gorgeous, but men were "applying" for her company!  It's a very interesting shift from what our society thinks of prostitutes. 


"You absolutely ROCK for bringing up "Firefly"!"
Thanks Steve!   :)

Thank you for this excellent analysis! I linked it to the YesOnPropK.org site.

Thanks for linking to Change.org Carol! Appreciate it.

Lisa & Steve - you two are amazing commentators - you've brought some really great insight into this complicated issue that stretches beyond just one municipality, but rather our entire society and how we view a women's sexual creed.

You are mistaking the issue of prop K -it is NOT about sex. Prop k is about instiutionalizing violence  and not giving women and girls real opportunity in life. Framing the discussion to be about sex completely disregards the experiences of harm and degradation. There are at least three major areas of concern with prop K:1.     Proposition K invites pimps and traffickers to San Franciscoo   You can help fight human trafficking by voting No on K 2.     Proposition K would decriminalize all aspects of prostitution but puts NO regulations in place to ensure health and safety. o   Prop K may have good  intentions but does nothing to help San Francisco 3.      Proposition K will end funding for social service programs that help women and girls escape prostitutiono   Prop K specifically targets a Restorative Justice program that currently provides FREE services such as vocational training, mental health counseling, addiction recovery, and health care.o   As San Franciscans, we pride ourselves on our compassion. Don’t deny prostituted women and girls of the only free exit services available.                                 More info: www.noonk.net

Kristie - depending on the source - some are positioning your points against K that it would take away social service programs while others are being more straight forward and talking about how K would end the first offender program, which would likely no longer be needed if it was legalized and has been highly debated in its current existence:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-03-05/news/first-offender-prostitution-program-punishes-victimless-crime

I think a lot of people who are criticizing K are failing to mention the stigma already surrounding the profession leads to these niche organizations in the first place because prostitutes don't feel welcome at other publicly funded places. With it being legalized the entire suite of health services, law enforcement and educational opportunities that are available to everyone would become more accessible to sex workers and ultimately clean up the profession not make it worse.

The issue, from a rights based perspective is that funding is concentrated on mandatory services, assignments to programs that are offered as part of a diversion deal.  Diversion options can be positive for individuals related to some types of infractions, but so often the prostitution cases are basically 'bad busts' with little evidence.  Diversion options may include an HIV test, an agreement not to visit some neighborhoods (even if your social services are located there!) and more.The issue, from a rights based perspective is that funding is concentrated on mandatory services, assignments to programs that are offered as part of a diversion deal.  Diversion options can be positive for individuals related to some types of infractions, but so often the prostitution cases are basically 'bad busts' with little evidence.  Diversion options may include an HIV test, an agreement not to visit some neighborhoods (even if your social services are located there!) and more.

The requirements for these mandatory services may be severe, requiring many hours of time.  I have heard of cases where childcare needs are not taking into consideration.  In addition, mandatory rehabilitation is experienced by many as punitive and is not an effective way to offer alternatives.  Harm reduction based services which are voluntary are much more effective, and kinder, not based on traumatic arrests, etc.

The idea that sex workers don't feel welcome at other publicly funded places an issue to the extent that unless there is sensitivity, sex workers often won't reveal their status to doctors, etc., but the idea that sex workers are better off receiving all services in generic contexts doesn’t ring true to me.

I personally feel that there is a place for sex workers to receive services in broader contexts like LGBT organization or a women's clinic...but note that these are specific as well. I have heard the argument made that sex workers should be able to attend integrated programs and this is very important, especially in places where there are no specific services. This takes training for service providers and would be a long range goal, of course.   The idea that sex workers shouldn’t receive services in community-based centers actually has been made, but it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Some sex workers do prefer specific facilities like  www.stjamesinfirmary.org.  In countries where sex work is decriminalized, such community-based health as proved valuable as occupational safety and health specifically geared toward sex workers.

I clipped this from my own newly set up site.  I sent in a letter on these people's project, but highly modified it, since they miss their mark.  I think Kristie up their is a little afraid of getting rid of prohibition, but I think that is a natural fear until people like Kristie realize that the system resets and everyone is better off.  BTW-No contempt here Kristie, I am sure you are well meaning, but I find some of your judgemental remarks towards the sex business a bit short sighted and offensive.  I have known women who have chosen sex work and they are fine people with a very intact sense of self and high self-esteem.

----A current action that our host here could work to counter--------------------see below (i.e., the Polaris Project)-


The Polaris Project Obsession with making the world safe from human trafficking (and I don't think they are just thinking about trafficking...a bit of sexual repression leaking through?):

Noble, but misguided.

There is a big difference between consenting adults and slavery.  Of course, no one is for having people do things against their will, but censoring valuable communications through boycott actions that will only force this further underground is not a road to success (as the Polaris Project advocates).  This is misguided and only serves to worsen the problem.

The solution has always been obvious and easy.

Eliminate the Prohibition on Sex Work.  If you're not interested in it, then don't participate in it.  Make it safe and legal, that way so-called "Johns"(actually clients) can call the police if something is wrong without fear of retribution.  Also, enslaving women (The Polaris Project's noble objective to eliminate, but misguided approach).  Getting involved with a slave will doubtfully be very appealing, when the competition will be perfectly legal.

It should be noted that clients and sex workers alike watch out for this whenever possible and report such operations to the police, but have to do so carefully.  A few questions usually can expose, what is really going on.

Clients should ask for Age, some identification, "are you here of your own free will," "are you comfortable?, etc.."  The truth usually comes out.

How do you think those detectives get tipped off?  Clients call them for the women's safety.  It would still be better to be legal though and with access to quality health information by qualified nurses or Doctors who are not shaming or ideologically driven for those in the profession of their own consenting free will.