When it comes to the public discussion of sex there’s a lot that’s wrong. The main problem is misinformation, with biased sources spreading information that is at best poorly researched and at worst completely incorrect.
The main themes in this loosely-united area of public disapproval include pornography and adult entertainment, sex trafficking, the rights of people in sex work, and the possible ‘sexualisation’ of children by exposure to all of the above.
It’s known that there is no credible research tying adult entertainment to crime and violence against women. It’s clear that the numbers surrounding the trafficking claims don’t add up. The fact that sex workers deserve protection, not persecution, is self-evident. And to the critical reader, it’s apparent that the people pushing an anti-sex agenda are ignoring vast swathes of ethical and commendable research into sexuality.
Sexualisation of children, in particular, is a lightning rod for many of the public anxieties surrounding sex. I’m particularly interested in this topic for a few reasons. First, because the claims surrounding it bear little relationship to demonstrable reality; second, because both the right and the left appear to have reached consensus on the topic. Last, because so many people are parents, it’s an issue that has more power to influence the voting population than, say, what a few misguided feminists think about pornography they never watch anyway. Now maybe I read The Handmaid’s Tale just a few times too often as a girl, but when the feminists and the bible-bashers agree on something, my bullshit meter goes into the red.
The notion that exposure to sexualised imagery is a) different now than it has been in the past, and b) causes damage to children as a result, is widely assumed but not proven. Most of the reviews on the topic rely on data from adults viewing pornography, which is clearly not the same thing as children seeing a Bratz doll. In any case the results from adult studies are mixed, with a tendency to indicate that pornography may somewhat exacerbate, but does not itself cause, negative effects. The hype about sexualisation seems to assume a slippery slope that might not even have a fulcrum in the first place.
It’s worth pointing out that with so little ethical and credible research on children in this area, the case is far from closed. See, for instance, the recent Scottish Executive report on the topic, with indications that both children’s and parents’ understanding of sexualised imagery is rather more nuanced than the media and government give them credit for. [i] However, as far as the public are concerned, there is no debate to be had. And so the endless ‘childhood in crisis’ nonsense is trotted out again and again.
In spite of the skewed and laughably poor Home Office review on children and sexualisation published in 2010, the coalition government has commissioned a new review to be released later this year. Already the signs are clear that the depressingly simplistic view and reliance on unproven conjecture of the last review will probably be repeated. While it is disheartening to see the same irrational anti-sex arguments trotted out under the new government, it is perhaps inevitable.
However, there is an option. They say the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over again and expect different results. Well, we have an enormous problem with trying to counter people’s emotional arguments with rational facts.
After all, if facts were enough, we wouldn’t need scare warnings on cigarettes, since the connection between smoking and lung cancer is well and widely known.
From my point of view, while the evidence is clear, there’s a problem with trying to gain support from people who don’t already subscribe to this view. We definitely need to keep pushing the research, but also, try to tap into the emotional argument in a way so people can understand why the facts matter. Bottom line, when it comes down to Facts vs. Fear Related To Your Kids, most people will choose the fear option “just to be on the safe side”.
The current government know this, which is why they subscribe to the ‘nudge’ theory of changing public opinion, and why ‘Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values’ is required reading for anyone who wants to engage with Westminster these days. [ii]
More fool us if we don’t do the same.
So what are the options? Basically, to find the trigger issues that will help people understand why restricting adult access to adult materials is in no-one’s interest, why it is important to support the rights of sex workers to work, and why deciding what children are and are not exposed to is a job for families and communities, not governments.
What are the movements that already successfully do this, and what can we learn from them? As an emigrant to the UK, I’m loath to reference anti-immigration rhetoric, but must grudgingly admire the way Migration Watch et al. seemingly unite people behind a feeling, regardless of what the data say. In the US, where I grew up, anti-abortion campaigners effectively exploit the universal inbuilt instinct to protect children. Branding is everything: “pro-life” and “pro-choice” both send distinctive messages, and indicate the general politics of the people involved, far beyond any one issue.
Regardless of whether you agree with the approach, these tools are almost obscenely powerful. Combine them with facts and you have the ability to change minds. There must be ways we can unite what is objectively true with what is also emotionally true. Studies show that people reject evidence that does not jibe with their beliefs. So let’s nudge their beliefs.
Where I grew up, the notion of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” was a cultural cliché used and abused by just about anyone to defend just about anything. But it was undeniably strong: even folks with only the most basic understanding of American history had some impression of that phrase and a belief that it was relevant to them.
So what are Britain’s values? What are its core beliefs? What can the Dunkirk evacuation, Blitz Spirit, modesty, stiff-upper-lip, and Be Calm And Carry On teach us about how to approach the public in a more accessible way when it comes to the complex issues surrounding sex?
Will appealing to the sense of adult rights being taken away help? Or pointing out that the government think they know better than you do what’s right for your kids? That was a strategy already effectively used by the Tories to oppose compulsory sex education in schools. I’m sure there are far more routes to be considered than just these.
We need to start thinking about how to make the truth appealing, not inaccessible. We need to tap into cultural values as much as we already rely on intellectual honesty. Let’s start the discussion.
[i] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/equal/reports-10/eor10-02.htm
[ii] http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4224
Great start to the debate, Brooke.
There are many and varied problem areas surrounding sexuality and sexual crimes including areas such as prostitution (non criminal) and trafficking, both sexual and commercial, but the one area that the previous government, interested parties like EAVES etc. and the Bible Bashers all seemed to want to congregate within was the area where at best spurious and at worst criminally invented statistics are being used to push a political agenda without any basis of care for those they are purporting to care about.
For instance, if the true trafficking figures were really known and published and the stupid laws on strict liability for punters were repealed coupled with an appeal to those punters to act as eyes and ears on the ground as it were, real trafficking could be identified sooner and more effectively and the women subjected to this could be rescued and cared for properly.
One has to ask why organisations like EAVES will not support this as although it is not in their financial interests, it is what they purport to desire.
Interesting and great article! I had hoped that having a government with liberals in it we might be able redress certain aspects of society, sadly I can’t see that happening at all.
My only hope is that later in the their term they will get around to civil liberties…
Fat chance.
As you may know, in the land you grew up in, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is nearly universally accepted so long as one does not violate the Puritan standard. The current Tory-equivalents in America do not so much oppose compulsory sex education in schools as strive to tailor sex education to fit education of sex as they would like it to be. This is a singular, clean standard that does not admit the existence – any variation from their image of sex.
I grew up and have spent most of my life living within a couple of hours drive from where you grew up. Abstinence-only sex education is still being pushed by many of the school districts as the best approach in spite of all the studies of the consequences.
Is Still Here
Perhaps we need to popularise “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in the UK too? 40 years ago the puritanical mainstream supported the laws which criminalised homosexuality. Now, the liberal left legal profession and media are intolerant of any criticism of homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexualism to the point of oppression of free speech and justifiable comment.
It is still socially acceptable to denigrate pornographers, users of pornography, prostitutes and punters. Perhaps the only thing that would work is the same kind of activism which brought about the decriminalisation of homosexuality? The problem being, of course, what outwardly respectable people are going to join the marches and out themselves as consumers of such?
Our supposedly tolerant society is, in fact, just as intolerant as it’s always been it’s just that the number of targets of intolerance has reduced thereby increasing the amount of intolerance suffered by the aforementioned minority groups.
We have to make people realise that intolerance of any kind, even intolerance of intolerance, is wrong because it prevents many severely disadvantaged groups from achieving any kind of happiness at all. It’s therefore of great detriment to society as a whole.
In the same way that society finally accepted that homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals were entitled to lead their lives in peace and happiness, it’s only logical that those who enjoy other adult pursuits should have the same rights. As with homosexuality, legalisation and acceptance is the only way for a truly tolerant society to proceed particularly if it wants to minimise harm and protect everyone’s human rights.
It is the basic issue of people not wanting to parent their own children. It is also ridiculous if not harmful to have kids/young people believe their bodies and their minds are to be kept under lock and key until their sexuality might be expressed in “appropriate” venues, like the marriage bed and everything else is taboo and wrong. That depreviation leads to depravity. There is the adult world and the “family friendly” world. Not everything has to be family friendly. What is the point of growing up in the first place?
Ghengis – I hear you. Part of the problem with arguing with Eaves etc. however is the perception on the part of a lot of people that they occupy the moral high ground. Where the moral high ground lies, though, is a result of culture. I’m happy to debate the numbers with the likes of Eaves, but I’m also coming round to the idea that the best way to gain on these issues is to agree – after all, we’re all against trafficking! Then push our agenda in a way that shows we’re not against anyone’s value system.
Michael – Yes, unfortunately there seems to be so much focus on, well, focus groups. Which is weird considering a general election is potentially a long way off
Is Still Here – That’s part of the point I was trying to make, thank you for emphasising. Catchphrases and ideals can be twisted and misrepresented to all kinds of uses, including anti-sex and anti-education ones. The question is, how can people like us demonstrate to the public that our ideals are compatible with theirs? That’s the discussion I’d like to set off.
Jim – I agree. One of the big problems re: punters is that while they constitute a rather large group, the are unrepresented in almost all of he research and discussion about sex work. However I appreciate that “coming out” as a punter is perhaps just as difficult, if not more so, as “coming out” as a sex worker. Are there ways to challenge that?
Enjoyed reading this blog. Brook is a young people’s sexual health charity – our volunteer young people team are concerned about improving our culture towards youth sexuality. They have just launched a campaign called Sex:Positive to challenge negative attitudes towards young people and sex. Visit sexpositive.org.uk to find out more and support their campaign! Simon
@Belle de Jour
Punters are dehumanised by the motives ascribed to them by others. They’re vile perverts, mysogynists, sexual inadequates, tantamount to rapists, etc. In fact, I imagine, most of them are pretty normal in every respect and just want no-strings sex with a willing woman in a safe environment for a variety of complex reasons. It seems strange that it’s so socially unacceptable but there you go. I don’t think that the debate is going to be welcoming for any man to engage in in the current climate and I can’t see it getting any easier any time soon unless the blame for the adverse social consequences of prostitution is properly apportioned.
I know you say that you don’t want to challenge anyone’s value system but I do. The so-called value system is the problem: it causes such untold misery for so many people it doesn’t deserve the name. To assuage the consciences of the moral minority, e.g. under-age girls are forced into prostitution to fund drug habits, criminalised and stigmatised for the rest of their lives while the do-gooders wring their hands and yet it’s their attitudes to prostitution(and drugs) which make the whole thing possible. If there were legal brothels with checks on the ages of the women, their motives for doing the work and their health then there would be virtually no market for street girls and a huge reduction in general harm to society.
Perhaps it needs to be explained in these terms? People have to have their bigotry and its consequences pointed out to them? I.e. because you oppose the legalisation of brothels x number of underage girls are working the streets of Britain this very evening. It’s entirely your fault because you could vote to stop it. Your attitude to paid sex puts these girls in harm’s way and ruins their lives. What kind of value system does that?
Jim –
I.e. because you oppose the legalisation of brothels x number of underage girls are working the streets of Britain this very evening. It’s entirely your fault because you could vote to stop it. Your attitude to paid sex puts these girls in harm’s way and ruins their lives. What kind of value system does that?
It’s an extremely valid point, and one with which I agree. But there’s also the problem that when confronted many people will tend to be defensive – which leaves our argument open to being turned back around, in a race for the moral high ground.
What interests me is that ways in which much public discourse can derail when people go on the attack. Thinking, for instance about Gordon Brown’s ‘bigot’ comment last year. If he’d said, say, some people have bigoted ideas – that’s less offensive, it separates the quality of the person from the quality of the idea. Saying ‘she’s a bigot’, though? Puts people instantly on the defensive.
In a way it’s a little like having a discussion with a loved one. “You’re always so controlling!” would be an argument-starter, whereas “I think we don’t achieve anything when one of us tries to control the situation” is an alternative that opens to door to discussion, not defenses. And so on.
Certainly I could be doing more re: punters, there are some interesting blogs out there and as long as the anonymous writers don’t mind I should really be linking to their stories. It may be far too early for anyone to come out as a punter, but humanising (and even humourising, as Secret Diary does) the stories can do a lot.
@Belle de Jour
I must admit I don’t envy you trying to have a public discourse on these issues in a non-confrontational, inclusive way. We live in an era where much public discourse on the great issues of our times consists of threatening, bullying and intolerant behaviour directed towards any and all dissenters is a matter of routine.
I came here through seeing your link on Twitter. Much of the public discourse there consists of people, mostly of a liberal left persuasion, ridiculing in particularly vicious terms the views of anyone professing a right wing perspective on issues of morality. Somewhat ironically, I think you will find yourself up against the same liberal left commentators whose views on pornography and prostitution are actually more closely aligned with right wing Christians than anyone else. At least the views of right wing conservative types on morality are reasonably consistent.
When it comes to races for the moral high ground I don’t think that’s something to fear because the puritanical moral high ground is fundamentally indefensible. The liberal left have justifiably spent the last 40+ years dismantling the worst aspects of what was Christian morality and yet they wish to cling on the last vestiges of it in the form of all out war against pornography and prostitution.
I suppose it’s possible that many people could be persuaded to see the liberalisation of pornography and prostitution as the final steps of the move to a truly liberal society but I think that’s highly unlikely. If it were possible, we wouldn’t have seen the illiberal policies of our previous government in the first place. We’ve now jumped from the frying pan into the fire where we have a coalition government in which the right wing of the Conservative Party is actually more liberal than their Liberal Party colleagues and is having to let it have its head.
No, I think we need to redefine morality and civil liberties by showing the puritans the hypocrisy of their morality and lack of respect for civil liberties. It will be confrontational and very unpleasant but it’s the only way things will change in our lifetimes. The non-confrontational approach won’t work and in the meantime they’ll carry on inventing new registers to put people on, new “wars” to wage and thought crime will become a reality.
I see your point Jim, but I was raised in the US south and we have an expression you’ll have heard, ‘steel magnolias’ (or as I like to call it, ‘velvet hammer’). There may be little room for reconciling vastly different viewpoints as you suggest, but it’s worth exploring the prospect of reframing those viewpoints. Hardline feminists attempt to frame it as a question of abuse. Moral conservatives (who are, you’re correct, entirely internally consistent), frame it as a question of filth and shame.
Many people do not have an opinion that develops past whichever one of these frames gets to them first. It’s astounding the number of people I know in real life who say things like ‘if I didn’t know you, I wouldn’t agree with you, but you’ve changed my mind’. The fact that’s even possible gives me hope of changing more minds. And in each case done not with facts, which would be the same whether they knew me or not, but emotion (I’m a friend!).
The secret of the steel magnolia is firm, but polite, repetition of a clear and entirely digestible message. I think if we get the framing of the message right and hold our nerve, we can have our way.
As for Twitter, well. It’s an interesting place but nowhere to have a discussion between grownups. Which is why it’s nice you’ve pitched up here.
Belle de Jour
Or should I say, Dr. Magnanti, after all you have earned the right to be addressed with the respect due one who has earned the degree?
I emphasize education because I believe that without proper sex education, pornography may well influence children more than it would otherwise. Children, once they reach a certain age, are going to seek knowledge of sex through whatever sources are available to them.
Unfortunately too many children in the US only receive this education from the politically-tailored sex education classes offered through their school, from their peers, and what they can access from various media. With so many parents unwilling and/or unable to give their children proper guidance in what human sexuality really entails, with so much pressure from special interest groups to stifle open sex education in schools, with government funding being withdrawn from public service sources of information for children (like recent moves by congress to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood) is it any wonder that children sometimes turn to pornography to learn about more “non-standard” sexual topics. How does a child with no frame of reference for real-world sexuality understand the theater of most pornography if this is the only “educational” material we make available to curious young minds? Is the problem the existence of pornography or our refusal to make a proper sex education system available for all children? If children grew up understanding and living in a society open to sexuality, most children would know the difference between real sex and the theater of the majority of pornography.
Is Still Here
You’re so rational. Analysis spot on – emotion does trump reason & facts, esp if facts don’t jibe with beliefs. At backlash-uk.org.uk we find relatively few parliamentarians are prepared to use evidence to resist a visceral tide against freedom of expression.
But it is really hard to identify the cultural values to “nudge”, to use the trope du jour. Migration has always been a hot button – “Rivers of Blood” anyone ? – and people feeling threatened are prepared to lash out about it. Less so re sex; Brit froideur perhaps. And you do realise all those values you cite – quite correctly, Dunkirk, Blitz, SUL etc – are all associated with, er, adversity. You might say masochism is national trait, though I couldn’t possibly comment.
Identifying an effective positive prompt would be a huge step forward. Damned if I can see one yet. Brainstorm required.
Jim & Belle de Jour,
Twitter is both an interesting place but, unfortunately, also a dangerous place to discuss any topic about which people care deeply. 140 characters is a cute format, but it can be really hard to express a thought in a manner that cannot be misunderstood. Often statements come across much more absolute than intended.
This is a bit off the current topic, but under one of my Twitter identities, I have conversed with Belle de Jour on a few occasions. Unfortunately, a few months ago I expressed my opinion on a subject a bit (well, maybe quite a bit) more strongly than I intended. I obviously greatly offended Belle de Jour and/or some of the other people in the conversation (truly sorry) since I have since been blocked from her Twitter account. My point is that Twitter is not a good place for serious discussion unless everyone involved is aware that the discussion has turned serious. And when it does, it should probably be taken to another forum.
I find Twitter a very dangerous playground for those of us with strong opinions and quick “Send” fingers.
Is Still Here
@Belle de Jour
I can’t remember ever having being accused of having had an adult discussion before! First time for everything I suppose:). I don’t have the patience for the drip-drip-drip approach either to be honest. I’m glad someone does though. Hope it bears fruit before too long.
The one thing on the liberal side of the debate has always been ‘consent’ (allied to another, ‘choice’). The thing which was most galling about New Labour’s attempt to ‘reform’ the laws on sex work wasn’t so much the lack of courage to actually liberalise/decriminalise, it was the way in which it refused to acknowledge consent in the first place. There was plenty of agreement about the lack of consent in sex work being a crime (whether it is in the form of coercion or rape), but the ‘antis’ kept trying to define all sex work as lacking consent, even when a sex worker kept pointing out otherwise. The one big flaw with the so-called ‘Swedish model’ was the way in which it was legal to do sex work, but illegal to pay the sex worker for her services.
As for anti-porn feminism, it’s big weaknesses is that in any other area of culture, the sexism of the artworks would be challenged by producing something different. With sexually explicit material however, apparently all bets are off. Opening up spaces where alternatives can be produced, enjoyed and debated is going to challenge anti-porn feminism far more directly than trying to disprove emotive and dishonest arguments with facts.
David b,
Yes, it’s a tough one. The only thing I can come up with so far is ‘family’ – as in, a family’s right to decide what their children are exposed to. But I’m also aware that this is the kind of argument that perhaps gets far more emotional reactions in the US than here (see, say, right-wing ridicule of Hillary Clinton’s book ‘It takes a village’ back in the 90s) so may not be as relevant as I think.
Oddly enough when Jane posted her article last week (http://www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/?p=1475), I had already been thinking about it as a result of watching the Gypsy wedding show. Incredibly struck by the amount of family/community control over teenage behaviour they (at least appear to) have. Certainly the gulf between how traveller girls look and how they act is an interesting counter-example to most people’s fears about sexualisation. Not that most people these days would agree with raising girls that way, mind. But it was certainly food for thought.
Is Still Here,
Yes, I block a lot of people on Twitter. Apologies if you felt it was unfair, but of course, discussions like these are excellent places to clarify details. Thank you for joining the discussion, in any case.
I certainly don’t agree with the government’s refusal to require sex ed in schools here or in the US, but acknowledge that there are huge problems with the design and delivery of SRE in schools. Where it is taught, it ranges from info from specific SRE trainers, to presentations by Higgins Trust et al., to yet another thing form tutors are required to do, often with no training, on top of an already very busy job. Added to the delivery problems, the content is less than ideal – risk management and condoms, condoms, condoms. Kids already know how to put a rubber on a banana; they (and society in general) also need the social context to understand why it matters to them, delivered by experts, in an atmosphere where they can explore issues in a real and sensitive way.
Yes, I know I am fucking dreaming. It would be great if *any* subject was delivered to schools in that way, much less SRE.
redpesto,
There’s a part of me that thinks people would stop citing the ‘Swedish model’ if they knew its supporters were juking the stats, and a part of me that realises they wouldn’t. The more I pay attention to what the antis say, the more I realise their idea of ‘consent’ and ‘work’ is based in a world where none of them has ever had a real job. Otherwise this idea of sex work being any worse than, say, any other waged work would have died a death a long time ago.
@Belle de Jour
All through the last Labour Government we had the Nanny State attitude of “We don’t like this, so *you* shouldn’t be allowed to do it/ see it/ read it.” IMO one of the best arguments is to ask those propounding such statements as to whether they think that women should stay at home, raise the kids and cook for their husbands or should women be allowed to make their own decisions and live their own lives freely.
This puts them in an awkward position of either agreeing that women should stay at home etc or agreeing that women have the right to choose what they do for themselves, in which case *why* are they saying “women have the right to choose, but *only* from the options which *we* think are acceptable!”
You can also ask them who is responsible for the upbringing of their children: The State? The TV? The Internet? Or perhaps themselves. Again, if the latter is their choice, ask them *why* they think that the Government should pass laws requiring PCs to be sold with internet filtering technology installed and switched on or to block “objectionable sites” if it is the *parents’* responsibility to take care of their children.
Are the parents saying that they are unable to bring up their children properly? Are they saying that they are incapable of protecting them so they have to abdicate responsibility to the State to do the job for them? Or is it that they just can’t be bothered?
The same goes for the “sexualisation” argument. If nobody buys “sexualising” items such as Bratz dolls, padded bras for 9 year olds, children’s size “porn star” t-shirts etc then shops would quickly get the message that the market isn’t there. But if the shops are selling these items, who is buying them? The children or the parents? So who is to blame? The shop for selling them or the parents for buying them?!
These are the questions which, if asked, will IMO get people thinking about the real problems with their demand that “someone must do something!” Yes, someone must and *they* are the someones, not the State.
there are many moral supremacist groups about,yet, their views represent a minority but a powerful minority in positions of influence.in spite of this,most people have no problem with what happens in private between consenting adults
sex workers need to become more politicised to fight for their rights,most sex workers are working class and working class people generally have little interest in politics or political activism, whereas moral supremacists are usually middle class people with a comfortable lifestyle.
the so called feminists & socialists against sex work are traitors, why should working class women clean toilets for rich people on minimum wage when they can earn more from sex work.
for many working class women,sex work is a better choice.
If you look at the data it is clear that fundamentalism breeds compulsive porn addiction. Evidence shows that Internet pornography consistently appeals most to people in the most sexually repressed reaches of the United States, such as the Bible Belt and more generally the red states with number one being Utah. On the global scale, Internet porn is most profitable in extremely repressed countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. As it turns out, pornography tends to appeal most to sexually repressed people, not people who regard sex as not such a big deal.
IOW, authoritarianism is no solution – it is the problem.
Been mulling over BM’s reframing idea, and am snagged on the realisation that most campaigns are “against” something; few are ‘for”. Trafficking, harm to women, sexualisation of children, immigration, even liberal ones like No2ID. There’s a school of thought that says changes in government are more a vote against incumbents than for an opposition.
But a reframing that might work is to adopt the “embrace and extend” theory. Yes, we are *really* against trafficking, and we are going to do something about it. For instance, set up a web site for punter or victim reporting of suspected instances [though how to deal with malicious reports needs further thought], which would also give a handle on the real extent of the problem.
We are *really* against exploitation of women in sex work. So we are going to set up an independent Commission to evaluate solutions, which has to include “responsible” bodies. ACPO ? Think a constructive version of Longford.
btw has anybody responded to the kids sexualisation call for evidence or questionnaire? http://v.gd/2QOvzz [click Associated resources] but note first http://v.gd/9PiOYC
Fascinating discussion here! I love the idea of using a “meme” war backed by science and facts. As has been noted though, finding the correct meme is, as some of us try to avoid saying, “non trivial”. It may in fact turn out to be impossible in this case. Could it be that this war is actually already being won though? Among the university students I teach (in the States), I think it would be hard to find those, of any political persuasion, that thinks out-lawing pornography access to adults would be a good thing. I suspect one of the reasons this is true is that they’re all, essentially, consumers, and don’t seem to have much guilt associated with this fact. Even attitudes towards “kink” seems to be liberalizing among this population, which is quite diverse socially, economically, racially, etc, so I doubt I’m being misled by observational selection effects.
I’d like to bring to your attention the fact that the Scottish Executive report cited in the article no longer seems to be available, at least not from the link provided in footnote [i].
Regards, Daryl
**Link fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. The Ed**
Late to the debate, but: The more I hear this “prostitution is just like bussing tables or whatever,” the more certain I am of the laziness of the pro-pros side. Just saying it does not make it correct. Sure you may find job satisfaction from hookers. You’ll also see a lot of women who would do the most menial job if it paid anywhere NEAR what sex work does. That’s a sad statement about the commercialization of women’s bodies and sexuality. And if you ask the regular Swedish citizen, the laws have not so much to do with “saving children and helpless women” than addressing a concern of public well-being. Many people are affected by the problems of the sex industry, and they have just as much of a right to say how. Women’s bodies being commodities does wear on the psyche.
And I’m sorry, but who exactly are you referring to as “anti-sex”? From the article, it looks like mainly those that oppose prostitution and porn. Which is kind of what anti-abortion lobbies do when they call themselves “pro-life” (as opposed to “anti-life.”) It’s kind of a “I’ll paint the opposition in a negative light so I look more right” kind of tactic.
Also want to add (thought I reached a word limit on previous post) that when we talk about prostitution, we are statistically talking about women. Women’s bodies fuel the sex industry, we cannot deny it. And there is a reason why that is, I don’t think it needs explaining.
Commercial sex as some ideal may not be inherently bad. But the only way that would happen is if there were as many men in the industry, and the industry stopped relying on the traditionally economically-weak-because-of: gender, race, etc. And I’m sorry, it’s not going to happen. In the meantime, perpetuating a hurtful industry just for the ideal of it is incredibly selfish and irresponsible.
@Lorca
You said
“And if you ask the regular Swedish citizen, the laws have not so much to do with “saving children and helpless women” than addressing a concern of public well-being. Many people are affected by the problems of the sex industry, and they have just as much of a right to say how. Women’s bodies being commodities does wear on the psyche.”
I don’t quite follow how it would ‘wear on the psyche’ if there are prostitutes who like their jobs as well as others who think it’s a so-so job that pays well who are able to work in an environment without stigmatization from lawmakers.
So how do you explain Sweden’s puritanical sex-laws then?
@Luke
Well firstly, your calling the Swedish laws “puritanical” is very telling about your reception to the other side of this issue. It is very much in line with the pro-sex work side throwing around vague, ill-defined phrases like “morality,” “ultra conservative” and yes, “anti-sex” when it comes to dealing with those that disagree with them. I really hope you can set aside your impulse to do this so there can be more clear lines of conversation.
As far as “wearing on the psyche,” it has to do with the consequences of commercializing a gender’s sexuality. You can say “but everything is commercialized, sex sells, even the office worker is selling his/herself” as is repeated so many times. But I hope we can be honest that sex work–and sex itself–has a whole other kind of consequences. And like the consequences of any other industry, they cannot be contained in the industry. That’s not being anti-sex, it’s honest.
I mean absolutely no offense by this, but there is a lot of playing stupid/willful self-deception on both pro and anti sides when it comes to sex work. And this is one I see a lot on the pro side. Until the pro side can finally be honest about that, I don’t see the conversation between the sides–if there can be said that there even is one–budging.
@Dlorca
Well ‘puritanical’ is maybe not the right word. I could call it ‘oppressive’ if you prefer. I am completely honest, when I say that I have never heard a rational argument that justifies Swedish law on buying sex make sense. It all eventually comes down to it, that somehow someone has some feeling that bringing sex and money together is ‘bad’ and they just don’t like it.
And if some people in power for some reason don’t like it, they make a law so that nobody should be allowed to like it either.
Do do you think it is a good idea to make laws to ban something, only based on the fact that someone somewhere doesn’t like it? If we go on like this, almost everything would be illegal eventually right?
So really, there must be more to it than that, but I really can’t comprehend what…
@Luke:
I think saying that the antis criticize sex work “simply because someone somewhere doesn’t like it” is simplistic and/or disingenuous. Many antis recognize the sex trade as both a symptom and perpetuator of a very unhealthy cultural norm surrounding women’s sexuality.
But besides ideology, there are VERY evident social problems surrounding sex work, and I’ve yet to hear the pro side admit to them, much less take responsibility for them. All I’ve really seen is the pros trying to wriggle away from them. The profession absolutely is the cause of trafficking. It always will be. Because, as I’ve said, the profit obtained from women’s bodies is just stupid. It’s a reality that prostitution will perpetuate whether or not it’s legal.
As far as “happy hookers,” well, great. But the fact is, they are personally profiting from a system that is hurtful (for reasons that I stated in previous posts) even to those that choose not to participate in it. The attitude is “As long as I make my cut from it, whatever.” So why is catering laws to those who like something even though it affects others negatively any more correct? Do we compromise societal health because there are people who like smoking? Is this “oppression?” This whole “Banning =/=BAD!” is also simplistic. Civilization has bans that we call “laws,” and you are protected by them every day.
@DLorca
“I think saying that the antis criticize sex work “simply because someone somewhere doesn’t like it” is simplistic and/or disingenuous. Many antis recognize the sex trade as both a symptom and perpetuator of a very unhealthy cultural norm surrounding women’s sexuality.”
Isn’t ‘unhealthy cultural norm surrounding women’s sexuality’ just another way of saying ‘I don’t like it’. It’s none of the government’s business to go around telling what kind of sex between consenting adults is acceptable and what isn’t.
“But besides ideology, there are VERY evident social problems surrounding sex work, and I’ve yet to hear the pro side admit to them, much less take responsibility for them.”
There are many social problems in society. There is no need to specifically target sex workers and their clients and blame them for everything that is wrong in the world, just because it is the group that is fashionable to hate nowadays.
And in countries where prostitution is criminalised and vilified, it isn’t a bit disingenious for the some people who criminalise it to then point and say how they are are criminals?
Kidnapping and forcing someone in prostition are obvious crimes (which I supposed is what you mean by trafficking), and has nothing to do whatsoever with voluntary sex work. The best allies in fighting these crimes would be exactly the sex-workers and clients the anti-lobby dispises so much.
And as to smoking laws. Smoking nowadays is restricted to smoking areas, so that people who don’t want to be exposed to second hand smoke don’t have to. It is not banned. The same way, visible prostitution can be restricted to certain areas with zoning laws, which already applies to any other business as well.
@Luke
“Isn’t ‘unhealthy cultural norm surrounding women’s sexuality’ just another way of saying ‘I don’t like it’. ”
–No. It’s saying that there is an unhealthy cultural norm surrounding women’s sexuality. And there are dangers, as well as nuisances that impede everyday living–involved in that.
“It’s none of the government’s business to go around telling what kind of sex between consenting adults is acceptable and what isn’t.”
–It is the public’s right to say what they want in their society. In the case of Sweden, citizens said that they were adversely affected by prostitution, by the social problems surrounding it and by the foundations of it.
“There are many social problems in society. There is no need to specifically target sex workers and their clients and blame them for everything that is wrong in the world, just because it is the group that is fashionable to hate nowadays.”
–No one is blaming sex workers for everything wrong in the world. This kind of argument is like saying “You can’t blame polluters for all the money laundering politicans do.” I am talking about the issues specific to the sex industry. And “fashionable to hate?” With all due respect,anyone who sees criticism as hate should not be discussing issues such as this, because it is hiding behind an identity of victimhood.
“And in countries where prostitution is criminalised and vilified, it isn’t a bit disingenious for the some people who criminalise it to then point and say how they are are criminals?”
–not sure what you mean here.
“Kidnapping and forcing someone in prostition are obvious crimes (which I supposed is what you mean by trafficking), and has nothing to do whatsoever with voluntary sex work.”
–No, actually, they are connected. I know it’s become the battle hymn of pros to say one has nothing to do with the other. The fact is, “legal” prostitution and trafficking draw from the same well– the well of profit to be had by renting out/selling women’s sexuality. It is the tree they branch off of that makes both of them a problem. And as long as women’s bodies are so lucrative, there will always be a black market. Always. But I explained this above. Trafficking is just one example, however.
“And as to smoking laws. Smoking nowadays is restricted to smoking areas, so that people who don’t want to be exposed to second hand smoke don’t have to. It is not banned. The same way, visible prostitution can be restricted to certain areas with zoning laws, which already applies to any other business as well.
–That was not the point I was making about smoking. Prostitution is/has been already restricted to certain areas with zoning laws. Sweden and Iceland had this. It didn’t work.Even Amsterdam is considering following through. Yyou cannot contain the consequences of prostitution within the industry, the way you can contain smoke to a certain area.. Prostitution is an entirely different kind of industry in itself, with very different consequences. Anyone not including/denying/looking the other way from these realities of the sex industry honestly does not belong in the discussion of it (I’m not referring to you, but many on the pro side.)
@DLorca
“It is the public’s right to say what they want in their society. In the case of Sweden, citizens said that they were adversely affected by prostitution, by the social problems surrounding it and by the foundations of it.”
Use the power of the majority to suppress a minority is not worthy of a healthy democracy. Putophobia is just as objectionable as xenophobia and homophobia. Certainly not what you would expect from the left with their rhetoric about championing the rights of the downtrodden. Looks like there is only a thin line between marxism and fascism after all.
“It is the tree they branch off of that makes both of them a problem. And as long as women’s bodies are so lucrative, there will always be a black market. Always.”
This proves that criminalization doesn’t work. It just pushes the industry underground and in the hands criminals. Instead of making the social problems go away it makes them worse.
“Prostitution is an entirely different kind of industry in itself, with very different consequences.”
Every industry is unique in it’s own way. The medical profession, the financial industry, the law profession, the fruit picking industry… Yes, they are all different.
Oh… speaking of the fruit industry… there is a lot of trafficking in that too. Maybe Sweden should consider a law that criminalizes buying fruit.
@Luke
“Use the power of the majority to suppress a minority…”
So, let a minority infringe on the rights of a majority, because they’re… a minority? Any action taken against them is “suppression”?
“Every industry is unique in it’s own way. The medical profession… law profession, the fruit picking industry… speaking of the fruit industry… there is a lot of trafficking in that too. Maybe Sweden should consider a law that criminalizes buying fruit.”
One industry is selling a gender’s sexuality. The other isn’t. Different “product”, different dynamics with trafficking. Not making it less severe, but solutions will not be the same.
In any case, this could go on, and we should probably leave commentary for addressing the article at this point. I didn’t mean to start quite a tangent when I addressed BDJ’s comments.
While I haven’t actually yet made my mind up about porn and prostitution as concepts (having worked in the sex industry and loved porn in the past but also having become very disillusioned by the sexist/coercive nature of much porn/sex work I encountered), I do think the good doctor is painting anti-porn and prostitution people with the wrong brush.
Some are puritanical and anti-sex but most I have met are anti-selling of sex (especially if it profits those other than the people who are doing the sex-work) – in other words, it is not the sex, but the money and power balance they object to. They by no means seem like prudes and certainly would have no problem with women having sex as much as they wanted with men they really wanted to have sex with, or the portrayal of respectful explicit sex…. the concept of being able to buy sex is a different one to sex. And whatever you feel about that, I don’t think you can accuse them all of being anti-sex. In this country you can donate a kidney, but you can’t sell one – and this is the difference between being anti-prostitution and anti-sex.
@Lou Bell
I agree with you. It’s quite maddening that there is not a good, honest debate when it comes to sex work. And honestly, I see the obstacle mostly coming from the defensiveness of sex workers and their supporters. It leads to the same tired, shallow “It’s the oldest profession!” “You can’t tell me what to do with my body!” and evasive tactics like “Goldiggers objectify women just as much as prostitutes, the only difference is that prostitutes are honest about it!” (as though there are only two types of women in the world, and they both use sex to manipulate. I’ve seen as much fervor from the anti side, but then I’ve seen much more rational debate from the anti side. Brooke Magnanti is just another propagandist, IMHO. The sad thing is that her media image has gained her lots of fans. It’s depressing how truth is so obscured that way. No one sees past the smokescreen to the shallow reasoning underneath it all. This article is yet another example of all the schoolyard tactics — i.e. calling people who don’t agree with you being “anti-sex.”
Oh and BTW, has anyone noticed the Magnanti is trying the “well, if I can’t deny that trafficking and prostitution are connected, then I’ll try the whole ‘trafficking is not a big deal, everyone is inflating the numbers!'” thing — and using the same two questionably researched articles (and one really desperate, propagandist link) as “evidence.” (Read her recent Twitter.) People, this isn’t someone we need for advice about sex and sex work.
There is a lot of controversy over the topics of sex trafficking, sex slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution. Regarding what the definition is, the research methods used to find statistics, what the definition of a victim is, the number of child and adult victims involved, forced vs. unforced sex, how the actual prostitutes themselves feel about it, and legal vs. illegal prostitution.
There is a growing number of well respected researchers, journalists, scientists, professors, that have concluded in their research that the sex trafficking, sex slavery concept is based on emotion, morals, and monetary funding rather than facts, evidence and proof. They state that very few kidnapped, forced against their will, physically abused, raped sex slave prostitutes for profit have been found throughout the world. Their research concludes that women who enter into this type of work do so of their own free will. They also state that there are many anti-prostitution groups who simply do not like the idea of consensual adult prostitution and have distorted the facts in order to push their agenda and receive funding and money into their organizations in the form of donations, grants and to change the laws about prostitution. They state that these anti-prostitution groups use made up child sex trafficking statistics which they have no proof or evidence of in order to gain public acceptance for their cause.
Here are some good websites about sex trafficking:
http://bebopper76.wordpress.com
http://sextraffickingtruths.blogspot.com/
http://www.villagevoice.com/sex-trafficking/
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/thread00272_trafficking_hype.htm