This is what political courage and integrity looks like. It's so rare. Thank you. 'Our once-feminist organisations have become unrecognisable. They’ve been queered—in both form and content'. This is the essential playbook of trans activists across the world. And taking down feminism and feminists, especially by dividing women and making feminism about everything but women as a class of humans oppressed by our sex, was always a central strategy of their activism.
Feminists books and articles I have read recently will literally list "sex work" in the same sentence as teaching, nursing, etc. when talking about women-dominated careers. It is insane.
Thank you for this post. It is inspiring to have such a beautiful example of the courage to be vulnerable, sharing the journey of your evolving thinking, not erasing anything. To me it is a tonic, an antidote to patriarchal insistance on certainty and the shame it instills about mistakes or not knowing.
I have always found it most interesting that Feminists support the notion that Sex Work is Work. Having lived in the Netherlands for decades it has been my observation that this industry is controlled by Men. I add exclusively controlled by Men of the worst possible kind. I have witnessed too much violence against these women to believe the " political spin" that many will use. It is shameful to call sex work anything other than what it is: exploitation.
I remember a group of lefty, middle class university students I was teaching in Melbourne, Australia, around 2010 who were most critical of capitalism, big business and corporations, until it came to the “sex industry” which somehow was exempt from their analysis.
OK, so change it. If the issue is one of leadership and ownership, and not of the fundamental nature of the industry, change it. Imagine if you said this about agriculture in the 19th century:
I have always found it most interesting that [anti-racists] support the notion that [Farming] is Work. Having lived in the [the south] for decades it has been my observation that this industry is controlled by [white men]. I add exclusively controlled by [white men] of the worst possible kind. I have witnessed too much violence against these [people of colour] to believe the " political spin" that many will use. It is shameful to call [farming] anything other than what it is: exploitation.
Again, take that logic to other """industries""" like mining, manufacturing, lumberjacking, and so on. Are we supposed to just throw our hands up and say "Well, lumberjacking is literally the most dangerous profession per capita. I guess we just have to live with that."?
No one is saying that. The problem is that while most industries are subject to regulations, the same is not true for sex-work. The Dutch like to believe that it is, but it is not. There's no political will to change anything. The “ management” is part of organized crime, so good luck with implementing changes. The police don't get involved unless someone has been murdered. The only thing that would change anything is if the “ clientele” were to stop their “ consumption” which is not bloody likely. As for the “ workers” their only chance is not to be lured in by promises of good jobs in the “ entertainment industry” as dancers, etc.
So my gripe with the Feminists who support the sex industry is their wilful blindness to the exploitation of vulnerable people.
OK, let's look at each of the problems one by one:
>There's no political will to change anything.
OK, so be the change you want to see. Be the first with the political will to change things. Who knows, you might spark a chain reaction.
>The “ management” is part of organized crime, so good luck with implementing changes
The same is true for casinos, farms, construction companies, and many more. Does that mean we as a society cannot implement safety and anti-exploitation measures for construction workers?
>The police don't get involved unless someone has been murdered.
Great, that also applies to 95% of all other industries. Seriously, how naive are you? Do you think police are pre-emptively looking into places like game developers and trying to squash any blatant worker's rights violations?
>The only thing that would change anything is if the “ clientele” were to stop their “ consumption” which is not bloody likely.
What? Boycotts are a thing that do definitely happen. Right now, there is a partial Canadian boycott of American products in general!
>As for the “ workers” their only chance is not to be lured in by promises of good jobs in the “ entertainment industry” as dancers, etc.
And the only chance for immigrant workers is not to be lured in by promises of stable employment, only to be trapped working 18 hours a day on a farm with no passport, no communication with the outside world, and a pittance in pay. Thus, that means that agriculture as an industry is inherently exploitative and must be banned!
Another example that uses basically every argument: marijuana. At least in Canada, most of the negative aspects of marijuana (the crime, abusive conditions, and so on) were in large part because of the illegal nature of the drug, not the drug itself. Now that it has been legal for a good long while, the majority of the negative aspects of marijuana have (if you'll excuse the pun) shriveled into nothingness.
None of those industries involve selling the use of your body for any sort of invasive and noxious act the buyer chooses. Agriculture, mining can and have been regulated into safety. Attempts to make prostitution safe centre on controlling and humiliating the women involved - see the Control of Infectious Diseases Act in Britain in the late 19th century - not making the work safe for them.
And? Then change it. The medical industry often performed invasive and "noxious" acts on whoever they could get their hands on, usually the underprivileged and minorities.
This sounds like someone is complaining about a bakery putting lead in the crust of their bread, and saying that means bread is fundamentally dangerous. If there are obvious problems, there are obvious (though not easy) solutions.
Are you arguing in bad faith or do you have worms in your brain?
"I have always found it most interesting that anti-racists support the notion that Farming is Work." doesn't make sense btw, the correct analogue would be "I have always found it most interesting that racists support the notion that Farming is Work." but I'm not going to focus on that.
The problem with the south was the LITERAL CHATTEL SLAVERY, not farming as an industry. SLAVERY is inherently exploitative. Farming is not inherently exploitative. Being a SLAVE is not work. Being a farmer is work.
We need farmers because they produce the food that societies need to sustain themselves. Society does NOT need slaves and yet trafficking is still a major issue in today's world because you need money to have power in this world, and slaves are a major economic boon. This is why the civil war happened, because southern plantation owners believed the chance of winning the war despite all of the losses that would occur was the more economic choice over giving up their slaves.
Btw, even farming which is not an inherently exploitative industry is rife with exploitation. Of migrants, and ofc VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING. Very few people WANT to do farming because it is hard labor. Out of the people who are actually willing to do it, it is often the case because they are desperately poor or trying to escape their country for whatever reason.
Now back to the topic of the sex industry. Prostitution and sex work IS inherently exploitative. It's not the oldest job because it's empowering. It's the oldest job because women have, and have historically had, less power than men. It's the only thing women have consistently had access to do in order to earn an income, assuming they are not a slave or trafficking victim. Which they often are btw.
What does it mean to be empowered? Literal definition is "to give someone power or authority, especially to act or be able to do something on their own. It implies confidence, control, and the means to achieve something. In essence, it's about enabling individuals to have the power to take action and make decisions for themselves."
If sex work is empowering, why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking? If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans? If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide? If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is? (Google all of these things before you tell me I'm making shit up)
If you ask me, sex work is the opposite of empowering. Many of those who are not trafficked are LIED TO about the nature of their work, or are coerced into doing acts they are not comfortable with when they are not in the position to refuse. Would you feel empowered if your employer purposefully obfuscated the role to you and then commanded you to do shittier work after you accepted the job? That you'd better do the shittier work or, well... you don't exactly have the choice because you're there and they are much stronger than you. Would you feel empowered if, after 10 years of doing this job for gradually less pay over time, your employer told you to GTFO because you're too ugly to make them money anymore? No unemployment or severance pay btw. And don't expect any healthcare, mental or otherwise. No OSHA so if you contracted any diseases in the line of work you are SOL.
>The problem with the south was the LITERAL CHATTEL SLAVERY, not farming as an industry. SLAVERY is inherently exploitative. Farming is not inherently exploitative. Being a SLAVE is not work. Being a farmer is work.
Exactly my point! Even though farming has been primarily done by slaves for a lot longer than it hasn't, the issue was the slavery.
>Btw, even farming which is not an inherently exploitative industry is rife with exploitation. Of migrants, and ofc VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING. Very few people WANT to do farming because it is hard labor. Out of the people who are actually willing to do it, it is often the case because they are desperately poor or trying to escape their country for whatever reason.
Yes, also one of my points! Just because there are slaves in an industry does not mean that the industry is the problem, it's the slavery that is the problem.
>Now back to the topic of the sex industry. Prostitution and sex work IS inherently exploitative. It's not the oldest job because it's empowering. It's the oldest job because women have, and have historically had, less power than men. It's the only thing women have consistently had access to do in order to earn an income, assuming they are not a slave or trafficking victim. Which they often are btw.
Yes, prostitution and sex work is inherently exploitative. But, that's because all work is inherently exploitative. If I work at a grocery store, my employer is exploiting my willingness to do manual labour in exchange for payment. That's how things work.
>If sex work is empowering, why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking? If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans? If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide? If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is? (Google all of these things before you tell me I'm making shit up)
You know, a lot of those points also apply to acting. But, let's go over them one at a time:
- why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking?
Because of the sex trafficking. If there was no sex trafficking, it wouldn't be primarily made up of trafficked individuals.
- If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans?
Probably because of the sex trafficking.
- If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide?
Probably because of the sex trafficking.
- If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is?
Because it primarily is a service based industry, and women always have had problems competing against younger women in service industries. The reason as to why that happens is a fairly complex and nuanced topic, and extends far beyond any one industry.
>Many of those who are not trafficked are LIED TO about the nature of their work, or are coerced into doing acts they are not comfortable with when they are not in the position to refuse.
Like agriculture jobs today.
>Would you feel empowered if your employer purposefully obfuscated the role to you and then commanded you to do shittier work after you accepted the job?
Oh, you mean like agriculture jobs today? Yeah, that would suck, and that practice should be illegal.
>That you'd better do the shittier work or, well... you don't exactly have the choice because you're there and they are much stronger than you.
Again, like agriculture.
Basically, any argument you are making is also an argument against the idea of agriculture jobs. Because many people are, today, being trafficked to work what basically amounts to slave labour.
Technocratic confusion when faced with individuals who don't fit a pre-formed mould; no re-evaluation of ideas when faced with evidence to the contrary; slogans with no substance shouted by punk-style activists; aside from the clarity and integrity of your argument, you've also just summed up 'radical' politics in Vienna very nicely.
True, but there’s a special kind of entitlement with comes from living in a low-stakes culture where you’re never challenged and can basically retire age 25.
Thank you Faika for writing this thoughtful and clear piece. I've been in a similar place of conflict myself, and your experience gives solace and strength. We're going to get out of this upside-down male-supremacist bullshit the more we all speak out!
I'm an admirer of Faika El-Nagashi and appreciated the interview she did with Róisín Michaux enormously. Reading this article, though, I have to wonder why it should take anyone over a decade to fatally question whether 'Sex work is work'. No other majority-female employment has the same risk-profile and our instincts easily rebel against the idea: we would prefer almost any other line of work for our own daughters. Ultimately, my question is: what is it about certain institutions, especially institutions dominated by leftists, that make intelligent people completely abandon common sense?
Wow, thank you so much Faika E-Nagashi, for these honest and truthful words! I have been working frontline with women in prostitution for over 15 years, most of my time in Vienna, Austria, now in Germany, and I am very familiar with the things you describe and I have followed your political career. Your words are very inspiring and I agree with what most people here say: it takes courage and integrity to rethink our own standpoints and activism. All the best for you and your work!
Since you seem reasonable and you experienced both camps, I'd like to ask you a couple troubling questions that I'm unlikely to be able to address to more established abolitionists. Beg your pardon in advance for intruding.
I'm male. I assume sexuality is different for men and women, but I also assume you'll agree there is plenty of variance within each sex, meaning some women may legitimately decide what is worse for them (I have heard some young women saying they experienced less sexism and harassment while in prostitution than they did while being a waitress, strange as though it may sound). I'll also assume you agree sex negativism per se leads to dark paths (mostly to backlashes that give power to all third-waves worst takes, but also possibly giving weight to religious puritanism).
With all this out of the way, I mostly see abolitionists as either decrying prostitution in principle, or advocating the nordic model as the most pragmatic tactic. I'm not convinced by either.
As for the first, it is most powerfully expressed (I read Bindel saying it many times) this way: "if people really think prostitution isn't a bad situation, why do they seem to advocate it for people they don't know, while being horrified by the prospect their daughters could do it?" But this isn't the fatal blow it's supposed to be, because one can grant that prostitution may not be ideal (as I do, with a little unease because I'm afraid to sound prude) while denying it is particularly bad or specifically different from other not very good things we put up with. For example, I wouldn't be glad if my son worked in a mine or in a foundry (and unfortunately I've seen many young men die horrible deaths in such jobs). So trying to be honest, I'm not sure that given the choice between a daughter in a foundry or a daughter in prostitution I'd think it would be better for her to work in a foundry. You were shocked by the news of homicides happening even in the most secure environment possible; but accidents happen even in the most secure conditions. It's difficult to ascertain the prevalence since I don't know of an exact census on the number of women in prostitution, but an approximate estimate for Italy (where I live) gives a similar number of deaths per person doing the activity for those working in agriculture and for prostitutes (~0,015% per person per year*).
This means I see no reason to support abolitionism in principle (in fact, I see liberal reasons to be against: personal autonomy).
Now to the nordic model. There are liberal reasons why it could be a bad idea: prohibitionism in general doesn't work, it just leads to dark markets and worse outcomes (as happened with alcool prohibitionism in the US). I have seen scientific papers that claim both that it did wonderful things where implemented, and other scientific papers that say the exact opposite, that it worsened the situation for the most vulnerables. I don't see a scientific consensus and a clear outcome on this. I'm open to definitive evidence.
On the other hand, in such discussions, it most often seems as if there are just two alternatives (spoiler: this is not true). You are typically presented with a choice between regulation and the nordic model. I agree with all the problems regulations leads to (brothels, exploitation, "all you can f*ck" discounts, etc). The nordic model is supposed to be different from criminalizing the prostitutes, but I can't understand how could it ever be true, because you can't criminalize "the buyer" while expecting this doesn't affect "the seller". This means you should expect a worse outcome for the prostitutes, almost as if you criminalized them too in practice (even if not doing that nominally).
I rarely see discussed the italian alternative: neither regulation nor criminalization. (This came about in 1958 by initiative of a socialist woman member of parliament, who consulted with many prostitutes for years before promoting the law). Exploitation is forbidden, so you don't have the problems that come with brothels (there aren't any); only the single woman can prostitute herself. Of course I don't think this solves everything: times changed, immigration to Italy wasn't a thing when the law was passed, while trafficking exists nowadays. But it is already illegal. So if it is not prosecuted enough, the problem is not the law, so you don't need the adopt the nordic model to tackle trafficking. The problem is insufficient policing, and the cause is people don't care enough about exploited migrants to put too many resources in fighting that. If this is a correct assessment of the situation, I don't see how changing the law would shift things: illegal things will continue to happen exactly as they happen now, if no one is enforcing the rules.
I can understand the power of symbols (making a thing illegal could dissuade). But it sound a little too much as virtue signalling to me.
So for the moment I'm with the TERFs on their fight for women's right and reality, but I'm listening to the Red Umbrella people against abolitionism.
I'm open to change my mind and I'd value your input on my reasoning.
Meanwhile, sorry for bothering you writing too much but I wanted to avoid being misunderstood.
* 150 deaths per year in agricolture on 1 million workers -> 0,015%
184 prostitutes were reported dead between 2000 and 2016. (I'm not sure if it means 11,7 per year or 10,8 -i.e. if they are considering both the initial and the final year: let's go with the highest which gives the worse case scenario).
In 2017 the estimated number of women in prostitution was between 75.000 and 120.000. In order to have the worse case estimate (the one that gives higher risk) you should consider the lowest number, and this calculation gives 0,0156% deaths per person per year (a little worse than the agriculture case -EDIT: but the most optimistic estimate would give instead 0,009% which would be almost half the agriculture case).
Sir, it is clear from your writing that you are very far from understanding what it does to a person to be sexually penetrated without any physical desire, day after day, year after year. And why should you understand it? Hardly anyone writes about it, there's no "science" about it, and it's unlikely it has happened to you. But your lack of knowledge is a very large factor in why your statistics about agricultural work versus prostitution are unpersuasive.
What I find unpersuasive is avoiding any argument and relying on... what... lived experience? Strangely the lives of men who die in great numbers by horrible deaths don't count as much, and of course we should patronize and desbelief all women who say they are chosing to do it (admittedly a choice limited by opportunities) because you know better. Yes that's surely persuasive.
Males (or females) dying on the job from a safety failure, whether in the mine or in a factory, is a bit different than being murdered for the crime of being female.
I did not read anything in the comment above about men dying horribly not counting as much. This isn't scorekeeping. But I can't count the number of times I've heard a male say that if he was a woman, he would be a prostitute, saying all she has to do is lay there and make money. Funny reaction I get when I respond that there are plenty of men that would pay him to lay face down and/or get down on his knees.
I admit I reacted a bit harshly, but I put a lot of effort into trying to discuss calmly and I find childish and irritating if someone replies without enganging with anything, simply asserting "you are a man so you cant understand". Maybe not, but it seems clear a few women arent trafficked and choose to do it, so maybe they think penetration isnt all that bad. Meanwhile not only deaths but plenty of other jobs are physically usurating. I asked for engagement with arguments and got a patronizing reply (which usually means there isnt an easy answer). But you're right I should have avoided the sarcasm maybe.
So, are you arguing that sexual intercourse, alone, should be banned, but things like manual and oral sex work should be allowed? Or are you arguing that there needs to be more research into the side-effects of un-aroused sex, and people should figure out ways of diminishing or eliminating those side-effects?
Oh, hey, CoffeeBits, it's not that brave or cool to respond to someone and then immediately block them, thus preventing them from responding to your response. It's just a cheap and cowardly way of "getting the last word". Monstrous Regiment was talking about was the physical effects of such a thing.
Perhaps you might take a moment to imagine how it would impact your psychology to give blowjobs to 20 random men every day. There is no way to avoid the "side effects" as you term them.
It’s not about comparing the rates, it’s about comparing the underlying logic.
Agriculture, like many professions, has some element of danger. It might be due to working with large equipment, heat stress, or unpredictable animals, but there is always a chance an agriculture worker might be injured or killed.
Does this inherent danger mean that we, as a society, should come together and ban all forms of agriculture? Obviously not, we come together and think of ways of minimizing the risk. We invent safety devices and strategies that reduce the risk. We impose fines and other punishments on farms that intentionally circumvent these devices and strategies. We encourage, often through financial means, the adoption of said devices and strategies. If we can do that with the notoriously slave-driven industry of agriculture, why can’t we do that with the sex industry?
There isn't logic in the comparison because you are talking about safety, which Faika admitted to previously believing that safety could be secured, then (to paraphrase) it just became another job choice. In prostitution it's the human dignity that is missing. I'm a former military diver and there's plenty of danger there, and now I have a small sheep farm and the rams are dangerous. In prostitution it's the degradation that's part of the problem.
If you are the owner of the farm, the comparison isn't meaningful.
It's as if I used as an argument that Aella charges 4000$ an hour for her escorting. It's obvious that it's difficult to argue prostitution should be prohibited if you start from such unusual cases, but I agree with the abolitionist's answer in this case: her situation is not representative of the average condition of women in prostitution.
In agriculture the situation is similar: there are the owners like you, the average workers, and then there are genuine inhuman conditions. In Italy there is huge exploitation of migrants in the agricultural industry and trafficking exists. There are often plausible reports of women who are both forced to work in almost slavery in agriculture and are sexually harassed and abused.
But nobody asks to abolish agriculture, we seek to end trafficking and establish work conditions that aren't slavery and stop/jail abusers.
Saying that in prostitution in principle there can't be dignity is begging the question if you don't speak about material conditions (and that would apply even to cases the like of Aella - good luck making the case to the general public that the one who charges 4000$ an hour is exploited without sounding prude). Aren't there any conditions between very high-end and trafficked? Sure there are. The point imo is to avoid both the classist, entitled argument that millionaires can have access to prostitutes, and that the cheaper alternative is necessarily trafficking and exploitation. Surely there has to be a dignified intermediate solution that would correspond to the situation in agriculture where you aren't neither the owner nor a slave, but you have fair wages and labour conditions that minimize risks. It's the situation where the single woman choses "freely" to prostitute herself, can refuse specific clients without risks, isn't subjected to pimps (neither privately nor by the state). Of course you could argue what "free" means -would she choose something else if she had a feasible alternative? Maybe (but you should be open to the alternative: maybe not). But why the same question shouldn't apply to workers in other very harsh jobs: wouldn't the miner or the foundry worker choose to do a white collar job if he had the alternative? Why should one case be regarded as inherently inhuman while the other as acceptable if not for prudish reason? Those who don't admit this generally point to male entitlement: having sex isn't a right (this is correct). But why should you focus in your prejudice that the "buyer" is necessarily a woman hater instead of focusin on the woman? Unfortunately this also means denying agency to her: you also don't have the right to tell a woman what she might or might not choose to do for whatever reason (including getting money without having to resort to another job she could legitimately find more degrading than prostitution, even if this may sound strange to us).
If you want to have a meaningful debate, perhaps leave out extreme and rare cases such as Aella. She’s just as gross as her customers. As far as you bringing up agriculture, I’ll point out that any business can become exploitative of the workers, and even upper-level management can be exploited, just as some in the livestock industry abuse the animals while others keep them in excellent conditions. I also never said the Johns are women haters, but no doubt some are. I also don’t “accept” inhumane conditions in any field, but the post is about prostitution, not every “job” under the sun, and the conditions in prostitution are in their own category. Prostitution is not just about females as there are also male prostitutes, although for a male it’s not inherently dangerous. I met a former gigolo in my young adulthood, and he told me it was a terrible business and all about controlling another human being, where even the well-heeled female clients were quite nasty and would remind the males they had power over them. I also never suggested making prostitution illegal as I believe the better path is to work with young people and those already prostituting to help them start a career path outside of the porn industry.
"If you want to have a meaningful debate, perhaps leave out extreme and rare cases such [you being the owner of the farm and not an average worker, let alone an exploited one]"
The only reason I cited Aella was to highlight how *your* comparison wasn't meaningful, so you retorting in this way means being disingenuous.
So it's an issue of "degredation", not safety? Well, I guess that means those people in mascot costumes advertising for a local sandwich restaurant should be banned!
Or what about the beleaguered assistant of the powerful real estate tycoon, who must (lest they be fired or worse) suck up and praise whatever stupid decision comes in their head? Surely that degradation is worth banning?
But what about people like Chris-chan, who constantly degrade themselves of their own volition? Should some human rights group come and save them from their own actions?
It really isnt. AweDude already explained one point. Degradation sounds a little prude to me Im afraid. I have female friends who had sex with hundreds of men by choice. The problem is instead physical and psychological harm, and a key difference is having sex with one you didnt choose. I think this is obvious if you are trafficked and coherced, way less obvious if the single woman decides its not a problem for her and shes able to refuse specific clients (which was one ot the reason to close the brothels in Italy).
Then allow sex workers to choose. A realtor can, for any reason, refuse to work with a given client. Of course, this means they often will not be paid (assuming their entire paycheck comes from commissions), but they still have a choice as to whether or not they want to work with a specific individual.
«The “sex work” camp’s to reduction of prostitution to a labor-process conceals precisely the form of alienation with which feminists confronted Marxism — not in (pace MacKinnon) work being what is most taken-away, but in one’s own sexuality being what is most taken-away. This is different, because women’s sexuality is taken-away in many more spheres than work. It is taken-away one way or another everywhere women ubiquitously encounter predatory men, which is one reason that feminists were met with hostility on the left when they pointed this out. What was at stake was not only the workerist fallacy, but male sexual entitlement.»
It seems to me that academics and activists have created an elite grooming gang, which has persuaded mostly female students that they have the right to rent out their bodies. What they don't seem to realise is that working class and migrant women operate in a different context, where choices are limited, and coercion is the norm.
I hope, truly and deeply, that you apply the same logic to other industries. Farming and manufacturing have some of the highest rates of trafficked labour, so should be similarly stigmatized and eventually banned.
However, I doubt you're doing that. Somehow, I doubt you are looking to the many modern and current cases of human trafficking, where the victims end up working at farms, and saying "Clearly, this shows that farming as an industry must be banned."
The issue is that... well... to be blunt, people have agency. The man who killed those three sex workers is at fault for their deaths, he chose to do those things. You might as well look at racially targeted killings and say somehow the idea of race was the reason those people were killed.
Yes, maybe your specific ideal working environment had flaws. Guess what? Every industry has had safety issues, either inherent or induced by outside forces. That doesn't mean those industries are inherently evil and can't be made safer. I would hate to see someone like you in charge of automobile safety. "Hmmm, it seems like this seatbelt design actually harmed its occupants. I guess that means all seatbelts are dangerous and should never be used."
CoffeeBits, again I can't respond to you, but your argument is completely false. You said "I see, you are another man who thinks getting his dick wet is as important as food and shelter in society, smh" but in no way did I mention the "importance" of any given industry. Do you think only the "important" industries deserve protection, and the "unimportant" ones don't deserve any evolution or thoughts for safety?
Safety issues are not be confused with someone paying to hump and dump their bodily excretions in another human being. Then there's the added pothole of women lied to and/or coerced in order for the predator to traffic another. I've been in a dangerous job (military diver) I chose to do, and this job produced something positive. Humping and dumping is nothing more than titillation for narcissistic males (and a few deranged women) and adds nothing to humanity except the degradation of the female that's been prostituted.
>pothole of women lied to and/or coerced in order for the predator to traffic another
Then stop that.
I'm not saying these are easy tasks, but at least they are simple and obvious. "Women are being killed for doing sex work" OK, so stop that. "Women are coerced into sex work" OK, so stop that. "Women are abused by pimps/johns/the police/the clergy/someone else." OK. So. Stop. That.
The complaints are not fundamental to the idea of sex work, especially because they are found in other industries. Again, people are trafficked into agriculture jobs, does that mean that agriculture as an industry should be banned?
Or, maybe, just maybe, this is an invitation for you to explain your own logic, and thus allow me to compare and contrast it to mine. Maybe if you explain how you think that farming *isn't* coercive or degrading, and how sex work is, we can actually have a discussion, instead of us just flinging "No, I'm right"s at each other until the heat death of the universe.
🚨The whataboutery alarm has been triggered. And the devil’s advocate threat level is Severe. We are implementing our Heightened response protocols for all our safety in T-5…4…3…2…1…0. Please step away from the comment box as a matter of urgency🚨
Faika: Here’s a thoughtful, vulnerable article, full of integrity, admitting a change of view and past mistakes about an important issue harming women, a group she’s choosing to focus her activism on. Also she’s noticing how undermining the way women are defined in law and understood socially, undermines our ability to even talk about the exploitation of women in prostitution
A man on the internet: What about agricultural workers?
You demonstrated whataboutery in your many comments to others, and perfectly defined it in your denial of whataboutery. I think you’re making the point wonderfully on your own.
Wow, thank you so much Faika El-Nagashi, for these honest and truthful words! I have been working frontline with women in prostitution for over 15 years, most of my time in Vienna, Austria, now in Germany, and I am very familiar with the things you describe and I have followed your political career. Your words are very inspiring and I agree with what most people here say: it takes courage and integrity to rethink our own standpoints and activism! Thank you for having both, and all the best for you and your work!
This is what political courage and integrity looks like. It's so rare. Thank you. 'Our once-feminist organisations have become unrecognisable. They’ve been queered—in both form and content'. This is the essential playbook of trans activists across the world. And taking down feminism and feminists, especially by dividing women and making feminism about everything but women as a class of humans oppressed by our sex, was always a central strategy of their activism.
I stopped highlighting quotes because there are just too many, you’re too good
We should all have such integrity x
Feminists books and articles I have read recently will literally list "sex work" in the same sentence as teaching, nursing, etc. when talking about women-dominated careers. It is insane.
Thank you for this post. It is inspiring to have such a beautiful example of the courage to be vulnerable, sharing the journey of your evolving thinking, not erasing anything. To me it is a tonic, an antidote to patriarchal insistance on certainty and the shame it instills about mistakes or not knowing.
Thank you, Roz!
I have always found it most interesting that Feminists support the notion that Sex Work is Work. Having lived in the Netherlands for decades it has been my observation that this industry is controlled by Men. I add exclusively controlled by Men of the worst possible kind. I have witnessed too much violence against these women to believe the " political spin" that many will use. It is shameful to call sex work anything other than what it is: exploitation.
I remember a group of lefty, middle class university students I was teaching in Melbourne, Australia, around 2010 who were most critical of capitalism, big business and corporations, until it came to the “sex industry” which somehow was exempt from their analysis.
I guess these kids thought that " sex industry workers" are self-employed .... and are free to change jobs whenever they choose..
OK, so change it. If the issue is one of leadership and ownership, and not of the fundamental nature of the industry, change it. Imagine if you said this about agriculture in the 19th century:
I have always found it most interesting that [anti-racists] support the notion that [Farming] is Work. Having lived in the [the south] for decades it has been my observation that this industry is controlled by [white men]. I add exclusively controlled by [white men] of the worst possible kind. I have witnessed too much violence against these [people of colour] to believe the " political spin" that many will use. It is shameful to call [farming] anything other than what it is: exploitation.
Well, good luck with “changing” this “industry” with a simple exercise in semantics….
Again, take that logic to other """industries""" like mining, manufacturing, lumberjacking, and so on. Are we supposed to just throw our hands up and say "Well, lumberjacking is literally the most dangerous profession per capita. I guess we just have to live with that."?
No one is saying that. The problem is that while most industries are subject to regulations, the same is not true for sex-work. The Dutch like to believe that it is, but it is not. There's no political will to change anything. The “ management” is part of organized crime, so good luck with implementing changes. The police don't get involved unless someone has been murdered. The only thing that would change anything is if the “ clientele” were to stop their “ consumption” which is not bloody likely. As for the “ workers” their only chance is not to be lured in by promises of good jobs in the “ entertainment industry” as dancers, etc.
So my gripe with the Feminists who support the sex industry is their wilful blindness to the exploitation of vulnerable people.
OK, let's look at each of the problems one by one:
>There's no political will to change anything.
OK, so be the change you want to see. Be the first with the political will to change things. Who knows, you might spark a chain reaction.
>The “ management” is part of organized crime, so good luck with implementing changes
The same is true for casinos, farms, construction companies, and many more. Does that mean we as a society cannot implement safety and anti-exploitation measures for construction workers?
>The police don't get involved unless someone has been murdered.
Great, that also applies to 95% of all other industries. Seriously, how naive are you? Do you think police are pre-emptively looking into places like game developers and trying to squash any blatant worker's rights violations?
>The only thing that would change anything is if the “ clientele” were to stop their “ consumption” which is not bloody likely.
What? Boycotts are a thing that do definitely happen. Right now, there is a partial Canadian boycott of American products in general!
>As for the “ workers” their only chance is not to be lured in by promises of good jobs in the “ entertainment industry” as dancers, etc.
And the only chance for immigrant workers is not to be lured in by promises of stable employment, only to be trapped working 18 hours a day on a farm with no passport, no communication with the outside world, and a pittance in pay. Thus, that means that agriculture as an industry is inherently exploitative and must be banned!
Another example that uses basically every argument: marijuana. At least in Canada, most of the negative aspects of marijuana (the crime, abusive conditions, and so on) were in large part because of the illegal nature of the drug, not the drug itself. Now that it has been legal for a good long while, the majority of the negative aspects of marijuana have (if you'll excuse the pun) shriveled into nothingness.
I am curious you think the construction industry in e. g. Europe is run by organised crime.
None of those industries involve selling the use of your body for any sort of invasive and noxious act the buyer chooses. Agriculture, mining can and have been regulated into safety. Attempts to make prostitution safe centre on controlling and humiliating the women involved - see the Control of Infectious Diseases Act in Britain in the late 19th century - not making the work safe for them.
And? Then change it. The medical industry often performed invasive and "noxious" acts on whoever they could get their hands on, usually the underprivileged and minorities.
This sounds like someone is complaining about a bakery putting lead in the crust of their bread, and saying that means bread is fundamentally dangerous. If there are obvious problems, there are obvious (though not easy) solutions.
Are you arguing in bad faith or do you have worms in your brain?
"I have always found it most interesting that anti-racists support the notion that Farming is Work." doesn't make sense btw, the correct analogue would be "I have always found it most interesting that racists support the notion that Farming is Work." but I'm not going to focus on that.
The problem with the south was the LITERAL CHATTEL SLAVERY, not farming as an industry. SLAVERY is inherently exploitative. Farming is not inherently exploitative. Being a SLAVE is not work. Being a farmer is work.
We need farmers because they produce the food that societies need to sustain themselves. Society does NOT need slaves and yet trafficking is still a major issue in today's world because you need money to have power in this world, and slaves are a major economic boon. This is why the civil war happened, because southern plantation owners believed the chance of winning the war despite all of the losses that would occur was the more economic choice over giving up their slaves.
Btw, even farming which is not an inherently exploitative industry is rife with exploitation. Of migrants, and ofc VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING. Very few people WANT to do farming because it is hard labor. Out of the people who are actually willing to do it, it is often the case because they are desperately poor or trying to escape their country for whatever reason.
Now back to the topic of the sex industry. Prostitution and sex work IS inherently exploitative. It's not the oldest job because it's empowering. It's the oldest job because women have, and have historically had, less power than men. It's the only thing women have consistently had access to do in order to earn an income, assuming they are not a slave or trafficking victim. Which they often are btw.
What does it mean to be empowered? Literal definition is "to give someone power or authority, especially to act or be able to do something on their own. It implies confidence, control, and the means to achieve something. In essence, it's about enabling individuals to have the power to take action and make decisions for themselves."
If sex work is empowering, why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking? If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans? If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide? If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is? (Google all of these things before you tell me I'm making shit up)
If you ask me, sex work is the opposite of empowering. Many of those who are not trafficked are LIED TO about the nature of their work, or are coerced into doing acts they are not comfortable with when they are not in the position to refuse. Would you feel empowered if your employer purposefully obfuscated the role to you and then commanded you to do shittier work after you accepted the job? That you'd better do the shittier work or, well... you don't exactly have the choice because you're there and they are much stronger than you. Would you feel empowered if, after 10 years of doing this job for gradually less pay over time, your employer told you to GTFO because you're too ugly to make them money anymore? No unemployment or severance pay btw. And don't expect any healthcare, mental or otherwise. No OSHA so if you contracted any diseases in the line of work you are SOL.
>The problem with the south was the LITERAL CHATTEL SLAVERY, not farming as an industry. SLAVERY is inherently exploitative. Farming is not inherently exploitative. Being a SLAVE is not work. Being a farmer is work.
Exactly my point! Even though farming has been primarily done by slaves for a lot longer than it hasn't, the issue was the slavery.
>Btw, even farming which is not an inherently exploitative industry is rife with exploitation. Of migrants, and ofc VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING. Very few people WANT to do farming because it is hard labor. Out of the people who are actually willing to do it, it is often the case because they are desperately poor or trying to escape their country for whatever reason.
Yes, also one of my points! Just because there are slaves in an industry does not mean that the industry is the problem, it's the slavery that is the problem.
>Now back to the topic of the sex industry. Prostitution and sex work IS inherently exploitative. It's not the oldest job because it's empowering. It's the oldest job because women have, and have historically had, less power than men. It's the only thing women have consistently had access to do in order to earn an income, assuming they are not a slave or trafficking victim. Which they often are btw.
Yes, prostitution and sex work is inherently exploitative. But, that's because all work is inherently exploitative. If I work at a grocery store, my employer is exploiting my willingness to do manual labour in exchange for payment. That's how things work.
>If sex work is empowering, why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking? If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans? If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide? If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is? (Google all of these things before you tell me I'm making shit up)
You know, a lot of those points also apply to acting. But, let's go over them one at a time:
- why are a large amount of those in the industry victims of sex trafficking?
Because of the sex trafficking. If there was no sex trafficking, it wouldn't be primarily made up of trafficked individuals.
- If sex work is empowering, why do they have PTSD rates comparable to literal combat veterans?
Probably because of the sex trafficking.
- If sex work is empowering, why do many of them have high rates of drug addiction, contracting STDs, getting assaulted, and committing suicide?
Probably because of the sex trafficking.
- If sex work is empowering, why does it become less profitable the older and more experienced the sex worker is?
Because it primarily is a service based industry, and women always have had problems competing against younger women in service industries. The reason as to why that happens is a fairly complex and nuanced topic, and extends far beyond any one industry.
>Many of those who are not trafficked are LIED TO about the nature of their work, or are coerced into doing acts they are not comfortable with when they are not in the position to refuse.
Like agriculture jobs today.
>Would you feel empowered if your employer purposefully obfuscated the role to you and then commanded you to do shittier work after you accepted the job?
Oh, you mean like agriculture jobs today? Yeah, that would suck, and that practice should be illegal.
>That you'd better do the shittier work or, well... you don't exactly have the choice because you're there and they are much stronger than you.
Again, like agriculture.
Basically, any argument you are making is also an argument against the idea of agriculture jobs. Because many people are, today, being trafficked to work what basically amounts to slave labour.
But a woman's body *is* a commodity you can purchase in other areas, like manual labour or other non-sexual services?
It's a simple yes or no question.
This is the most based comment so far.
Technocratic confusion when faced with individuals who don't fit a pre-formed mould; no re-evaluation of ideas when faced with evidence to the contrary; slogans with no substance shouted by punk-style activists; aside from the clarity and integrity of your argument, you've also just summed up 'radical' politics in Vienna very nicely.
And not just in Vienna.
True, but there’s a special kind of entitlement with comes from living in a low-stakes culture where you’re never challenged and can basically retire age 25.
Thank you Faika for writing this thoughtful and clear piece. I've been in a similar place of conflict myself, and your experience gives solace and strength. We're going to get out of this upside-down male-supremacist bullshit the more we all speak out!
So well expressed. Thank you.
I'm an admirer of Faika El-Nagashi and appreciated the interview she did with Róisín Michaux enormously. Reading this article, though, I have to wonder why it should take anyone over a decade to fatally question whether 'Sex work is work'. No other majority-female employment has the same risk-profile and our instincts easily rebel against the idea: we would prefer almost any other line of work for our own daughters. Ultimately, my question is: what is it about certain institutions, especially institutions dominated by leftists, that make intelligent people completely abandon common sense?
Wow, thank you so much Faika E-Nagashi, for these honest and truthful words! I have been working frontline with women in prostitution for over 15 years, most of my time in Vienna, Austria, now in Germany, and I am very familiar with the things you describe and I have followed your political career. Your words are very inspiring and I agree with what most people here say: it takes courage and integrity to rethink our own standpoints and activism. All the best for you and your work!
Since you seem reasonable and you experienced both camps, I'd like to ask you a couple troubling questions that I'm unlikely to be able to address to more established abolitionists. Beg your pardon in advance for intruding.
I'm male. I assume sexuality is different for men and women, but I also assume you'll agree there is plenty of variance within each sex, meaning some women may legitimately decide what is worse for them (I have heard some young women saying they experienced less sexism and harassment while in prostitution than they did while being a waitress, strange as though it may sound). I'll also assume you agree sex negativism per se leads to dark paths (mostly to backlashes that give power to all third-waves worst takes, but also possibly giving weight to religious puritanism).
With all this out of the way, I mostly see abolitionists as either decrying prostitution in principle, or advocating the nordic model as the most pragmatic tactic. I'm not convinced by either.
As for the first, it is most powerfully expressed (I read Bindel saying it many times) this way: "if people really think prostitution isn't a bad situation, why do they seem to advocate it for people they don't know, while being horrified by the prospect their daughters could do it?" But this isn't the fatal blow it's supposed to be, because one can grant that prostitution may not be ideal (as I do, with a little unease because I'm afraid to sound prude) while denying it is particularly bad or specifically different from other not very good things we put up with. For example, I wouldn't be glad if my son worked in a mine or in a foundry (and unfortunately I've seen many young men die horrible deaths in such jobs). So trying to be honest, I'm not sure that given the choice between a daughter in a foundry or a daughter in prostitution I'd think it would be better for her to work in a foundry. You were shocked by the news of homicides happening even in the most secure environment possible; but accidents happen even in the most secure conditions. It's difficult to ascertain the prevalence since I don't know of an exact census on the number of women in prostitution, but an approximate estimate for Italy (where I live) gives a similar number of deaths per person doing the activity for those working in agriculture and for prostitutes (~0,015% per person per year*).
This means I see no reason to support abolitionism in principle (in fact, I see liberal reasons to be against: personal autonomy).
Now to the nordic model. There are liberal reasons why it could be a bad idea: prohibitionism in general doesn't work, it just leads to dark markets and worse outcomes (as happened with alcool prohibitionism in the US). I have seen scientific papers that claim both that it did wonderful things where implemented, and other scientific papers that say the exact opposite, that it worsened the situation for the most vulnerables. I don't see a scientific consensus and a clear outcome on this. I'm open to definitive evidence.
On the other hand, in such discussions, it most often seems as if there are just two alternatives (spoiler: this is not true). You are typically presented with a choice between regulation and the nordic model. I agree with all the problems regulations leads to (brothels, exploitation, "all you can f*ck" discounts, etc). The nordic model is supposed to be different from criminalizing the prostitutes, but I can't understand how could it ever be true, because you can't criminalize "the buyer" while expecting this doesn't affect "the seller". This means you should expect a worse outcome for the prostitutes, almost as if you criminalized them too in practice (even if not doing that nominally).
I rarely see discussed the italian alternative: neither regulation nor criminalization. (This came about in 1958 by initiative of a socialist woman member of parliament, who consulted with many prostitutes for years before promoting the law). Exploitation is forbidden, so you don't have the problems that come with brothels (there aren't any); only the single woman can prostitute herself. Of course I don't think this solves everything: times changed, immigration to Italy wasn't a thing when the law was passed, while trafficking exists nowadays. But it is already illegal. So if it is not prosecuted enough, the problem is not the law, so you don't need the adopt the nordic model to tackle trafficking. The problem is insufficient policing, and the cause is people don't care enough about exploited migrants to put too many resources in fighting that. If this is a correct assessment of the situation, I don't see how changing the law would shift things: illegal things will continue to happen exactly as they happen now, if no one is enforcing the rules.
I can understand the power of symbols (making a thing illegal could dissuade). But it sound a little too much as virtue signalling to me.
So for the moment I'm with the TERFs on their fight for women's right and reality, but I'm listening to the Red Umbrella people against abolitionism.
I'm open to change my mind and I'd value your input on my reasoning.
Meanwhile, sorry for bothering you writing too much but I wanted to avoid being misunderstood.
* 150 deaths per year in agricolture on 1 million workers -> 0,015%
184 prostitutes were reported dead between 2000 and 2016. (I'm not sure if it means 11,7 per year or 10,8 -i.e. if they are considering both the initial and the final year: let's go with the highest which gives the worse case scenario).
In 2017 the estimated number of women in prostitution was between 75.000 and 120.000. In order to have the worse case estimate (the one that gives higher risk) you should consider the lowest number, and this calculation gives 0,0156% deaths per person per year (a little worse than the agriculture case -EDIT: but the most optimistic estimate would give instead 0,009% which would be almost half the agriculture case).
Sir, it is clear from your writing that you are very far from understanding what it does to a person to be sexually penetrated without any physical desire, day after day, year after year. And why should you understand it? Hardly anyone writes about it, there's no "science" about it, and it's unlikely it has happened to you. But your lack of knowledge is a very large factor in why your statistics about agricultural work versus prostitution are unpersuasive.
What I find unpersuasive is avoiding any argument and relying on... what... lived experience? Strangely the lives of men who die in great numbers by horrible deaths don't count as much, and of course we should patronize and desbelief all women who say they are chosing to do it (admittedly a choice limited by opportunities) because you know better. Yes that's surely persuasive.
Males (or females) dying on the job from a safety failure, whether in the mine or in a factory, is a bit different than being murdered for the crime of being female.
I did not read anything in the comment above about men dying horribly not counting as much. This isn't scorekeeping. But I can't count the number of times I've heard a male say that if he was a woman, he would be a prostitute, saying all she has to do is lay there and make money. Funny reaction I get when I respond that there are plenty of men that would pay him to lay face down and/or get down on his knees.
I admit I reacted a bit harshly, but I put a lot of effort into trying to discuss calmly and I find childish and irritating if someone replies without enganging with anything, simply asserting "you are a man so you cant understand". Maybe not, but it seems clear a few women arent trafficked and choose to do it, so maybe they think penetration isnt all that bad. Meanwhile not only deaths but plenty of other jobs are physically usurating. I asked for engagement with arguments and got a patronizing reply (which usually means there isnt an easy answer). But you're right I should have avoided the sarcasm maybe.
So, are you arguing that sexual intercourse, alone, should be banned, but things like manual and oral sex work should be allowed? Or are you arguing that there needs to be more research into the side-effects of un-aroused sex, and people should figure out ways of diminishing or eliminating those side-effects?
Oh, hey, CoffeeBits, it's not that brave or cool to respond to someone and then immediately block them, thus preventing them from responding to your response. It's just a cheap and cowardly way of "getting the last word". Monstrous Regiment was talking about was the physical effects of such a thing.
Perhaps you might take a moment to imagine how it would impact your psychology to give blowjobs to 20 random men every day. There is no way to avoid the "side effects" as you term them.
Thank you for being open on how you view this topic, but comparing the death rates of agricultural workers and prostitutes is apples and oranges.
It’s not about comparing the rates, it’s about comparing the underlying logic.
Agriculture, like many professions, has some element of danger. It might be due to working with large equipment, heat stress, or unpredictable animals, but there is always a chance an agriculture worker might be injured or killed.
Does this inherent danger mean that we, as a society, should come together and ban all forms of agriculture? Obviously not, we come together and think of ways of minimizing the risk. We invent safety devices and strategies that reduce the risk. We impose fines and other punishments on farms that intentionally circumvent these devices and strategies. We encourage, often through financial means, the adoption of said devices and strategies. If we can do that with the notoriously slave-driven industry of agriculture, why can’t we do that with the sex industry?
There isn't logic in the comparison because you are talking about safety, which Faika admitted to previously believing that safety could be secured, then (to paraphrase) it just became another job choice. In prostitution it's the human dignity that is missing. I'm a former military diver and there's plenty of danger there, and now I have a small sheep farm and the rams are dangerous. In prostitution it's the degradation that's part of the problem.
If you are the owner of the farm, the comparison isn't meaningful.
It's as if I used as an argument that Aella charges 4000$ an hour for her escorting. It's obvious that it's difficult to argue prostitution should be prohibited if you start from such unusual cases, but I agree with the abolitionist's answer in this case: her situation is not representative of the average condition of women in prostitution.
In agriculture the situation is similar: there are the owners like you, the average workers, and then there are genuine inhuman conditions. In Italy there is huge exploitation of migrants in the agricultural industry and trafficking exists. There are often plausible reports of women who are both forced to work in almost slavery in agriculture and are sexually harassed and abused.
But nobody asks to abolish agriculture, we seek to end trafficking and establish work conditions that aren't slavery and stop/jail abusers.
Saying that in prostitution in principle there can't be dignity is begging the question if you don't speak about material conditions (and that would apply even to cases the like of Aella - good luck making the case to the general public that the one who charges 4000$ an hour is exploited without sounding prude). Aren't there any conditions between very high-end and trafficked? Sure there are. The point imo is to avoid both the classist, entitled argument that millionaires can have access to prostitutes, and that the cheaper alternative is necessarily trafficking and exploitation. Surely there has to be a dignified intermediate solution that would correspond to the situation in agriculture where you aren't neither the owner nor a slave, but you have fair wages and labour conditions that minimize risks. It's the situation where the single woman choses "freely" to prostitute herself, can refuse specific clients without risks, isn't subjected to pimps (neither privately nor by the state). Of course you could argue what "free" means -would she choose something else if she had a feasible alternative? Maybe (but you should be open to the alternative: maybe not). But why the same question shouldn't apply to workers in other very harsh jobs: wouldn't the miner or the foundry worker choose to do a white collar job if he had the alternative? Why should one case be regarded as inherently inhuman while the other as acceptable if not for prudish reason? Those who don't admit this generally point to male entitlement: having sex isn't a right (this is correct). But why should you focus in your prejudice that the "buyer" is necessarily a woman hater instead of focusin on the woman? Unfortunately this also means denying agency to her: you also don't have the right to tell a woman what she might or might not choose to do for whatever reason (including getting money without having to resort to another job she could legitimately find more degrading than prostitution, even if this may sound strange to us).
If you want to have a meaningful debate, perhaps leave out extreme and rare cases such as Aella. She’s just as gross as her customers. As far as you bringing up agriculture, I’ll point out that any business can become exploitative of the workers, and even upper-level management can be exploited, just as some in the livestock industry abuse the animals while others keep them in excellent conditions. I also never said the Johns are women haters, but no doubt some are. I also don’t “accept” inhumane conditions in any field, but the post is about prostitution, not every “job” under the sun, and the conditions in prostitution are in their own category. Prostitution is not just about females as there are also male prostitutes, although for a male it’s not inherently dangerous. I met a former gigolo in my young adulthood, and he told me it was a terrible business and all about controlling another human being, where even the well-heeled female clients were quite nasty and would remind the males they had power over them. I also never suggested making prostitution illegal as I believe the better path is to work with young people and those already prostituting to help them start a career path outside of the porn industry.
Funny.
"If you want to have a meaningful debate, perhaps leave out extreme and rare cases such [you being the owner of the farm and not an average worker, let alone an exploited one]"
The only reason I cited Aella was to highlight how *your* comparison wasn't meaningful, so you retorting in this way means being disingenuous.
Regards.
So it's an issue of "degredation", not safety? Well, I guess that means those people in mascot costumes advertising for a local sandwich restaurant should be banned!
Or what about the beleaguered assistant of the powerful real estate tycoon, who must (lest they be fired or worse) suck up and praise whatever stupid decision comes in their head? Surely that degradation is worth banning?
But what about people like Chris-chan, who constantly degrade themselves of their own volition? Should some human rights group come and save them from their own actions?
It really isnt. AweDude already explained one point. Degradation sounds a little prude to me Im afraid. I have female friends who had sex with hundreds of men by choice. The problem is instead physical and psychological harm, and a key difference is having sex with one you didnt choose. I think this is obvious if you are trafficked and coherced, way less obvious if the single woman decides its not a problem for her and shes able to refuse specific clients (which was one ot the reason to close the brothels in Italy).
The overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have no ability to reject a so-called 'client'.
Then allow sex workers to choose. A realtor can, for any reason, refuse to work with a given client. Of course, this means they often will not be paid (assuming their entire paycheck comes from commissions), but they still have a choice as to whether or not they want to work with a specific individual.
What? Can you run that by me one more time?
«The “sex work” camp’s to reduction of prostitution to a labor-process conceals precisely the form of alienation with which feminists confronted Marxism — not in (pace MacKinnon) work being what is most taken-away, but in one’s own sexuality being what is most taken-away. This is different, because women’s sexuality is taken-away in many more spheres than work. It is taken-away one way or another everywhere women ubiquitously encounter predatory men, which is one reason that feminists were met with hostility on the left when they pointed this out. What was at stake was not only the workerist fallacy, but male sexual entitlement.»
https://stanleyabner1951gmailcom.substack.com/p/sex-work
It seems to me that academics and activists have created an elite grooming gang, which has persuaded mostly female students that they have the right to rent out their bodies. What they don't seem to realise is that working class and migrant women operate in a different context, where choices are limited, and coercion is the norm.
I hope, truly and deeply, that you apply the same logic to other industries. Farming and manufacturing have some of the highest rates of trafficked labour, so should be similarly stigmatized and eventually banned.
However, I doubt you're doing that. Somehow, I doubt you are looking to the many modern and current cases of human trafficking, where the victims end up working at farms, and saying "Clearly, this shows that farming as an industry must be banned."
The issue is that... well... to be blunt, people have agency. The man who killed those three sex workers is at fault for their deaths, he chose to do those things. You might as well look at racially targeted killings and say somehow the idea of race was the reason those people were killed.
Yes, maybe your specific ideal working environment had flaws. Guess what? Every industry has had safety issues, either inherent or induced by outside forces. That doesn't mean those industries are inherently evil and can't be made safer. I would hate to see someone like you in charge of automobile safety. "Hmmm, it seems like this seatbelt design actually harmed its occupants. I guess that means all seatbelts are dangerous and should never be used."
CoffeeBits, again I can't respond to you, but your argument is completely false. You said "I see, you are another man who thinks getting his dick wet is as important as food and shelter in society, smh" but in no way did I mention the "importance" of any given industry. Do you think only the "important" industries deserve protection, and the "unimportant" ones don't deserve any evolution or thoughts for safety?
Safety issues are not be confused with someone paying to hump and dump their bodily excretions in another human being. Then there's the added pothole of women lied to and/or coerced in order for the predator to traffic another. I've been in a dangerous job (military diver) I chose to do, and this job produced something positive. Humping and dumping is nothing more than titillation for narcissistic males (and a few deranged women) and adds nothing to humanity except the degradation of the female that's been prostituted.
>dump their bodily excretions
Then mandate condoms.
>pothole of women lied to and/or coerced in order for the predator to traffic another
Then stop that.
I'm not saying these are easy tasks, but at least they are simple and obvious. "Women are being killed for doing sex work" OK, so stop that. "Women are coerced into sex work" OK, so stop that. "Women are abused by pimps/johns/the police/the clergy/someone else." OK. So. Stop. That.
The complaints are not fundamental to the idea of sex work, especially because they are found in other industries. Again, people are trafficked into agriculture jobs, does that mean that agriculture as an industry should be banned?
Agriculture in and of itself is not coercive and degrading, while sex work, trafficked or not, is a violation of humanity.
How and why, to both those statements?
I can't help you if you don't get it.
Or, maybe, just maybe, this is an invitation for you to explain your own logic, and thus allow me to compare and contrast it to mine. Maybe if you explain how you think that farming *isn't* coercive or degrading, and how sex work is, we can actually have a discussion, instead of us just flinging "No, I'm right"s at each other until the heat death of the universe.
I see, you are another man who thinks getting his dick wet is as important as food and shelter in society, smh
🚨The whataboutery alarm has been triggered. And the devil’s advocate threat level is Severe. We are implementing our Heightened response protocols for all our safety in T-5…4…3…2…1…0. Please step away from the comment box as a matter of urgency🚨
What? It's not "whataboutism" to try to apply one standard of logic to a variety of different scenarios.
Perfect.
Faika: Here’s a thoughtful, vulnerable article, full of integrity, admitting a change of view and past mistakes about an important issue harming women, a group she’s choosing to focus her activism on. Also she’s noticing how undermining the way women are defined in law and understood socially, undermines our ability to even talk about the exploitation of women in prostitution
A man on the internet: What about agricultural workers?
Do you have an actual argument you want to make?
You demonstrated whataboutery in your many comments to others, and perfectly defined it in your denial of whataboutery. I think you’re making the point wonderfully on your own.
So I'll take that as a no, you don't have (or at least are not competent enough to actually articulate) an actual argument.
Wow, thank you so much Faika El-Nagashi, for these honest and truthful words! I have been working frontline with women in prostitution for over 15 years, most of my time in Vienna, Austria, now in Germany, and I am very familiar with the things you describe and I have followed your political career. Your words are very inspiring and I agree with what most people here say: it takes courage and integrity to rethink our own standpoints and activism! Thank you for having both, and all the best for you and your work!