When she speaks, we forget that the sex buyer exists
The Swedish writer Kajsa Ekis Ekman takes a hard look at feminist women who rush to the defense of johns.
There is something very odd about the prostitution debate. While the absolute majority of sex buyers are male, an overwhelming majority of intellectuals defending prostitution are women. It’s a strange phenomenon that most definitely needs its own analysis.
…
At the forefront of international “sex work” discourse, we generally do not find a sex buyer, but a female academic. In any magazine, at any conference, at any event where the john is to be even remotely criticized — a pro-prostitution female academic is there to defend him.
Who is she? Well, she calls herself “subversive,” “revolutionary,” even “feminist.” That is exactly why the john needs her as his ambassador. A defence of prostitution coming from this woman makes prostitution look queer, LGBT-friendly, modern, fair trade, socialist — the very epitome of female liberation. But most importantly, when she speaks, we forget that the sex buyer exists.
Doesn’t that sound exactly like Greta Christina? Or maybe that’s just me.
The tacit agreement between the john and the pro-prostitution female academic is that she will do anything to defend his acts, while ensuring that he stays in the shadows. She will speak incessantly about prostitution, but never mention him. Her task is to make sure prostitution seems like an all-female affair. The queer academic will use the prostituted woman as a shield, blocking the john from the limelight. She will use the prostituted woman any way she can — analyzing her, re- and deconstructing her, holding her up as a role model, and using her as a microphone (i.e. a career booster), thereby positioning her as “good” vs. the “evil” feminist.
The “evil” feminist is the one who thinks prostitution exploits women.
This academic has her own definition of intellectual debate. When she speaks, she calls it “listening.” According to her, she doesn’t actually speak in favor of prostitution, she merely “listens to sex workers.” The louder she speaks, the more proof that she “listens.” When someone opposed to prostitution speaks, however, she calls it “silencing.”
…
Here is the truth: the function of this academic is not that of a revolutionary or a feminist — she is not trying to defend women — rather, she is the sex buyer’s nanny. One of the oldest patriarchal functions that exists. She soothes him when he is worried and takes on his enemies. She makes sure nobody will take away his toys, whatever he does to them.
Read the whole thing; it’s brilliant.
Greta Christina edited a book called Paying For It. Per GC:
http://www.gretachristina.com/books.html
@ 1 Lady Mondegreen
You mean she actually interviewed sex workers before forming her opinions on sex work? Oh, dear. What a nanny.
@Silentbob, she edited the writings of sex workers. And IIRC she’s been a “sex worker” herself (that term is very broad and includes lots of different kinds of work. I don’t know specifically what GC did.)
Anyway. Current and former sex workers are a diverse group with differing opinions, though you won’t hear that from those who use the mantras “listen to sex workers” and “educate yourself” to mean, “listen to us and disregard those who disagree with us.”
Is Greta acting as a “nanny” to sex buyers? I don’t know. I don’t care for that metaphor, myself. But then I haven’t read Greta’s book. Actually, I find it kinda sadly telling (about what sex workers must have to deal with from their clients,) that it had to be written at all.
@Silentbob: she actually *was* a sex worker for some time, which arguably does give her opinions somewhat more weight than your “typical female academic” (whatever one of those is).
I’m not saying that makes her opinions right, or accurately representative of most sex workers, just that one needs to deconstruct her individual arguments for what they are, rather than dismissing them because it looks like she fits this “nanny” mould.
Back when I used to read her blog, Greta mentioned being a stripper and booth… whatever it’s called. As in, people would pay to get a private booth in front of a window, through which she and other women were visible, for the benefit of the person rubbing one out. So, certainly in the vicinity of prostitution.
But in general, I wonder if a conclusion could be drawn from the fact that the huge majority of these prostitution defenders have declined to take it up themselves. Almost as if it might actually be an undesirable job to most people, to be avoided if finances permit.
@Holms: to be fair even if some of them considered it, prostitution being illegal might very well dissuade them from it.
Euphemisms like ‘sex worker’ allow a huge range of activities and experiences to be cobbed together. Sure…some grad student may have picked up some pin money ‘escorting’…AND some illiterate 3rd world child may have been sold like livestock
But let’s everybody pretend that its all One Thing so we can justify our defense of some tiny corner of the territory.
Greta, and others in her circle, have A point. But that doesn’t alter the issue of exploitation/slavery/economic entrapment by one jot or tittle. And exploitation/slavery/economic entrapment apply to millions of ‘workers,’ male and female, in scores of occupations.
Greta was a nude dancer in a peep show for a while. She wrote up an account which is probably still on her blog. She also wrote a multi-part article where she visits a professional submissive. I found it very disconcerting that she was not willing to consider the ethics of paying a person to allow you to beat and treat them in a way that would ordinarily be considered abusive. She even mentions that she was less concerned with the sub’s pleasure than she would have otherwise been (touching her sooner than she otherwise would) and admits that the money was central to the whole thing. I find it a weird blindspot that she didn’t consider the wider ethics of a system that would permit this and whether money could negate the trust and consent that we are always told is central to BDSM.
I recently read Pimp State by Kat Banyard. I would recommend it. It made me realise how stupid I’ve been on this issue. I have never quite been able to swallow the “sex positive” view of prostitution and porn but I’ve always been unsure where I stood on the issue. Having it pointed out that money is coercive and that coerced sex is ordinarily considered abusive was a big help.
I discussed the book with my husband. He had no prior detailed knowledge of the topic but said without prompting that he had always thought that prostitution was not just about sexual release as that is easily obtained via masturbation and that he thought that domination was a factor. He was quite upset when I read him some of the comments left by “punters” on review sites. They are not pleasant.
Not too long ago I read an Orbit article of Miri’s on the subject of sex work. There was a long comment by an MRA spouting MRA dogma: men need “sex” (ie, access to female bodies); women, especially feminists, want prostitution to be illegal because ***evopsychobabble*** and it keeps the price of sex high in the “sexual marketplace,” and poor men (sex buyers) are always the victims.
The odd thing–or maybe not so odd–was that the comment was completely ignored.
I just read an article of Miri’s on sex positivity where she tells us that being sex positive means affirming the sexual choices of others provided they are consensual. This would include adultery (even the other partner would be sex negative for objecting), unprotected sex with numerous partners, knowingly spreading disease (I don’t think consent to be infected would make it all OK), dangerous and even life-threatening practices and probably loads of other things I haven’t thought of yet. Further down the line she admits that power dynamics are a factor and we shouldn’t ignore them. A professor who sleeps with students is mentioned. Money is not mentioned. I would think a professor sleeping with a student who fancies him rotten is probably less dubious than a if he pays someone for sex without even caring what that person wants beside money and in any case rules are a matter of policy not just two people. Some loving relationships develop between teachers and students but that doesn’t take away the power dynamic or potential for abuse. I don’t know why the subject of sex work makes so many people throw all ethical considerations out of the window.
I should add for clarity, that Miri does not advocate any of the examples I have given. They are just logically consistent with her stated view of what it means to be sex positive.
Good grief. What need is there to “affirm the sexual choices of others” anyway? How is that a thing? We don’t have to go around affirming all the sexual choices – who has the time, just for a start? We don’t have to affirm the choices, and guess what, the others don’t have to tell us about them, either. (Yes, all you “I’m poly” people – that includes you.)
Speaking of, I wonder how Dr. SexBoast’s lawsuit is shaping up.
I always tend to think the “I’m poly” people are advertising. Unless X is my friend or family and X’s spouse just an acquaintance, and X wants me to know to invite “X +1” to dinner instead of naming them both, because it could be X’s date night with another partner.
The problem with, for instance, adultery is not that it is immoral, it is that it violates the consent of the cheated on partner. Similarly with multi-partner unprotected sex. Deliberate infection is even further out there. The people in the room aren’t the only affected people, and I don’t think Miri was claiming otherwise.
(Note: Personally, I support the nordic model just because it seems like the best way we have for addressing the issues surrounding prostitution without further oppressing the actual prostitutes, so I’m not a default defender of blithe pro-sex-work pieces. I just think it’s important to be fair in evaluating their positions.)
Freemage – I agree we should be fair when discussing other’s positions, which is why I added the addendum that Miri advocates none of the things that I mentioned. My point is that her claim that we should affirm the consensual choices of others is flawed from the start. Even she starts to imply that by the end of the article but not enough to reject the premise.
The article is on Everyday Feminism and linked from her blog. It’s recent, so easy to find.
I’m also not sure why anyone would want me to affirm their sexual choices. It’s not as though I’m the High Priest of sex and everyone needs my blessing. What I think this means is that people should not criticise the sexual choices of others. I’ve often encountered this view and some people apply it even in the abstract (ie when we are discussing the principles not specific individuals). I don’t think this is true. While people have a right to respect, we should discuss sexual ethics just as we discuss other ethical questions and if individuals are keen to go public about their sex lives in detail then others are perfectly entitled to respond with criticism.