
Members of the Sex Workers Outreach Project New York City (SWOP-NYC) and Sex Workers Action New York take to the streets. (Photos courtesy swop-nyc.org)
Cross-posted from In These Times.
In a perfectly “free” labor market, everyone theoretically has the right to exchange work for commensurate compensation. But a free market is not necessarily a just one. And when the commodity is sex, how free is too free?
Sex work, and its attendant culture wars, have moved over time from traditional brothels of urban lore to online marketplaces, raising new questions about private and public freedom. In the digital world, how should trust and power be negotiated between provider and client, both encircled by systemic gender and economic inequities?
On this slippery battlefield, anti-trafficking advocates are campaigning against Village Voice Media’s Backpage, an ad portal featuring “adult” ads notorious for facilitating sexual services involving minors.
Village Voice Media’s editorial side has mounted a counterattack with reporting aimed at debunking popular myths (those familiar salacious tales of powerful men exploiting innocent youngsters). Reporter Kristen Hinman cites research on underaged prostitutes that undercuts the stereotype of the classic prostitution ring, writing that “the typical kid who is commercially exploited for sex in New York City is not a tween girl, has not been sold into sexual slavery, and is not held captive by a pimp,” and that “Nearly all the boys and girls involved in the city’s sex trade are going it alone.”
That doesn’t mean the sex business is squeaky clean. Critics are unconvinced that Backpage can police itself (or “cover its collective arse,” as neofeminist blogger Maggie McNeill put it). Clergy and women’s rights groups dismiss the company’s free speech defense as window dressing.
“If I tried to sell crack online through Backpage,” Malika Saada Saar of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights told the Daily Beast, “the Village Voice would not stand up and say this is about the First Amendment… It’s convenient and politically easy for them to frame this as a free speech issue and it’s not. It’s a human rights issue.”
Sex workers agree that it’s a human rights issue. But they see the war on Backpage (and before that Craigslist) as the wrong answer to a wrong-headed question.
“Efforts to close down third-party advertisers are a shortsighted and misguided tactic to address trafficking,” said the New York City branch of the grassroots Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP), in correspondence with In These Times. Blanket crackdowns endanger sex workers by forcing them “further underground,” potentially pushing vulnerable people away from social services and other initiatives that could alleviate the social and economic oppression often underpinning sexual coercion.
Sienna Baskin of the legal advocacy group Sex Workers Project told ITT that the key issue is safety:
For many, the availability of these tools gives them more power and agency over their engagement in the sex trade, not less. These online advertising spaces also create a record of interactions that can be a useful tool for law enforcement to track down violent abusers and traffickers.
The criminalization dilemma isn’t confined to selling sex. Immigration enforcement takes on similar shades of gray in aggressive workplace raids targeting undocumented immigrant workers—a tactic that advocates say fails to address fundamental labor abuses by fixating just on whether workers have papers.
Moreover, the stigma of criminalization and social transgression surrounds even consensual sexual services involving adults. The intersection between Victorian virtues and evolving concepts of gender and sexual rights in the sex-work sectors chafes against a deeper vice in which we’re all complicit: the exploitation ingrained in a capitalist labor market.
Sex workers, even teenage ones, can’t be reduced to the sexual equivalent of crack. The entire idea of sex workers possessing personhood is premised on their right to control their bodies and by extension, their leverage over the services rendered.
Of course, activists should be wary of profit-making institutions conflating the individual’s freedom to work with the employer’s “freedom” from regulation or “right” to exploit. But a legal ban alone doesn’t change the forces of supply and demand. Some organizations take a human-rights approach to sex work (which can range from prostitution to exotic dancing) that focuses instead on engaging law enforcement and social agencies to protect sex workers from assault and harm—not just by pimps and johns, but by police, judges and immigration officers, too.
Globally, pro-sex-worker movements foreground the economic and political agency of people in the trade. Last year, advocates reported to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights that heavy-handed tactics allow authorities to use sex work “crime” as a pretext for discrimination, harassment and brutality against “street-based or outdoor workers, transgender or gender non-conforming people, people of color, migrants, and youth.”
In Red Light District Chicago‘s video campaign, sex workers voice their conviction that that they can proudly practice their profession while working to end trafficking.
Yet the perspectives of sex workers are sidelined in the public discourse on sex ads. Of the many politically savvy voices that fill the debate, few belong to the human beings on whose bodies this culture war is being waged. Maybe the ethical clarity that moral crusaders desire requires less talking and more listening to what sex workers know, need and want. SWOP-NYC argues:
Sex work is real work, which means sex workers have the basic labor rights we all expect, including a work environment free of violence and exploitation. Targeting companies that work with people in commercial sex will only lead to more shrouded interactions. This marginalization and isolation increases violence, HIV/STI transmission and stigmatization, hinders access to basic services, and promotes a loss of autonomy over the conditions in which people engage in the industry. There is so much we can do to prevent trafficking and support people who do want to move out of the sex industry, and these tactics only pull valuable resources from those strategies.
The voice commonly missing from the media coverage on the Village Voice and Craigslist is that of sex workers. It has become too easy to forget that there are real people involved with sex work with real human and labor rights.
Even people who object to sex work on principle or support anti-trafficking crackdowns can’t deny that sex work will always be a part of society, whatever the law says. In their struggle for justice and respect, sex workers don’t need to be “saved” from that reality, but they do need to be heard.



40 Comments

I’m more and more impressed with Michhelle Chen’s work. It is always thoroughly professional and thought provoking.
I’ve long thought that the sex industry needs to be taken out of the national closet. The reasons why are all very clear:
1) The government has no business dictating to consenting adults the terms and conditions under which they can have sex with each other.
2) The best way to protect sex workers is to allow them to call the police without fear of arrest or abuse at the hands of the police, which is common.
3) The best way to go after underage and non-consensual trafficking is to make it so that this fringe part of the sex industry is the only part with any reason to hide itself.
Of course, legalizing prostitution (which is what I am talking about) involves butting up against the puritanic, stuffy, repressive sexual moralizing of the religious and the feminists. Legalizing prostitution involves taking on America’s sex hang ups as well as institutionalized power and therefore is not going to happen.
Full disclosure: I am male and I have never paid for sex; I find the notion distasteful. When I was younger, I always said I would sooner pay for air.
But the reason sex work is illegal is religious bluenoses that think it is immoral (even though many of them engage in it on the qt.) They made ALL forms of sex illegal except for the missionary position in marriage and still would ban it if they could. They are now bolstered by feminists, whose motivations (overt and unstated) I won’t characterize but find equally repulsive.
Preventing exploitation of minors is just the excuse for banning adult activities that are none of their business. One thing is not the other.
The sex trade described in this post used to go on in my neighborhood, 53d St between 2nd & 3rd, round about 1980s, I’d guess. Not sure what it involved or where it took place, but would guess it was blow jobs for the midtown pin stripers after work & before drinks.
Never knew quite what to make about it, let alone what to do about it, I just walked by and went about my normal life.
Feminists are not monolithic, many do favor decriminalization of sex work.
I guess a person wanting to make a name as a writer will choose shocking subjects.
I’m just not ready to climb on that band wagon.
When everyone’s fed, and everyone can marry anyone they want, I might have some time to indulge.
Not saying Ms. Chen shouldn’t write about whatever she wants.
So many issues.
Please disclose how you came to know Ms. Chen’s motivations.
This issue is a slippery one. In some respects it is like the abortion issue, which has honest people on both sides (and a lot of dishonest ones on one side). It involves rights and values. On the one hand the sex trade responds to a demand that has always and always will be there. On the other, the persons who supply that demand are overwhelmingly poor and exploited. Nobody wants their kid to become a sex worker (trophy wifing excepted).
For my money the best outcome would be for the profession to become an honorable one, like being a trader or a financial advisor.
I don’t know. I’m just wondering and guessing why. That’s all.
As I said, there are a lot of issues. We all have reasons to choose a cause.
Is that fair enough disclosure, joel?
My response would be we should know more about it before having opinions.
Even when the late-teen sex boy trade was in my face, it was not a top priority issue for me. As I noted above, I had no idea what to do about it and it did not interfere.
I guess I’m not the only person to wonder why one would choose money for sex as an occupation.
That’s why I’m wondering why this post was written. I understand that all humans deserve fair treatment, but there are some places I’d rather not Enable something that I have sad feelings about.
I hope that is received as a more honest statement.
Susie Bright being one.
But every day we, the bloggers, have an opinion about many things we don’t know a lot about.
This isn’t going to be something that I worry about, in terms of top priorites. But, I sincerely do not like people allowing themselves to be used for nefarious purposes.
Yes, I’m talking out my ass again, because I don’t Know for a fact.
But, sometimes I just get feelings about things.
I’m not a therapist, so I don’t really understand.
Maybe I am the only one.
But, I also know that there are many, many more people reading this blog than those who comment.
I’m strange and unique, but prolly and still not the only one.
(and it’s okay if I’m the only one here to say that.)
demi,
You seem to have a lot of strong opinions about trading sex for money, judging by your comments on this thread.
It seems that way tonight, doesn’t it? And?
What if I have personal experience with people who have engaged for their own sad reasons? You can understand why I have a strong opinion, yes?
I mean, there’s ususally a personal reason we have strong feelings.
Oh, I thought a couple of people were engaging me.
I was honest in my answers.
On to something else, I guess.
Would like to understand why, if you would feel comfortable in typing about it. As I typed above, I don’t have any info about it until this post, any would appreciate additional understanding of it. As it might be a personal subject (not talking about you personally, but about people you know whose stories it might not be ethical for you to reveal), will understand if you demur.
If you are poor and drug-addicted, it is a way to live from day to day. People will do what they have to do to survive.
What in the hell are you rambling about? You talk about other more important issues. What? You mean like perry’s brain freeze, the sexual allegations against cain, who said this and who said that – all of which has appeared on FDL. And how do you know what motivates Michelle Chen? You’re just wondering and guessing? Oh, that’s intelligent. Michelle Chen is an excellent writer and I admire her work — not your comments.
I’m thinking this is a can of worms. Runs deep.
I know people who didn’t feel loved as children, as adolescents who turned to sex as a way to feel loved. I’ve also known people who, for their own reasons, maybe associated with the lack of love, have turned to sex for money as a way to somehow fight back against their anger at not being loved.
It’s very complicated, what’s in my head and heart about this.
Thanks. Appreciate your reply. And the real complications you raise.
You seem to be rambling as well, if that’s what you call responding.
I did.
You did.
I certainly didn’t mean for my non-intelligent response to offend you.
Enjoy what you will.
eCAHN:
Take care, and I appreciate a curious mind, you know.
I’m out.
Personally I welcome your strong feelings especially as you own them as you now have. It’s just that your questioning Chen’s motives I think was unfair, that’s all.
I think that the sex work that most of us are familiar with is what we see on the street or read in the paper. I think there is a very wide variety of circumstances. Definitions of sex work are slippery, some would include the ‘wifely duty’.
Thank you for your service.
I was a young woman living in the North Idaho panhandle during the Silver Rush of the 70′s.
Without the Whorehouses us “local” women would’ve been in a world of shit.
Ya know who you are, girls! Thank you.
“enabling” means not putting them in prison for doing what they do? Liberals also support crack addicts when supporting decriminalization according to that logic.
Or an economist
Or a lawyer.
I’m not sure that “legalization” answers many questions.
Prostititution is legal in Nevada (outside the city limits of Las Vegas & Reno), but does that make sex work there better for the workers than in other places?
I think everyone has the right to use their own body as they choose, so long as it does not cause proximate real harm to others. But, it makes me sad that anyone would think they can share their body with an endless parade of strangers without damage to their own emotional selves.
What, you mean the legal protections, the greatly reduced violent crime rates against the women, the health standards, the better pay, etc?
For people working in that industry, it probably is a lot better than hoping not to get stung while running a Craig’s List ad by a cop who then goes on to demand a freebie or you go to jail.
Besides, there is another question that gets answered: the question of “Just how far can the government go in dictating to consenting adults the terms and conditions under which they have sex?”
Government-imposed sexual morality dictating how adults act is simply an egregious abuse of power.
I don’t think making prostitution putatively legal while keeping it illegal within the only jurisdictions it is likely to be primarily practiced really qualifies as legalization. It’s kind of like making marijuana smoking legal at the bottom of the Great Lakes.
There are many seriously self-destructive behaviors that are legal in this country. Smoking tobacco, eating to morbid obesity, drinking the mind altering substance alcohol– with many advocating for more — etc. And I have no problem with that as long as there is the freedom to expose the dangers. Yes the emotional, really dehumanizing, impact of body for sale is great but it just as well be legal along with the others. That said, I see no reason to celebrate and promote it.
Well, that certainly answers my question about Nevada!
How do you know all this? I’ve known several people who did sex work at various times in their lives, and some of them did and some of them didn’t have such huge emotional dehumanizing blah blah blah impacts. They were all different people.
You are talking about your own feelings and your own upbringing and that’s just about all, the same with most of the commenters. That’s the true puritanism involved. After that comes what people decide to do with it, whether they come out for or against bans, laws, want to talk about it, want people not to write articles about it and all the rest.
Well, if you’ve known a sex worker or two, then of COURSE you are the expert on human emotions, behavior and psychology. Much more so than TalkingStick, who is an actual, you know, psychiatrist. Denying that various things affect emotions is the easiest thing in the world- just ask any drunk. And accusing us of “puritanism” just makes it more tempting to point out the shoot-from-the-hip stupidity of your comment.
Undoubtedly the people forced into selling their bodies for money should not be criminalized. However, it stands true to me that first of all, we need an all-inclusive economy where everyone can have a living wage job in a democratic workplace with good benefits, and then see how many people would choose sex work over that? I think the government should be intervening to setup independent cooperatives to employ people with dignity.
Many sex workers do have a history of child abuse, homelessness, addiction. Issues that call more certainly for social justice than simply legalizing prostitution.
I’m a tea party Republican so it is not often I agree with an FDL post. But I’m totally down with Michelle Chen’s article. I guess the Libertarian in me wins out.
You may have heard of Donna Hughes. She’s a professor at Rhode Island who frequently writes about prostitution and trafficking. She calls herself an abolitionist, and wants to abolish prostitution. Some years back I wrote three articles in a series taking this thesis apart. Ms. Chen’s article caused me to reread those, and I think they are relevant.
http://anti-militant2.blogspot.com/2005/01/fisking-hughes-part-i-too-much.html
http://anti-militant2.blogspot.com/2005/01/fisking-donna-hughes-part-2.html
http://anti-militant2.blogspot.com/2005/01/fisking-donna-hughes-part-3-slippery.html