"But Seriously, Prostitution Is Not Sex Slavery"

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Actually, I said "apparently male posters", which, if you read for comprehension, means "posters who appear to be male".

Do you see how leaving out one word completely changes the meaning of what I wrote?



I'm not "bing" disingenuous. I clearly asked for correction on the post you cite and stated what appeared to me to be the case. That's not "bing" disingenuous; that's explicitly acknowledging that what I said may be solely the product of my perception.



"Apparently male posters", "apparently male posters", "apparently male posters".



Yet, in providing a citation to what I said, you unequivocally demonstrated that you misrepresented its meaning both in letter and in spirit. You are the one who is "bing" disingenuous.

Heck of a disingenuous tap dance to avoid the actual issue, which was you trying to derail the thread with faulty assertions.

Do you have anything either correct or useful on topic?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

How can sexual advances be identified as unwanted until they are made?

For example, a thumb rule that as long as you are in a public place, and not invited to your place or her place, keep your advances verbal without physically gripping her butt or bosom? Well, many a drunken disco dancer does grip the partner´s butt without asking, I guess. It is a predictable result of the circumstances.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by bumlet5

As an example, it is the most commonly understood scenario.

I agree it is the most commonly assumed.
The question is, why?

[bumlet5]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

I agree it is the most commonly assumed.
The question is, why?

I didn't say assumed, I said understood.

[mijopaalmc]

[quote=crimresearch;8237148]Heck of a disingenuous tap dance to avoid the actual issue, which was you trying to derail the thread with faulty assertions./QUOTE]

Says the guy who deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to claim that I was "bing" disingenuous.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Do you have anything either correct or useful on topic?

What I said was on topic. You just don't like the fact that I have a point.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by bumlet5

I didn't say assumed, I said understood.

The meaning is virtually the same.
The scenario is commonly understood to be man touching woman.
The scenario is commonly assumed to be man touching woman.
The question is, why?

[bumlet5]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

The meaning is virtually the same.
The scenario is commonly understood to be man touching woman.
The scenario is commonly assumed to be man touching woman.
The question is, why?

No, it's not. Assumption is made before a statement is presented, understanding is made after.

In this case, pronouns were needed to convey the most accurate sentiment. I agree with you that it shouldn't be assumed that it is the man who is doing the harassing, but in this case it conveyed what the poster was trying to say.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by bumlet5

No, it's not. Assumption is made before a statement is presented, understanding is made after.

In this case, pronouns were needed to convey the most accurate sentiment. I agree with you that it shouldn't be assumed that it is the man who is doing the harassing, but in this case it conveyed what the poster was trying to say.

A generic statement can be made, and following that statement an asssumption can be made.

The scenario A makes advances to B is generic, not just one case, and it is commonly assumed/understood that A is male and B female.

The question is, why is that the assumption/understanding?

[crimresearch]

[quote=mijopaalmc;8237232]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Heck of a disingenuous tap dance to avoid the actual issue, which was you trying to derail the thread with faulty assertions./QUOTE]

Says the guy who deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to claim that I was "bing" disingenuous.



What I said was on topic. You just don't like the fact that I have a point.

Then you would have been able to link to the actual posts where this 'point' is to be found (you know, the way I linked to the actual post you denied making).

Since you can't, don't expect everyone to play mind reading games with your unsupported assertions.

Proof, evidence, that sort of thing? Ring a bell??

No? That's what I figured.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Then you would have been able to link to the actual posts where this 'point' is to be found (you know, the way I linked to the actual post you denied making).

I stated a perception not a fact. I don't need to link to a post in order to say that I perceive something.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Since you can't, don't expect everyone to play mind reading games with your unsupported assertions.

I didn't assert anything. I stated an opinion. Learn the difference.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Proof, evidence, that sort of thing? Ring a bell??

Yes, but you don't seem to understand the difference between an argument and an opinion.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

No? That's what I figured.

What you "figured" has very little to do with the facts of the situation. I asked if my perceptions matched other people's; I didn't assert that what I said was true.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I stated a perception not a fact. I don't need to link to a post in order to say that I perceive something.



I didn't assert anything. I stated an opinion. Learn the difference.



Yes, but you don't seem to understand the difference between an argument and an opinion.



What you "figured" has very little to do with the facts of the situation. I asked if my perceptions matched other people's; I didn't assert that what I said was true.

Tappity tap tap... so if 'it seems' that you are trolling, no harm, no foul in expressing that as an 'opinion'?

The assertions you made 'seem' to have been expressed by a small number of people here, yet instead of addressing those posts, you've dragged a broad brush through this thread repeatedly.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Tappity tap tap... so if 'it seems' that you are trolling, no harm, no foul in expressing that as an 'opinion'?

The assertions you made 'seem' to have been expressed by a small number of people here, yet instead of addressing those posts, you've dragged a broad brush through this thread repeatedly.

I asked for confirmation of an opinion. All you need to say is that you don't see it that way.

You don't need to be a jerk and insist that I said something I didn't.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

The question is, why is that the assumption/understanding?

You're asking very annoying questions, and you're not getting very far here, because they threaten assumptions that most people would rather be kept hidden.

You can get a more accurate predictor of, well, just about everything, if you keep in mind the following rule: two legs good, three legs bad. Apply this rule, and you'll get the right answer, every time.

I saw this just a couple of days ago on another forum. There was a post giving this story. Apparently, this woman had bought her boyfriend a video game for Valentine's day. He played it and didn't give her the attention that she wanted. So she stabbed him 32 times.

Now, guess the title. Was it

1) Valentine's day presents
2) Men and games
3) Women stabbing boyfriends

If you picked 2, "Men and games," you're right. The entire thread was about men neglecting women because of computer games. If you even thought of picking another title, you do not fully appreciate the rule: Two legs good, three legs bad.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Abooga

Would it be illegal nowadays to just offer a better payment to your employees if they performed sexual favours for you, no threats involved?

Yes.

Quote:

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.[1] In most modern legal contexts sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by EEOC, "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.[2] It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild[dubious – discuss] transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.[3] Sexual harassment is a form of illegal employment discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying. For many businesses and other organizations, preventing sexual harassment, and defending employees from sexual harassment charges, have become key goals of legal decision-making.

You know what the above is?

It's a Wikipedia article, and includes citations.

It took me FIVE SECONDS to type in "sexual harassment" and get this information.

Please clearly state the reason(s) you were completely unable to perform this same search for yourself.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by epepke

You're asking very annoying questions, and you're not getting very far here, because they threaten assumptions that most people would rather be kept hidden.

You can get a more accurate predictor of, well, just about everything, if you keep in mind the following rule: two legs good, three legs bad. Apply this rule, and you'll get the right answer, every time.

I saw this just a couple of days ago on another forum. There was a post giving this story. Apparently, this woman had bought her boyfriend a video game for Valentine's day. He played it and didn't give her the attention that she wanted. So she stabbed him 32 times.

Now, guess the title. Was it

1) Valentine's day presents
2) Men and games
3) Women stabbing boyfriends

If you picked 2, "Men and games," you're right. The entire thread was about men neglecting women because of computer games. If you even thought of picking another title, you do not fully appreciate the rule: Two legs good, three legs bad.

Awwww, izzums a poor widdle mistweated mans, izzums?


By the way, the penis is not a leg.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Awwww, izzums a poor widdle mistweated mans, izzums?

Careful, you might raise crimresearch's ire for making an unwarranted assertion about epepke's gender, even though you made no such assertion.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Why do we assume it is a man touching a woman?
And may I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between an advance and contact.

When did I ever make such assumption?
Just because I said "A man approaching a woman" doesn't mean it couldn't be the other way.
So before you make that a strawman argument, let me just state for the record: it makes no difference the genders of said individuals.

Now... do you have any other further goalposts to move? Or can you now admit you've got nothing?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

When did I ever make such assumption?
Just because I said "A man approaching a woman" doesn't mean it couldn't be the other way.
So before you make that a strawman argument, let me just state for the record: it makes no difference the genders of said individuals.

Now... do you have any other further goalposts to move? Or can you now admit you've got nothing?

When did I ever say you made such an assumption?
I used 'we' deliberately.
It is not shifting goalposts, it is just extending the discussion.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Yes.



You know what the above is?

It's a Wikipedia article, and includes citations.

It took me FIVE SECONDS to type in "sexual harassment" and get this information.

Please clearly state the reason(s) you were completely unable to perform this same search for yourself.

Of course I read the wikipedia article. In fact, I've quoted from that same article in this same thread, three or four pages ago. But since you ask so nicely I shall state the reasons why it seems I didn't, since I have nothing better to do:

Earlier on, it occurred to me to make the following questions in this thread: (after thoroughly researching the issue for a good half a minute in wikipedia).

Originally Posted by Abooga

So if prostitution is just like any other job, why can´t a boss offer his secretary a raise in exchange for sex? Would it be sexual harassment? And if you offer money for sex to a prostitute it is not? Why, because the prostitute has already "declared" somehow that she does that kind of job? And a prostitute that in daytime works in an office, can her boss solicit sex from her?

Ron answered this:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Wow, talk about trying to take this to the extreme absurd just to try to make the argument that prostitution is not like any other job.

No, it wouldn't be sexual harassment. It would be simply unethical because, regardless of the fact that prostitution is just another job, you still can't go around having sex with your secretary without injuring the Company's image.

I didn't know which of the scenarios I presented he was referring to, so I asked again. What I hadn't imagined was that he was actually referring to all of my scenarios!

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

For the umpteenth time, I never made the claim that the scenario of the sex worker secretary would be sexual harassment. So you asking "what wouldn't be sexual harassment" is irrelevant. No one made the claim that it would be sexual harassment. You're arguing with your own self.
Again, take some time to actually read the post I made in response to you.

See? He seems to be saying that the first of the scenarios, the boss offering a raise for some hanky-panky is not sexual harassment, doesn't he?

So that's why I was asking, asking Ron mainly. Who knows, perhaps I was the one who had misinterpreted the wikipedia article?

End of the mystery.

Now, as for why Ron hasn't read the wikipedia article or why he doesn't interpret it as we do, well, you should ask him. But I don't know of I'd recommend it...

[slingblade]

Okay, Abooga, life's too short for game players in my social life.

Ta, chum.

@Ron Tomkins: Abooga is definitely not cake. You has been warned.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

When did I ever say you made such an assumption?
I used 'we' deliberately.
It is not shifting goalposts, it is just extending the discussion.

Fair enough And I apologize for being rude on my previous post, but see, what's the point of "extending the discussion"? That's my point. What are we trying to do here? To continue arguing for the sake of arguing?

Bottom line is: Prostitution is not slavery, and it's also not a free pass for anyone to harass such woman.

[Abooga]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Okay, Abooga, life's too short for game players in my social life.

Ta, chum.

@Ron Tomkins: Abooga is definitely not cake. You has been warned.

You should appreciate the time I took explaining things to you. But you just hated it when I pointed that you were wrong didn't you? And, are you making fun of my English? I don't think I do it that bad, considering that it is only my third language. You can try to argue in Spanish, see how it goes.

[JJM 777]

Anarchistic Leftist school of thought says that all salaried work is slavery to money. In a sense this broad, also prostitution is slavery to the need of money. Unless we theorize that a wealthy woman (or any person) might choose to do the work for reasons other than immediate need of money. For example, a lottery winner might continue in his job, even though he no longer is in immediate need of money.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Anarchistic Leftist school of thought says that all salaried work is slavery to money. In a sense this broad, also prostitution is slavery to the need of money. Unless we theorize that a wealthy woman (or any person) might choose to do the work for reasons other than immediate need of money. For example, a lottery winner might continue in his job, even though he no longer is in immediate need of money.

Yes, as we all know, all wage labor, by definition is slavery.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I asked for confirmation of an opinion. All you need to say is that you don't see it that way.

You don't need to be a jerk and insist that I said something I didn't.

And you don't need to come on a skeptic's forum and play the martyr when people refuse to fall for your fallacies.

So once again, do you have anything either correct or useful on the thread topic?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Anarchistic Leftist school of thought says that all salaried work is slavery to money. In a sense this broad, also prostitution is slavery to the need of money. Unless we theorize that a wealthy woman (or any person) might choose to do the work for reasons other than immediate need of money. For example, a lottery winner might continue in his job, even though he no longer is in immediate need of money.

.
A lottery winner thought she should still be entitled to the dole she was receiving before the megabucks came in.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Yes, as we all know, all wage labor, by definition is slavery.

.
Like the slave Mamluks, the enforcement arm of Egypt, I slaved away ensuring LGBs would go precisely where intended when the shooting war started. And they did. And I'm glad.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Abooga

You should appreciate the time I took explaining things to you.

Had you ever done so, I might. As you have not, I don't.

Quote:

But you just hated it when I pointed that you were wrong didn't you?

If you had, I would not. As you have not, the question is moot, childish, and indicative of your disingenuous "style" of argumentation. I don't admire the tactic of pretending not to understand something for the sake of getting people to explain it to you, only to find you already know the answer and are just looking to score points by pretending to ignorance. The danger in that is that people often accept that you are ignorant, just as you're trying to appear.

Quote:

And, are you making fun of my English? I don't think I do it that bad, considering that it is only my third language. You can try to argue in Spanish, see how it goes.

Wow, ego much? I have no way of knowing what languages you speak, and was completely unaware you are an ESL speaker. You seem awfully sensitive.

My response to Ron Tompkins was memetic. He often responds "I like cake" to threads in the community section.

"Has" is also memetic, and relates only to the common meme of the Lolcats site: "I can has cheeseburger." It hadn't a thing to do with your English skills, or any perceived lack thereof.

Might want to rein in that ego before it gets hurt.

I'll let you know when I decide to extend my ignore list by one, so that you can spare yourself the effort of replying.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And you don't need to come on a skeptic's forum and play the martyr when people refuse to fall for your fallacies.

So once again, do you have anything either correct or useful on the thread topic?

I'm not playing the martyr, just stating the facts of what I said. I made no statement of fact as you claim I did. Thus, you are delberately misrepresenting what I said so you can wave your skeptic credentials around.

Really, you're just being an a**, and I don't feel obliged to answer the "challenge" of an a**.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

I always have a problem with this.
How can sexual advances be identified as unwanted until they are made?

The problem is with people who don't take "no" for an answer.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Anarchistic Leftist school of thought says that all salaried work is slavery to money. In a sense this broad, also prostitution is slavery to the need of money. Unless we theorize that a wealthy woman (or any person) might choose to do the work for reasons other than immediate need of money. For example, a lottery winner might continue in his job, even though he no longer is in immediate need of money.

Some pro-prostitution feminists point out that anti-prostitution feminists are acting like men in that they want to control women in one of the areas where women earn buttloads more than men...just like a sexist man would.

That they fall into the same trap of controlling other people.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Some pro-prostitution feminists point out that anti-prostitution feminists are acting like men in that they want to control women in one of the areas where women earn buttloads more than men...just like a sexist man would.

That they fall into the same trap of controlling other people.

It's a little more complicated than that. One of those areas where philosophy clashes with reality. The philosophy says that the ease with which men can buy women helps create a social acceptance of women as objects, even women who are not engaged in prostitution. This harms all women. The anti-prostitution feminists also see sex work as submissive or demeaning and tend to focus on those areas which are most problematic - sexual slavery, coercion, lack of schooling in some areas of the world which keep women from making other choices, and so on.

Feminists like myself agree that some areas are problematic but would rather find real world ways to reduce those then to condemn sex workers. (I personally have a problem with blaming the people with the least power.) Campaigns which seek to immediately end prostitution instead of protecting sex workers and offering them more autonomy will only drive sex-work deeper underground, which increases the likelihood of harm.

[normajeana]

Originally Posted by bookitty

It's a little more complicated than that. One of those areas where philosophy clashes with reality. The philosophy says that the ease with which men can buy women helps create a social acceptance of women as objects, even women who are not engaged in prostitution. This harms all women. The anti-prostitution feminists also see sex work as submissive or demeaning and tend to focus on those areas which are most problematic - sexual slavery, coercion, lack of schooling in some areas of the world which keep women from making other choices, and so on.

Feminists like myself agree that some areas are problematic but would rather find real world ways to reduce those then to condemn sex workers. (I personally have a problem with blaming the people with the least power.) Campaigns which seek to immediately end prostitution instead of protecting sex workers and offering them more autonomy will only drive sex-work deeper underground, which increases the likelihood of harm.

Glad to know there is a feminist who isn't so radical that you are willing to accept the realities of life in which sex workers don't have to be punished and neither do our non violent, non abusive clients. I always found the notion that prostitutes were being 'exploited' by 'men who buy us for sex' rather at odds with reality. When we think of Las Vegas and men (and women) who gamble, we don't ascribe to them the characteristic of being the exploiters of the casinos- the gamblers are viewed as having a weakness which the casinos/ bookies exploit to their financial benefit. The casinos are NOT the victims of the gamblers...

In that same way, men and women who sell what they can legally GIVE away to as many partners as they wish, have always known the weakness of men in their groin area and have exploited that since the dawn of humanity, to their financial gain. Men are willing to pay sometimes huge sums of money for their weakness, and astute sex workers realize this. It has allowed (especially) women to take advantage of this weakness to earn a significantly greater income than taking on menial labor for minimum wage. Perhaps those feminists who insist that we "prostituted" women are being demeaned or submissive are actually jealous that prostitutes can take advantage of that weakness and make more money than they can with their lofty degrees? As for prostitutes not having 'choices' or the education that would allow us to find jobs that earn far less in a week than what we can earn in an hour, I know a number of my colleagues who have degrees in many areas and who still work as prostitutes to earn enough money to be able to work in the field that they love but can't earn a suitable living in that field.

But even the dumbest among us knows that a man who might not pay his employees more than minimum wage unless forced to do so, will gladly fork over hundreds of dollars to get laid. So who is exploiting whom? A good book to read- although out of print- is "Whores and Other Feminists" edited by Jill Nagle. If feminism is about empowerment and autonomy, I have met more autonomous whores in my 30 years of sex worker rights activism than I have met so called feminists who insist upon infantilizing those of us who make more money and are much more empowered than they do and are.

At the end of an encounter in which we provide a 'happy ending'- we go home with the money and all the man has to show for the time we spent together is a smile. Have feminists ever thought that perhaps we prostitutes view the men who pay us as 'client objects' and WE may not want to get to know them as anything other than clients? Or that we may not want THEM to get to know us as anything other than a sex object? Our work is based on providing fantasies, and if they thought of us as having to go grocery shopping or needing to clean the house, they might not be willing to pay us as much. Why is it that so many feminists are more concerned with what our clients may think of us rather than what we may think of them OR ourselves? How is that not condescending and doing to prostitutes exactly what these feminists accuse men of doing to us? All we are to such feminists is 'victim objects' in need of rescue. But if money is power, and we go home with the money- I ask again... who is exploiting whom? :-)

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by normajeana

Glad to know there is a feminist who isn't so radical that you are willing to accept the realities of life in which sex workers don't have to be punished and neither do our non violent, non abusive clients. I always found the notion that prostitutes were being 'exploited' by 'men who buy us for sex' rather at odds with reality. When we think of Las Vegas and men (and women) who gamble, we don't ascribe to them the characteristic of being the exploiters of the casinos- the gamblers are viewed as having a weakness which the casinos/ bookies exploit to their financial benefit. The casinos are NOT the victims of the gamblers...

In that same way, men and women who sell what they can legally GIVE away to as many partners as they wish, have always known the weakness of men in their groin area and have exploited that since the dawn of humanity, to their financial gain. Men are willing to pay sometimes huge sums of money for their weakness, and astute sex workers realize this. It has allowed (especially) women to take advantage of this weakness to earn a significantly greater income than taking on menial labor for minimum wage. Perhaps those feminists who insist that we "prostituted" women are being demeaned or submissive are actually jealous that prostitutes can take advantage of that weakness and make more money than they can with their lofty degrees? As for prostitutes not having 'choices' or the education that would allow us to find jobs that earn far less in a week than what we can earn in an hour, I know a number of my colleagues who have degrees in many areas and who still work as prostitutes to earn enough money to be able to work in the field that they love but can't earn a suitable living in that field.

But even the dumbest among us knows that a man who might not pay his employees more than minimum wage unless forced to do so, will gladly fork over hundreds of dollars to get laid. So who is exploiting whom? A good book to read- although out of print- is "Whores and Other Feminists" edited by Jill Nagle. If feminism is about empowerment and autonomy, I have met more autonomous whores in my 30 years of sex worker rights activism than I have met so called feminists who insist upon infantilizing those of us who make more money and are much more empowered than they do and are.

At the end of an encounter in which we provide a 'happy ending'- we go home with the money and all the man has to show for the time we spent together is a smile. Have feminists ever thought that perhaps we prostitutes view the men who pay us as 'client objects' and WE may not want to get to know them as anything other than clients? Or that we may not want THEM to get to know us as anything other than a sex object? Our work is based on providing fantasies, and if they thought of us as having to go grocery shopping or needing to clean the house, they might not be willing to pay us as much. Why is it that so many feminists are more concerned with what our clients may think of us rather than what we may think of them OR ourselves? How is that not condescending and doing to prostitutes exactly what these feminists accuse men of doing to us? All we are to such feminists is 'victim objects' in need of rescue. But if money is power, and we go home with the money- I ask again... who is exploiting whom? :-)

Brilliant, eloquent post. Nominated.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by normajeana

Glad to know there is a feminist who isn't so radical that you are willing to accept the realities of life in which sex workers don't have to be punished and neither do our non violent, non abusive clients...

I've found Bookitty to be very intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking.

I also believe there is a huge need for sex-workers to be humanized. It seems to me that once one becomes a sex-worker that society as a whole considers that person to be less than human and not deserving of even basic human rights. I hope your organization is successful in changing that.

[normajeana]

[quote=Mycroft;8267631 I also believe there is a huge need for sex-workers to be humanized. It seems to me that once one becomes a sex-worker that society as a whole considers that person to be less than human and not deserving of even basic human rights. I hope your organization is successful in changing that.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. My organization is a 501 (c) 3 non profit and we don't raise much money because we are politically incorrect for believing that sex workers have rights and also have a right to engage in sex work if that's what they choose - for any reason whatsoever- so unlike all the anti- trafficking organizations which are funded with of millions of dollars each year, we are lucky to raise $25,000 to $40,000 a year to keep going. ISWFACE.org is our organization and can be found at that url. (International Sex Worker Foundation for Art, Culture and Education)

As for being treated as less than human, the police have an unofficial term they use when one of us is found murdered... "NHI" which stands for " No Humans Involved." A number of years ago, a group of artists in San Diego did a project using photos of women from the community to stand in for the 45 prostitutes who were murdered and their murders left unsolved for so very long. The project was named after the term the cops used... "The NHI Project.." which can be found by searching for that term.

I've been out here trying to humanize us for the past 30 years since I left the Los Angeles Police Department where I was employed for 10 years before I went honest and became a call girl (prostitute). It was because of what I saw and how the cops treated women in general and prostitutes specifically that I chose to become an outcast. Perhaps if I can ever finish my research for my next book- "Cops, Hos, Preachers and Politicos- Commercial $ex $candals in America," that project will reach into people's hearts and minds and make them understand that criminalizing women for selling what they can legally give away OR criminalizing the non violent, non abusive men who make it possible for us to pay our rent and take care of our families is so very wrong and causes so much harm to those whom feminists and religious conservatives claim to want to help.

Of course radical feminists/ religious conservatives view it differently- they see us as nothing but mindless victims without thoughts, opinions or choices of our own... helpless infants who are abused and exploited by men... and while some are abused by men (and women and especially law enforcement agents), the majority of us find our work as fulfilling as any other employee in any other profession. Some love the work, some hate the work and some tolerate it. But none deserve to be arrested, incarcerated and branded for life, and neither do the men who pay us. And no one wants to stop the violence and abuse of other sex workers more than sex workers. But seldom does anyone ask us what we want or need for making our lives safer. Instead it is presumed we are all uneducated, inarticulate child-like beings who cannot possibly know what is good for us.

If any of you readers have spare time and want to volunteer to work on this massive project, I can always use the help. It can be done from anywhere- thanks to technology which allows instant access to so much information. I am reachable for anyone to find. And NO I am not still 'working' and am not soliciting anyone for any illegal activity. After spending 18 months in prison for writing my first book (Cop to Call Girl- 1993 Simon and Schuster), I am not about to give the cops any excuse for arresting me again. As a convicted felon, that would not be wise.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I've found Bookitty to be very intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking.

I also believe there is a huge need for sex-workers to be humanized. It seems to me that once one becomes a sex-worker that society as a whole considers that person to be less than human and not deserving of even basic human rights. I hope your organization is successful in changing that.

Thanks. Seriously.

There's a lot of stupid shaming that goes on in regards to prostitution from both the buyer and seller side. It's maddening because it forms the basis for harmful policy. If you're going to have laws that put human beings in absolutely unnecessary danger, at least base those laws on science not "ewwwww!".

Other maddening aspects of this shaming - placing societal blame on individuals. If a person is prostituting themselves to buy drugs because they are an addict and society offers them very few options for sobriety, why blame the addict. In the US, we treat drug addiction as a moral failing instead of a medical issue and this prevents recovery. Or if society sees women as objects, why blame a sex-worker who profits from that? She didn't create that social failing and as an individual can do very little to fight it.

I also don't think that sex-work needs to be glamorized. It is what it is and some people will be more or less suited for it. Most of the negatives of sex-work can be avoided if it is treated like a profession, either self-employment or part of a larger business. There are professions which are more dangerous, proper safety equipment and regulations (where necessary) make it safer.