Ren's moving letter to those who voted no on Prop K. Good god, that woman can write some heart stirring words when she wants to. The sex worker mailing lists today were full of commiserations for our American brothers and sisters who were working and hoping for the success of this initiative, and who hoped their work and their lives would be safer and a little less stigmatised should Prop K go ahead.
On that note, I've recently been involved in a
comment thread over at Echidne of the Snakes. The
original post dealt with modern day sex slavery and the rescuing of abused and prostituted children from the monsters holding them captive.
In the comment thread, someone wondered if legalisation of sex work might make coercive and abusive prostitution easier to police. I commented, mentioning the
recent study conducted by
Basil Donovan that indicated sex workers in NSW, the only Australian state to have successfully implemented decriminalisation, have better health, welfare and support than sex workers in other states, including those with legalisation and with criminalisation.
It didn't go too well. First someone flatly stated that my words were "a complete and utter lie", which perplexed me. I had no idea I had the capacity to falsify such a study. Then, when someone promoted the Swedish model and I said that some Swedish sex workers had stated that that model hurt them, I had someone tell me that I'd
actually said "the Swedish model hurts business". Then Sam Berg got involved, and while I would have loved to continue the conversation, I flatly refuse to engage with someone who insists on referring to sex work (especially whilst talking to sex workers) with such disgusting and insulting language as "cunt delivery".
All of that is kind of beside the point, though. I'm not exactly looking for people to run over there and stick up for me; in fact, I'd quite prefer you didn't. My point in bringing all this up was to repost the question I posted at the bottom of that thread, in response to discussion of the Swedish model and opposition to the idea of decriminalisation.
I said:
While I disagree with it, I can understand why some women support the Swedish model.
I honestly don't understand why proponents of the Swedish model are opposed to moves to decriminalise sex work in the US. I mean... isn't the common ground between proponents of decrim and proponents of the Swedish model? That criminalisation harms the women in sex work and that that should be eradicated for the good of sex workers?
Surely it's better to push for the decrim options that are actually on the table to be introduced and THEN push for criminalisation of buying sex, rather than coming out against it completely because it's not exactly what you want and letting sex workers continue to suffer under criminalisation?
Can you explain the thinking behind this view to me?
It seems fitting to pose this question again, in light of the failure of Proposition K.
As yet, no-one has answered me. Well, someone posting under the name Kali has
responded, but she didn't answer the question. She did tell me what would inevitably happen under a system of decriminalised sex work (remarkably unlike what I see every day of my life, oddly enough), tell me that I'm doing "nothing" to actually help prostituted women, and ask me "Why do you want to increase the number of women and children pushed and trapped into sexual slavery?", but I don't really consider that an answer. I lean more towards labelling it "absurd, insulting, and rather unnecessary."
Can anyone give me an answer? If the Swedish model contains within it the decriminalisation of sex work on the part of the workers, and the thinking behind this is that criminalisation harms workers and prevents them from seeking medical and legal help, why oppose those same changes when presented without the criminalisation of clients? Why push
for workers who are currently in the industry to remain stuck under a system you believe to be damaging and destructive to them, rather than encouraging the move to decriminalisation, ushering in increased protection for sex workers and prostituted people, and
then pushing to re-criminalise clients with the satisfied knowledge that you're half way there?
If I'm missing something*, I'd really like it pointed out.
*that, obviously, isn't "you want women to be raped and trafficked and puppies to be murdered in front of children". You can keep that observation, thanks.
Posts
