Confessions of a Sex Worker Who Enjoys Submissive Sex with Her Partners.

[Hecate]

I am an anarcho feminist, but sometimes feel alienated from the feminist movement and the left due to the fact that I am a sex worker. I have done other things - such as a bit of journalism, and I am also a musician. I find it hard to relate to the left any longer due to my work.

I have my issues, problems, but don't we all, don't people in 9 to 5 jobs? I am not ashamed of what I do. Sex work is not a career I do all the time - I simply pick it up as an option when times are hard. The work itself does not degrade me - if I have nice and respectful clients and a partner who is supportive I can enjoy my work as I am no prude and enjoy sex anyway, being what is known as a sex positive feminist. I believe in equal rights, and cannot stand that victim brand of feminism that brand men as predators and women as victims, especially men who pay for sex.

I can say from experience - most men who pay for sex are not predators who are criminally inclined towards women. Most are lonely men who need affection as much as sex. I have had bad clients who are disrespectful and see women as sex objects, but these guys are in the minority of who I see. If my customers treat me with decency they can expect a good time from me, if they see me as dirt and as a sex object I then see them as money objects - I get their money and get rid of them as soon as I can. From my heart I say I have been hurt more by my partners than my clients - whether I have been involved in sex work at the time or not. Men have treated me like crap when I've had straight jobs, being a sex worker makes my partners treat me no better or worse.

As for the pimping laws - many sex workers want minders around, be they partners or business associates. Men run escort agencies for the marketing side as well as being there for protection, and this is no crime. There are managers of sex workers who are in it for exploitation - but is this any different from other bosses? I worked in an office where my boss treated his workers with contempt - was a millionare while paying us starvation wages, he was worse than any 'pimp'. Yet he faced no jail term and was not risking his liberty for what he did. None of us 'chose' this boss, but some sex workers do choose to have minders for their own protection, and in return they risk having the men who they employ for their own safety flung in jail for living off 'immoral' earnings!

My ex boss in the office - his earnings were far more 'immoral' as far as my standards go, the way he lived off of us. Minders of sex workers are often employed rather than employers. As far as the guys go who are managers/capitalists - it is true that some of them are nasty misogynists. But the nature of the business gives them the excuse for misogyny as exploitative bosses use what they can - managing women gives them more leeway for this particular side. But I can tell you this - regular bosses are not immune either. My boss in the office had mostly women in lower management, all of whom grovelled to him. He had sex appeal, he was a good looking bastard as well as having a flash car to show off in. I am convinced that the female managers who he employed did not get their promotions through pure hard work only if you get my drift - and if you have ever seen the movie 'secretary'. His female managers did his dirty work for him.

Any men on this thread who dare moralise should watch out - in a drunken rage online I once told a man I'd castrate him for daring to call sex workers 'whores', yet at the same time claiming he felt sorry for us as we are all 'victims' of drugs and predatory men. I could wind up all middle class sensibilities by saying I share all my earnings with my male partner and how I so love him to dominate me sexually at the end of a nights work and how I love men to be in control of me in the bedroom, 'he hits so hard I see stars' (Courtney Love song). Message - sexual police of the right and left get the fuck out of my life, if I want to have sex for money and get turned on by being my partners sex toy, get my kicks that way I can and I will fight for my right to live the lifestyle I choose. I hate moralisers of any type. I like living how I do, and any Leninist jerks who think they can intimidate me by calling me a lumpen (yawn) can think again cos I like who I am. Pathetic dogmatic insults from politico or internet nerds no longer hurt me. I produce my own pawn and men pay for it - express and feel your disgust and see if I care. Sorry, I do care about what goes on in the world but the way leftists speak of sex workers or anyone else who chooses to live alternatively has driven me right off your movement. Not that you guys might consider the likes of me much of a loss, but there goes say what you will.

In sex work female managers in my experience have usually been worse to work for than the men. This is why it is better to work independent, and if you need men for protection employ them as minders, pay them a wage have them work for you rather than work for a man and have him as manager. I say this for all work - I hate being a wage slave and hate working 9 to 5. Being a sex worker does have drawbacks, but so does any job. The main problem sex workers face is the social alienation and judgemental treatment they face from 'straight' people, and the sad thing is that in my experience I have gained job satisfaction by making lonely men happy, giving them affection as well as orgasms. Yet at the same time a patriarchal society (which has relied on prostitution, the role of wife being the other, opposite of what the 'whore' is) condemns me for making men happy in this way. For me being a sex worker often puts me in the role as being like a sort of counsellor for these men. I am glad people like ECP are on my side and do recognise what I do as being work, akin to any caring profession like a nurse, housewife, mother, any domestic labour. Some feminists are smart enough to see this, like Wages for Housework. Due to the negative attitude much of the feminist movement has towards sex work Wages for Housework and their collectives like ECP do not describe themselves as 'feminists' - just being socialistically inclined women who are in favour of women's rights and women's work being respected as work. Women's work - housework, mothering, sex work has been dismissed not seen as work and it is. It does take effort. Sex work is not as easy as men assume - it does involve more than just lying on your back, men want a better service than that. Lonely men have thanked me for making them happier, brightening their dull lives, and it hurts me that society condemns me for doing what is necessary work in a capitalist society - sexual labour. Judgemental women who see themselves as 'respectable' and as 'wives' rather than 'whores' are more judgemental than men in this manner. As one writer put it, the sex worker blows the cover of the 'respectable' woman by directly asking for cash for her sexual labour. The sex worker does not manipulate or lie about what her intentions are. I have fallen out with a so called friend due to the way she speaks of sex workers - calling us 'dirty prostitutes' and other foul names. That is another story altogether - but as I am versed in Marxism etc I see the hypocrisy in how not only the way in which women are treated by men but by how they judge each other.

 I am a naturally kind hearted person. Some men think sex workers are bad, out to use men for what they can get, but that aint me and it is not the other women I know, only a minority of sex workers I've known have been like that - and the joke is that the cold ruthless ones like that are the ones who are the most highly paid! Guess same with anything in a capitalist world, you get more money if you are cold, predatory, ruthless, kindness does not pay financially.

I aint earning a fortune cos I aint a ruthless capitalist. But I go against the flow and rebel, despite the fact I am 36 I do not feel this old. Long live rebellion and long live the right to be the woman I want to be. I enjoy my work cos I love sex. I choose to be sexually submissive with the men I choose as my lovers, partners, whatever cos that is what I like, 'politically correct' sex does not excite me as I like it when men are in control of me in the bedroom. This is me - take me or leave me.

Equal rights rule - all I ask is for politicos to get out of my bedroom.

Yours Truly,

Elizabeth

[Rabelais]

Hello Elizabeth,

You should have a look at the work thread here: http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php/topic,1364.0.html

Sounds like you're happier in work than many on here.

I read your post with interest. I'm surprised though that you have received so much grief from the Left. What's the specific objections to sex workers you've encountered? I have to confess that beyond the conviction that sex workers should be entitled to union membership (which maybe they are these days), I've never given what you and your colleagues do much thought, until now.

Also, I'm sure you're not alone or the first person to find themselves with an apparent contradiction between their politics and sexual desire.

[wolfysmith]

Hecate,

Your post on the RP forum is very informative and I am sure you are right that most of your clients seek comfort and affection as much as they want sex. What are your views on the proposed alterations to the laws on prostitution? Should the sex industry be decriminalized so that prostitutes can be properly protected by the employment laws and a labour union, Would or do you belong a union?

[Free Radical]

Hello Elizabeth
Welcome to the site. It's good to have your perspective on these issues. There is a range of views on the 'left' on this as on other issues, and I do share your concern that sometimes sections of the left fall into a position that is close to simple moralising on personal matters.

[CharlieMcMenamin]

Elizabeth,

Welcome.

I don’t for one moment doubt your account of your own experience and preferences. Nor am I keen on moralising on sexual matters.

But there is one question I must ask: how typical do you think your experience of working in the sex industry is? There seems a substantial amount of research which suggests many women enter the industry under direct physical compulsion – they’re smuggled in to do it, often having been promised a very different type of job – or simply through the compulsion of drug addiction or severe economic hardship.

 For me at least there is the world of difference between women who might choose to enter the sex industry - or, for that matter, any other industry -  and those that are compelled to do so.

[Brigg57]

Liz, (assuming you're the Elizabeth I know), I am so pleased that you posted on this board at last. I know you don't post that much, but I live in hope. You're very literate, and what you have to say is always interesting (even when I don't agree with it fully). I just hope that you manage to get something together for publishing one day.

That's a really brave thing to write, because prostitution remains a big taboo for men and women across the social spectrum, not just the political one. The posts responding to you strike me as both sensitive and supportive. Charlie's post strikes me as true - that you may be a small minority in your approach. I read from women involved in the porno industry that lifespan isn't as long as women engaged in other work, and pimps can be a bit on the rough side (to use an understatement).

You're right that it's work, and that women in such work need all the suppoprt they can get. The finger-wagging at sexual morality from many feminists, especially male feminists, isn't to be tolerated. Tht finger wagging is also less than it used to be, at the heyday of the Anti-Sex industry which looked for  its inspiration to Mrs Mary Whitehouse, that right-wing Christian campaigner of yore who were mortified by expletives and stressed that sex is a very beautiful thing within marriage, and not too much of it in marriage either, thank you. I still can't imagine how people who claimed to be Left looked to that awful woman.

The finger wagging you will always have when it comes to prostitution, though– form women who feel threatened as well as the Christian Right; form men who feel guilty as well as men who object to sex for sale for moral reasons. My answer is to provide a system of social security which relieves women from economic need, but with drug addiction that may not be possible.

Anyway, if you ever need Jesus, then you could do worse than listen to the Velvet Underground track (if it’s the Liz I think it is, you’ll appreciate this) –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlLSUWDrUg

[wolfysmith]

Liz,

As CharlieMcM has said the problem is coercion into this form of employment and as a consequence super exploitation of human labour/mental wellbeing. If those involved are free agents without coercion then it would be like any other form of labour and commoditization of a service as with the purchasing of a meal which fulfils a human need.

It’s the same for pornography as a male who has worked all his life in engineering I have been used to seeing magazines and calendars of naked females and would not be telling the truth if I didn’t admit to finding the female form pleasing and have enjoyed discussing the attributes that gave pleasure with work colleagues. But the issue is how the person on the other end of this experience is affected by this commercial exchange and employment. As I get older I am more conscious of this side of the experience than when I was younger. And as such find that I am less comfortable with what was once an innocent enjoyment of the female form and worry about the human being that is the commoditized object of pleasure. 

As a Marxist I see it as an issue of alienating both the man and woman if it involves coercion, so for me it’s not a 'feminists' issue but an issue of exploitation that de-humanises. If what you say is true about your own experience this is of mutual benefit to you and your customers and in that situation the only problems are regarding possible risks of infection and for your customer any issues of trust between them and a possible partner which is only an issue for the individuals concerned. But for the majority I think it’s as Brigg has said, a very dangerous occupation with health issues and of super exploitation.       

[Brigg57]

I meant to add a comment on Liz's anarcho-feminism, and the way it isolated her from the feminist movement.

It's a form of anarchism I can identify with. Most anarchists and libertarians aren't actually very libertarian, in my experience.

They're very authoritarian. They want to tell you how not to live, and they want to tell you how to live. They gain credence because they are denouncing suffering, oppression, inequality. But in telling you how to live, they're in danger of recreating the conditions they're denouncing, and that's because of their similarity with much socialist thinking.

Socialism involves a planned economy of some sort - democratically organised or not - and many socialists have found it quite natural to move on to organising the way we behave, including mass shifts of population to fit in with a pre-ordained plan in the most extreme of cases. There is a relaxed attitude to civil liberties, even when civil liberties are formally celebrated (the 1936 constitution of that regime of organised terror and coercion, the USSR, was the most democratic in the world, ti was rightly proclaimed. Enforced uniformity disguised as equality, communes with 'harmonious' ways of living, reaching of a 'consensus' without voting, enforced participation (either through penal sanctions or more subtle sanctions). The regulation of sexual behaviour follows naturally from the regulation of social behaviour. The body as a sacred temple means that there are certain things we ought not to do with it - selling it for filthy lucre, or displaying it for lewd voyeurs, or...

To me, libertarianism isn't self-rule through participation. That’s a republican way of organising a society, similar to a barracks or a monastery according to Montesquieu.

It’s about allowing people to breathe, to make their own minds up, to find their own level – away from the coercion and even terror of the State, whether that State be the police, army and prisons of the centralised State or the coercive opinion of the participatory community noted by de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America. Pasternak, the Russian poet, once said that the movement from the collective to the individual is the most important movement in human history, and pointed to the subtle pressures and cruelties with which people treated individual ‘eccentricity’ – to Milton, their inhuman laughter like the cackling of geese. . That is a social end very different from the one envisaged by many socialists (and even many anarchists). The way to get there is not at all simple, and the obstacles in its path can be easily used for the purposes of scorne, but it’s where we ought to be going.

[Hecate]

Hi guys,

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply - just been a bit busy with a few problems.

I will get back later and answer your points in more detail, but thanks for not being judgemental. I think sex work should be decriminalised on the New Zealand model rather than Dutch style legalisation and thus State control. And of course there are health and safety issues.

I have never known any women who are forced into sex work although they obviously do exist. I have known some who have exploitative partners, but they choose to be with these men, and the issue is one of domestic violence. The crime of these men is being violent misogynists rather than the partners of sex workers.

Drug addiction - it is wrong if a woman does a job she does not like due to this problem - but what of someone who chooses this lifestyle - i.e a woman who chooses to both use drugs and be a sex worker? Trapped in this profession due to addiction is more common with heroin addiction than any other drug, apart from maybe crack cocaine. I am against the drug laws as well and think all drugs should be decriminalised. Btw some drugs enhance sexual activity, uppers do this while downers tend to turn down people's sex lives. And yes, I am a Velvet Underground fan which probably will not surprise you.

I am not immune from relationship problems and issues in my personal life, and admit I have also gone too far with drug use at certain points. But what I do for a living is not the issue here - not every drug addict is a sex worker or vice versa, nor is any woman with relationship problems a sex worker.

More later,

Liz xx

[Brigg57]

Liz,
I don’t think anyone here is preventing you living the life you want to lead. I’m certainly not moralising abut it either. If I knew you better, knew your problems more, I may be advising you to steer clear of selling your body for reasons of self-esteem, but I don’t know you that well; maybe I wouldn’t.

On a more political level, and away from your personal situation, I have an ambiguous reaction. On the one side, prostitution does seem to be intimately connected with crime and some pretty vicious pimps. You may be lucky enough to have steered clear of these guys, but not all women are so lucky, as witnessed by the trafficking of women from Eastern Europe as cheap sex workers, or the vicious exploitation of East African women by Somali gangsters in parts of the East End of London – they are so easy to exploit by some of the more vicious capitalists (like the gang masters who exploit Chinese labour to pick cockles on Morecambe Bay). The mafia have traditional links to prostitution, and the cutting up of recalcitrant women who are then put in a small suitcase serves as a frightener for other women who might be thinking independently. Not all sex-workers are in this situation, I can accept, but a lot are. This is not moralising or finger-wagging; it’s a reason for unionisation and other forms of protection in a very dangerous trade.

On the other side, I can only have sympathy for your insistence that the Left should keep out of anybody’s bedroom. When modern feminism started in the 60s with Juliet Mitchell, Germaine Greer and the early WLM, there were major political arguments about the role of capitalism and the family – arguments which centred on domestic labour and the family, abortion rights and protection from male predators. I don’t want to go through this history – a lot of it is unknown to me, as a man. I respected the decision to become separatist in order for the movement to grow – the interference of vanguard Left groups, Stalinist and Trotskyist, claiming to know what’s best for women, made that decision very understandable, though consciousness-raising and a lax attitude to democratic rights within the Women’s Movement apparently raised new problems of bullying by over-dominant women (Jo Freeman was a particular US critic of this, taken seriously in the UK) which came to a head when one woman was literally knocked to the floor of a conference while making the point that she actually liked men.

That was the problem. In the 80s, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking a puritanical stream early grew up within feminism, very distinct from the original attack on oppression. Women like Andrea Dworkin and her UK followers attacked any sort of sexuality which they didn’t approve, particularly pornography – Mary Whitehouse, the rabid Christian leader of the Moral Crusade who denounced swearing and lewd behaviour on tv and the cinema, became their model, portrayed sympathetically by Julie Walters; like Mrs Whitehouse and Lord Longford,  they interfered in the most private areas of our lives – this has led to New Labour’s successful attempts to legislate against sexual behaviour. Some sex is right, anything kinky is wrong, disgusting, to be punished and punished severely. We’ve seen unprecedented attacks by the police on art exhibitions, and censorship of the arts is raising its ugly head with some success. For those who remember the Lady Chatterley and Oz trials, this is one of the most worrying aspects of the puritan attack on private life, and the fact that for a long time it enjoyed ostensible support from the Left has to be seen as part and parcel of the degeneration of cultural radicalism in this country. It was a return to what the Australians called ‘wowserism’ (used against people who carried out public burnings of books by Joyce, Lawrence and other ‘disgusting’ authors, and what Brits used to call ‘Grundyism’, after Mrs Grundy, a symbol of moral hypocrisy

So your heartfelt cry for the left to keep out of your bedroom – and all of our bedrooms – is the authentic cry of liberty. Well done for saying that; it takes some courage in today’s climate of Grundyism.

[Hecate]

Briggs...
"Liz,
I don’t think anyone here is preventing you living the life you want to lead. I’m certainly not moralising abut it either. If I knew you better, knew your problems more, I may be advising you to steer clear of selling your body for reasons of self-esteem, but I don’t know you that well; maybe I wouldn’t."

One thing I'll point out - I don't like the phrase selling one's body - it is not really a descriptive term. Selling one's body would mean selling it permanently to one man and letting him do whatever he wanted to it - sounds more like marriage for financial gain in my view rather than prostitution - the latter which is hiring rather than selling, and men cannot do what they like - you'll find there are certain things not all sex workers will do, nobody does whatever they like with my body, money or no. It's terms like that which are non descriptive that give a distorted view and add to the stigmatised way society views sex workers. I'm not having a go - but it's too easy to repeat common terms like that without thinking of what they truly imply, and it does reinforce a negative view.

As for self esteem - to be fair if anything has damaged my self esteem it has not been men I have 'sold my body' (sic) to, but rather men I've had relationships with, some of whom in the past I've supported rather than them giving me any money. If you know my views you'll realise I don't like use of the term pimp for men who are the partners of sex workers and are financially abusive .......there are women who are not sex workers who work in regular jobs and whose partners demand control of finances. The thing is.....sex workers can be vulnerable to domestic violence, that much is true, but women of all backgrounds can experience domestic violence not just sex workers. If you are talking of organised criminals who kidnap, rape women for financial game that is a different ballgame.....but sex slavery is a different thing altogether, it really is not sex work or voluntary prostitution and is miles removed from anything I have experienced, it's wrong to confuse the two. To say I have anything in common with Eastern European sex slaves really is belittling the plight of those poor women, at least in my view, and ultimately disempowering women like myself, it is an unhelpful comparison that doesn't really mean anything. While misogyny etc may be a common factor it is wrong to say that the experiences of EE sex slaves and Western sex workers who experience or have experienced domestic abuse are the same or similiar - kidnap, rape abuse at the hands of organised criminals is a different thing from having problems in personal relationships that become abusive - what one does for a living isn't the issue with domestic abuse - the point is abusive men. One can say there are levels, it is a matter of extremes, and say is there a qualitative difference between rape and financial exploitation from men one isn't personally involved with, who may be strangers........we could go on forever like that but there is a difference for sure, at least I think there is.....Btw my ex boyfriend was abusive financially as well as in other ways - and I was not a sex worker at the time. Organised criminals who profit from women's bodies do have the view of women as sex objects and commodities, property akin to cars, sofas etc, items for use value........this view may be present in the partners of sex workers who gain from them financially - but then again it is also present in some men whose partners are not sex workers and are not involved in that trade at all. Men who organise sex slavery may be the extreme epitomy of a misogynist attitude in society as a whole....and it is that view which maybe should be challenged, sex slavery being but an extreme symptom of it, not the disease itself....as with no disease there'd be no symptoms like that.

As to the question on whether sex work per se damages women's self esteem.......it depends on the person, doesn't it? It's wrong to make assumptions that it will in every case, I'd say some women yes, some no, women are all different so it isn't a thing to generalise about.

Liz xx

[Hecate]

Just want to make another comment.....I hope Briggs knows that I realise he meant no offence to me by saying it....but doesn't he maybe think that attitudes which are commonly repeated, like 'selling my body' perhaps do more damage to my self esteem than what I actually do does.....i.e the judgemental attitude people have towards it? Even if it is under the guise of the well being of women....the victim mentality is dangerous. What gets to me more than anything is the attempt of well meaning people to save me from myself....I got told by one person that I had a distant 'guardian angel' in the shape of a man....and she would not tell me who this dude was. That freaked me. I had other attempts from these people who were by and large middle class and understood nothing about my life, it was worlds apart etc. I am not talking about you, Briggs, but I think by and large we are influenced by the people we know, we are products of our environment.....and there seem to be some of these attitudes you may have absorbed without realising, without being aware.

The thing was.......they were 'concerned' I was having trouble with the man in my life....but what got me was this. The main thing was that he was aware of what I do for a living....and this by nature made him scum, that he 'allowed' me to do it......I was then typically asked if I give him money, to which I replied what is the point here and where is it going? Then people wonder why women like myself do sometimes have troubled personal lives.....because what man wants to be labelled as scum for going out with the likes of me? There are so many stereotypes which make the lives of women who sell sex harder than they have to be.....one of my clients once said it is a 'shame I was single'......he didn't ask just assumed, again the attitude being no decent man would 'allow me' to do that, and if he does he must be a predatory criminal etc.

It is not easy......but times are hard, you know? What is wretched is not the work but people's attitudes who don't understand. Women like me are entitled to a personal life as much as anyone else.....and of course it causes issues with relationships re men. It would cause issues if I dated a male escort, worry that he might fall in love with clients etc. But I would not go to jail for living with him....it rarely actually happens but in theory men can go to jail for being partners of sex workers, if they share bills, food etc. People who are poor and already with problems can do without the state on their back, and without do gooders who make assumptions. As you can see it upset me.....I was prodded and pumped with questions about the man I was with that were helpful to nobody, if I had problems with him it was a personal thing, why was what I do for a living such a major point there? There isn't much money about right now, perhaps this is why some men 'allow' their partners to be sex workers? There are women who don't tell their partners what they do....I don't believe in deceit. Honesty may cause issues but better than have relationships based on deceit and mistrust....

Another point I wish to make is this....all talk about 'better economic opportunities' for women and a 'decent social security system' etc are entirely abstract....what form would these opportunities take? It is never spelt out because nobody can think of any. Perhaps a 9-5 life is not for everyone. As for social security....perhaps I might not want to rely on the State for my only income, did Briggs not think of that? Not everyone does want to rely on the State, it isn't the point whether it pays a pittance or not.....even it paid good money I still wouldn't wish to rely on it.....I would rather retain some level of independence by whatever means. And no, it isn't because I want to get high and the State wouldn't pay enough for me to do that (as you seemed to assume maybe was the case, when you mentioned social security isn't an option if addiction is involved?) True, nobody can expect the State to pay them to get high.....but perhaps for me that's not the point. Perhaps no matter what the case is, whether I want to get high or don't, I want to be economically independent....without the State or a man as a meal ticket, and do what I do to retain independence. Even if the State paid well.....I don't want to be a charity case, either of the State or well meaning individuals, and don't want 'economic opportunities' in 9-5 work etc. That is me x

[Brigg57]

Liz,
don't get too angry. I was making general points about prostitution, and its connections with crime; and then gereal points about the way feminism turned puritanical.

I said I didn't know you that well, that I didn't know whether you were getting depressed over your job or not. I have no idea - as you said, we're all different. So I made general points. Sorry you took them badly; I should keep my gob shut.

I've known quite a few 'respectable' men and women sell their souls. Nobody is suggesting you've done that.

[Brigg57]

Liz,

a more considered (I hope) response.


I think you’re touching a sensitive debate which is important. Any sensible guy withdraws very quickly when denounced, and I may yet do so, but I’ve never been very sensible, or sensitive. The last thing I want to do is upset or hurt you by my clod-hopping approach and language. If that continues, then I’ll just stop the discussion, and apologise in advance.

First, let me stress that your situation as a sex worker is not fully known to me. I take your point about choice, and respect it. But not all sex workers are in the same boat as you; or are they? Are you really claiming that sex workers aren’t exploited by their employers, or put in a very dangerous situation by employer and/or customer? I believe that an unquantifiable number of sex-workers escape this fate in various ways, hope and assume that you’re one of them, but you’re not generalising your own experience to all sex workers, are you?

Secondly, dialogue is only possible if carried on reasonably. I expect to be criticised, even attacked, for what I’ve argued, but not for something I don’t argue. When you write, “As for social security....perhaps I might not want to rely on the State for my only income, did Briggs not think of that? Not everyone does want to rely on the State.....I would rather retain some level of independence by whatever means.” I don’t remember writing about social security or better economic opportunities – for you or for anyone else???

Thirdly – ‘selling your body’. You have a point, though I’m not sure how best to explain. When a worker sells their services, their labour-power, it’s not as a slave. They remain legally free, and are not obliged to give more than they’re contracted for. Within that sale, the worker belongs to the employer – Marx has a brilliant description of how a worker remains free and equal, yet somehow ends up with the manager leading him by the nose to work. That’s how I take ‘selling your body’ to mean. But if it upsets you – and I do understand why – please give me a better way of putting it. Ditto with ‘pimp’, some of whom may well be decent, but some of whom may well be violent gangsters. Give me a better name and I’ll use it, but it seems odd to describe the guy who cuts a woman up for holding back some money as a sex-worker’s partner. I do take your point, though, that it’s a nasty word which denigrates some people unjustifiably.

Part of an argument we’ve had here is about the dignity of work, applauded by Richard Sennett. I don’t accept it. Our society is very good at stripping people of dignity, and work is one of its specialities. Work for a wage – whatever work – is degrading, and I do it because I have to do it to live. Choice doesn’t come into it. The choice is to starve or live with very little pleasure, or to work for some bastard for a set number of hours. Of all the jobs I’ve done, the most useful (looking after terminally ill and multiply handicapped children) has been the one where I was treated the worst, paid the worst, had the worst working conditions, and was so tired that I couldn’t establish any meaningful help for the kids. If you enjoy your work, that’s great; you’re very lucky. But not everyone does.
Fourthly, and last, your dignity, and its connection to ‘selling your body’. Now this is very important, and I think you’re right in touching on the misogyny aroused by sex-workers in men, and the fear in ‘respectable’ women. Prostitution is something that everyone, all of us, is taught to think of as ‘disgusting’, and as ‘shameful’, yet it’s not only the oldest profession, but Bertrand Russell has described it as the pillar of marriage, holding many sexually sterile marriages together.

So –

Why is it seen as ‘disgusting’, as ‘shameful’? The slicing off of a woman’s nose was the traditional ‘mark of the whore’, and a sign of how Christians traditionally regarded women – they were the badge of man’s shame, and the signal for women to keep their men in check. Men have been traditionally accepted as dogs, ready to go sniffing after any woman who crosses their path; the woman’s role is to maintain the Christian family, to offer sex adequately enough to keep the man in check, to repress ehr own sexuality, to look after the household, to sternly act against mistresses and the ‘women of shame’.

In the Civil War, it was the tradition of Presbyterian soldiers, fighting against the King, to cut the noses off all women and girls who were ‘camp followers’ of the Royal armies. I read somewhere that the new model cavalry, which was (generally) Independent in its religion, formed a ring of steel around the ‘camp followers’ to protect them against the Presbyterians. Lars von Trier’s film, Breaking the Waves, is about a modern version of that.

As you say, prostitution touches a raw nerve – and it’s because a woman’s sexuality and sexual independence touches a raw nerve. A lot of moral and emotional sanctions result which hurt deeply. If I contribute to that hurt, all I can do is apologise.

[Hecate]

Briggs,

Thank you for a more considered response.....but again, what makes you think I do generalise? Surely you don't think I am naive enough not to know about exploitative employers etc......nor to think that abuse from clients never takes place. The points on slavery were reiterated here....what makes you think I generalise about my own experiences and am not aware there are many problems in the sex industry? I made it clear I was speaking of my own experience...it is not my place to speak on behalf of other people as everyone's experience and nature is different....as I made clear. I am not one to pontificate.

I think you did say something about social security, or someone did....read back on your posts. As for 'selling your body'.....do you say that about all people who do menial labour of some description, that involves the use of some parts of one's body?......No, so why should selling sex and that alone be classified as such? Do you see why I find that term a touch offensive? It is not as bad as 'selling yourself' - another term I have heard which implies the total of a woman's being is her sexuality, but it is still nondescriptive and wrong. I think I said myself what would be a better term...the hiring of sexual services, or 'selling sex' if you must....look back at what I wrote.

Nor do I always under each and every circumstance enjoy my work.....I just pointed out that it can be better than other jobs I've had. Under favourable conditions I find the hours more flexible, the money better, and on the whole I don't hate the work itself if the customers are decent etc. That was the thrust of my point....but of course all work can be degrading to some extent....the point I was challenging was the idea that the work I do is more degrading than any other, which I'd disagree with. It was worse for my self esteem when I took orders wearing a uniform when I was seventeen years old.

As for the term pimp.....the point I was making is that there is a difference between men who are the partners of sex workers and those who are employers.....it is a different thing if a boss threatens you for failing to make enough profit or if a partner argues with you over the issue of money, and the partners of sex workers are not the same as bosses....whether or not sex workers support their partners financially is not the issue, it still doesn't make them the same as a boss. The problem I have with the term pimp is that it can in some cases denigrate some men unfairly, who are the partners of sex workers and not their managers or bosses, is all, and that it can be too generalised....applying on one extreme to slave traders and on another to men who are unemployed and have sex workers as partners!

I am aware the lines can cross, in the sex industry some managers/minders/agents (whatever one will call such men) have sexual relations with their employees and become predatory, abusive etc....some may start relationships with young women in the hope of employing them as workers (known as 'grooming'), the underground nature of the sex industry makes it more prone to this kind of abuse.....but it is not truly unique to it, managers in other professions may exploit female employees sexually while making a profit from them financially. Perhaps in this kind of profession it is arguable on some grounds to work indepently...but some women want men as back up for protection. Some agents are fine, some only want a 20% cut for admin fees, others want more - anything up to 50% (normally if they offer accomodation, they be hard pressed to obtain that kind of commission from advertising and vetting clients alone)....it varies, but if there was no demand for agents sex workers would not want them and they would make no money. Some agents sexually harrass their employees, some are fine and don't. Again, that would call for the unionisation of sex workers.

My point is that it perhaps is unfair to portray all managers in that profession as exploitative, violent, predatory...and a manager is not the same thing as a partner, although I am well aware the lines can and do cross.....I have known some sex workers who have had violent abusive managers or partners, some of whom acted as the same thing......but personally speaking I've had no man do me physical damage for holding back money or do me any other physical damage. Of course I am not generalising....I am aware it happens, I knew women who have had physical harm done to them by men who were exploiting them financially....but their experience is not universal any more than mine is. I have in the past had partners who have been verbally and mentally abusive as well as financially exploitative, and I've had managers demand more than their fair share.....but I don't think this kind of thing is unique to the work I do, as I think I expressed in my first post.....and of course I am aware that not everyone has been so lucky.

[Brigg57]

Liz,
I don't see us as disagreeing.

I've looked back over all my posts on this, and I did when I read your attack over social security. Maybe I can't see for looking, but I don't see anyone as having made this point.

I take your point about selling your body. It is a moralistic term, and I was insensitive to use it. But then I am insensitive when it comes to a lot of things when it comes to sex. I think many men feel that, and it leads to many men, especially on theLeft, feeling very guilty about their own desires, and only too willing to capitulate in front of any determined woman.

The effect was shown in the one-time radical what's on magazine, City Limits (Shitty Limits as known to a few), where one woman wwriote in sayng Thatcher was admirable because she kicked men in teh face,a s they deserved - and she certainly did that. I've seen the effects of this personally as a child was nearly destroyed in front of me by the Left's fetishisms (both male and female Left).

Unfortunately (and this does NOT apply ot your posts) the male submission to feminism (overlooking its problems and blinded by its strengths) can lead to a blurring of men's awareness , and a reassertion of double standards among Left men. The Madonna is now the liberated woman who can say and do no wrong; then there is the desired sex object. Instead of destroying that distinction, it was reasserted.

I say was, because I think that in the last 20 years people have got away from all that crap to an extent. Still problems, but not those of the 70s and 80s.

[Hecate]

Good point about the Madonna....a friend of mine who I shan't mention distanced himself because of what I do....this is the same guy who I recall a few years back saying there is no doubt that sex workers are not 'liberated' - like they are all by definition oppressed, downtrodden etc...people just repeat this without even thinking, they feel fit to comment on something they have not seen, experienced directly......I am only too aware there are of course problems with the sex industry, there is a problem with the implication women's bodies are commodities etc.....but that is only one side to the story, there is another.....Feminism per se never used to have such a negative view of it, seems it's only been relatively recently.

What made me give up on the left was the way all the problems with it were reiterated to me - I had people bang on about sex slavery, people trafficking like I was too stupid or naive to have ever heard of it and I just got sick of all that, it seemed so moralistic and the implication was by doing what I do I am implicitly and indirectly supporting slavery....one silly bitch told me my attitude is 'petit bourgeois' and I am betraying the 'collective' for my own selfish needs to get money........this was after she had blindly assumed I was in a middle class job as her and her cronies......she said if 'hiring one's orifices' is so great etc why don't I do it......then when I said I actually did I got the other response.....if that makes me petit bourgeois or whatever other stupid pigeonhole they use I am proud to be so..........

That's why I have no more to do with those politics. And you are right about left wing men etc, they seem to absorb all this without seeing it's flaws, God knows, maybe it's to appease the career minded women in whatever sects they are in......although I learnt a few things I sometimes wish I'd never been involved in the left....but I am glad to leave it behind whatever the case. Another piece of hypocrisy I noticed was the view among some that drugs should stay illegal while alcohol, abortion etc should stay legal.....perhaps it is a different thing calling to legalise something which is illegal than supporting keeping something legal that already is....but it is still hypocritical. I feel like....if a woman can consent to an abortion (and don't get me wrong cos I wholeheartedly support the right to choose and all) then why is she unable to consent to sex in return for cash? There is a group called feminists for life, and I don't agree with them in the slightest....now they are both anti prostitution and anti abortion, but at least they are consistent and follow the argument to it's logical conclusion - if prostitution is bad for women etc then why not make the argument that abortion is and therefore should be illegal? I get sick of all of it......it's my body my life and I find the anti porn anti sex work brigade as tiresome as pro lifers, the Christian moral brigade and all.....when the joke of it is Jesus was in fact quite tolerant towards prostitutes for a man of his time, and it says nothing at all in the bible about abortion. I know I'm diverting - but some of the arguments I have heard against women selling sex are very similiar to some of the ones I have heard against abortion.....

The way I see it I am not pro abortion or pro sex work - I don't glorify either and claim there are no problems with them....some women do suffer from abortion as they do in the sex industry but the experience of some women is not that of all......if anyone is prone to make generalisations it is those who have had a bad time in the sex industry, they tend to universalise their own experiences, especially if they tad the rad fem stance...then they are used as trophies for a wider political purpose that really has nothing to do with them or what they have suffered....anymore than the rantings of fascists or extreme communists truly have anything to do with the problems of the blue collar workers or small busisnessmen they claim to represent. Likewise there are women who have had bad experiences with abortions, support the pro life movement and univeralise what happened to them, and they get used as pawns by the Christian right.

If someone truly has had a bad experience either with an abortion or the sex industry I'd recommend some kind of post trauma counselling, I wouldn't suggest they become part of a movement that in essence is reactionary and seeks to deny other people the right to do what they will with their own bodies.....I would never suggest to anyone they do sex work if they don't want to anymore than I'd say they should have an abortion. Therefore why should they tell me I should not do either for the sake of my own good? Whatever one may think of another's lifestyle....it is that person's choice at the end of the day. I don't ask anyone to approve or dissaprove, just to respect my autonomy is all I ask for.

I have been with men who are openly misogynistic and have an issue with sex workers because they think they are sluts or money grabbing bitches out to suck men dry etc.......that is rotten yet in some ways it far less insidious than the attitudes of some 'new men' who make out they are so concerned for my welfare and treat me as a victim....I have had clients of both variety. I can deal with them, but neither are the sort of clients I truly want, nor do I want partners like it either. Chivalry.......I get so tired of men claiming to be knights in shining armour, saving a lost or fallen woman from herself...

I hope you know I am not in any way referring to you or anyone else here in the last paragraph or anywhere else for that matter, just roughly explaining why I get touchy about it.....and saying what my experiences have been xx

[Brigg57]

Liz,
unanswered is not unthought about...

your job gives you an excellent vantage point from which to see human hypocrisy, male and female, left and Right, at its most gross. It also opens you to very heavy fire from the same groups.

The only thing that in your post that jars is the description of the Left. You say you don’t want anything to do with the Left because of its hypocrisy and moralism, and I suddenly realise the generation gap. You’re much younger than I am, and you see the Left as it’s become. I saw a very different Left, and I saw it change. I don’t think those changes were all bad, either – feminism had real insights which excited most of us when it suddenly burst on the British political scene, but that excitement mixed with male guilt to turn it into a religion, held even more fervently by men than by women, and the Left has become a bit of a ‘preachy’ bunch wagging its finger at everyone for not being good boys and girls. No wonder that the vast majority rejected it (they rejected the class war Left too, but for different reasons).

But feminism did have real insights. When I was active nit eh Left in the late 60s, women were just not seen as anything other than desirable beings from another planet. They promised the delights of the earthly paradise, and eternal domestic service,  yet at the same time they were terribly threatening. Women are generally much sharper than blokes they have their own way of beating a guy up pretty badly – humiliation, often public. Men learned to keep their distance “Women – can’t live with them can’t live without them’. The Left were pretty chauvinistic, heavily male-orientated. When a woman spoke, she wasn’t even listened to dutifully.

A lot hasn’t changed, has it? But some of ti has, and that was due to the impact of feminism. I just couldn’t figure out what the Left women were on about at first – full of new words, many hinting at parts of the female body which at the time I didn’t even know existed. A cultural politics, already implanted by the hippies and radical rock/pop music of the 60s, suddenly dominated a Left which had been full of union resolutions and manoeuvres in Trades Councils. There was a new confidence, expressed quite aggressively but that was understandable. Analysis followed in plenty, a lot of it first-rate debate. Women suddenly held the floor, and men who had been scornful or bored had to listen to them, with increasing respect. You still had TUC congresses where the males gently snoozed as women’s equality in the workplace was discussed, followed by wolf whistles when a blonde bombshell strode to the podium. But the momentum was with feminism. The strengths were very visible; the weaknesses less so.

My own personal experiences of it all were quite painful, and too personal to recount – ‘the higher the monkey climbs, the more you see its arse. I could see its very nasty side as well as its good – transsexuals I knew were driven to near-suicide by angry feminists, among many less personal incidents,, That nasty side has exposed itself to you, In the 50’s, one woman advertising executive, the first generation of women to enter the media in a leading position, said she had to proclaim ‘damn’ in order for the men to stop and listen. After feminism, all you had to do was guilt-trip the bastards. Left men were there as backup – “a woman is speaking now, comrade, it’s time to be quite and pretend to listen; pornography is so evil, I’ must get rid of that well-thumbed stash hidden away in the drawer when I feel strong enough”.  In the midst of all this, the Left ceased to be relevant.

Have you noticed that most women on the Left today hold the stage and talk – about women’s issues. Very few are able to make their mark on the public realm in a distinctive manner when it comes to non-women’s issues. Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman are the exceptions which prove the rule (and they are given near-saint status because they’re women, just quote them and we’re all supposed to bow down n prayer and awe – I’m sure both would be disgusted by this).

I’m hinting, dropping pointers for future debate here – that’s what these forums are for – difficult to go into too much detail for various reasons. But feminism and the Left have much more of a positive impact than you acknowledge. I must say, though, that nowadays more people seem to be able to see its less attractive side – unless you’re on the Left.

Time for the left to move on, to give women an equal say because of what they’re actually arguing rather than because of the accident of their gender.

[wolfysmith]

An issue that always rankles me is positive selection and quotas for ethnic minorities and women delegates and why have a special section. As socialists we are all equal and we should be selected on the merits of our case for office and contribution to the cause of creating a fair and just world male or female, black, white, yellow or any other variation that may exist. If we are mature socialists we should be able to see beyond gender, race and cultural heritage. Am I the only person who thinks, ok I can find a person of the opposite sex, different colour skin or cultural attractive or not but when it comes to political activity what maters are they making the right noises or moves that further socialism or are they likely to be corrupted by power, privilege and ego? That’s what matters the other things are to do with a different aspect of mine and their humanity.

[Brigg57]

Wolfy, if black or feminist activists demand separate lists or parties or discussion groups, I’m happy for that. I just object to religion – secular religion, at least. men, or white people, do have a past, and should feel guilty. Sexist and racist attitudes are ugly and degrading, and the Left should be aware of them. It would be a terribly retrograde step to go back to the Left of my youth, when women were there to make the tea for the male activists – those days are GONE, I hope.

But the time has also come to question, despite guilt. Harriet Harperson as Ms Sourpuss and Ms Killjoy has been around too long; Feminism and antiracism have much more to offer than that.

 Liz is brave enough to stand out against a fair amount of crap form women as well as men. We need to be the same if anything is to move on.