Up Front: Eat Up Your Brothelly
186 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
But aren't all the 'dodgy' things that Ben is talking about a function of our weird hangups about the nitty-gritty of this business, rather than a direct result of the business itself? Like, he seems to be saying that it's the chicken, and Gio is saying it's totally the egg. Or something.
(It would be really inappropriate to embed Ludacris' 'Ho' video right here, wouldn't it?)
PS ETA And also: the patriarchy, yadda yadda.
-
It still boils down to an occupation (as in many others) that can be good or bad employment. As in all jobs, experience helps and with prostitution, if one can combine that with education, it can be a lucrative job.
As society exists now, it is deemed that not everyone gets to eat apple pie, and prostitution can be a means to get by. There are heaps of jobs like that. Sex sells simple. Advertising agencies will agree. Hell, they promote heroin chic, tits and bums, men and women in that ever alluring impossible position (that Ben's acquaintances probably can do) with the appropriate bulge. Models for these ads or catwalks starve themselves to appear as they have been sold by their agent who is flogging them off for the highest dollar to make sure their cut is enabling their lifestyle.Bet these people have a few tales too.
Not all prostitutes get a wonderful lifestyle, not all get to the playboy mansion, but some make a good living (out of it) and others pass on info to educate their peers. Those I suspect are the tales one hears that Ben talks of. At least they are alive, they eat, take drugs?, and will have somewhere to sleep.It is a living. Streetwise? I bet.One day they might be dead. Me too. That's life. -
Thanks, Danielle, you have articulated something that was nagging at the back of my mind about the schism between Gio's and Ben's points of view.
Let's go for the mid-ground...
-
I must admit, this contours of this debate are starting to seem more than a little familiar on PA.
But as a purely logical matter, simply pointing to individuals who are happy, well adjusted prostitutes with blogs does very little to substantiate any claims one may want to make about the industry as a whole. Certainly finding some examples of X that are not Y disproves statements of the form "all X are Y". However, these existence proofs say nothing about the weaker (but more relevant) statements "Most X are Y" or even "Many X are Y".
Ben's comments struck me as particularly interesting and refreshingly honest (big ups, hat tips and all that!), in that he appears to be well informed and genuinely sympathetic and to have checked his judgypants at the door, but it would be hard to take his comments as the basis for arguing "it would be a good thing if the sex industry was bigger than it is already", whereas you could probably find some leverage for the proposition "it would actually be better if the sex industry was somewhat smaller than it is today" -- nor does Martin's squeamishness seem particularly at odds with Ben's more informed commentary.
(And I guess one difference between dentistry, banking and prostitution is that only one of those professions would be likely to be chosen by someone who was looking to support a P-habit. I am not sure what conclusion one draws from that, but it seems there is at least one fairly clear difference.)
-
And I guess one difference between dentistry, banking and prostitution is that only one of those professions would be likely to be chosen by someone who was looking to support a P-habit.
I'm going to guess that members of all three of those professions support a P habit in NZ. Banking and dentistry are probably harder to get into and make enough money off if you've already got the habit however.
-
And I guess one difference between dentistry, banking and prostitution is that only one of those professions would be likely to be chosen by someone who was looking to support a P-habit
Wrong.
-
rather than putting words in his mouth.
"What's inherently wrong with finding out your son is sucking cocks for a living?"... "Being denied to work in a whorehouse is something you'd probably get over"... I don't think it qualifies as me putting words in Ben's mouth to be completely honest. And I respect his experience just fine. It's not as if I have this image that every prostitute is Shirley McLaine and every pimp is Jack Lemmon, you know. I'd just like it if part of the picture didn't become all of the picture by virtue of shrewd wordplay.
(And I guess one difference between dentistry, banking and prostitution is that only one of those professions would be likely to be chosen by someone who was looking to support a P-habit. I am not sure what conclusion one draws from that, but it seems there is at least one fairly clear difference.)
Eh? I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Cocaine is a pretty upmarket drug. Would you say that practicing law is bad because some people use it to support their cocaine habit? I'm just confused now.
-
Well, dentists already have access to good drugs.
-
And I respect his experience just fine. It's not as if I have this image that every prostitute is Shirley McLaine and every pimp is Jack Lemmon, you know. I'd just like it if part of the picture didn't become all of the picture by virtue of shrewd wordplay.
He's apologised for his choice of words, but I expect he's correct in saying that these are phrases the sex workers he has spoken to use themselves.
-
I'm going to guess that members of all three of those professions support a P habit in NZ. Banking and dentistry are probably harder to get into and make enough money off if you've already got the habit however.
Quite. I imagine the approach to care and support is a bit different too.
-
I expect he's correct in saying that these are phrases the sex workers he has spoken to use themselves.
Goody, shall we start using the "n" word then? Really. But it's not even how offensive the blanket use of those terms is, it's that they were designed to reduce all sex workers to the sex workers that Ben knows.
Experience's a fine thing, but then there are the things you don't know. Emma is good at reminding us of that.
-
Eh? I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Cocaine is a pretty upmarket drug. Would you say that practicing law is bad because some people use it to support their cocaine habit? I'm just confused now.
Have you known many methamphetamine addicts? They're vulnerable in some pretty significant ways.
I guess it's my fault for relating the brothel P story in the first place but I was quite shocked when I heard it -- this was post-legalisation -- and I think it's an example of the way that it can still be a nasty, risky industry to work in. Any comparison with banking in that sense seems misguided.
-
I'd just like it if part of the picture didn't become all of the picture by virtue of shrewd wordplay.
This is what happens with this debate, on both sides, pretty much everywhere, not just at PA. Each side believes they're presenting a piece of the picture that the other one is omitting. Each sees the other as universalising a particular experience when neither actually is, so in attempting balance you just end up skewing wildly between two extremes.
I choose Ren to quote a lot partly because she is well-educated and articulate, and explains things well, but also because she works for SWOP, so her own comfort with the job is tempered by her experience of helping other people out of it. Jill Brennerman's story is hardly Pretty Woman.
it would be hard to take his comments as the basis for arguing "it would be a good thing if the sex industry was bigger than it is already", whereas you could probably find some leverage for the proposition "it would actually be better if the sex industry was somewhat smaller than it is today"
Why does the size matter? Rather than, say, working conditions, or the happiness of the people in it?
Someone in a debate in another forum a while back asked people to consider if, in their perfect future utopia, there would be sex work. And after what I've learned over the last five years or so, I'd have to say 'yes'. Or at least, that it wouldn't be a utopia if you banned sex work, because there are people - and it doesn't really matter how many - who genuinely enjoy it.
-
Goody, shall we start using the "n" word then?
Okay, forget it. I'm out of this conversation.
Really. But it's not even how offensive the blanket use of those terms is, it's that they were designed to reduce all sex workers to the sex workers that Ben knows.
I don't think they were. I think you've put a preposterous construction on what Ben was trying to say and you're simply refusing to acknowledge that he might have some idea what he's talking about.
-
Someone in a debate in another forum a while back asked people to consider if, in their perfect future utopia, there would be sex work. And after what I've learned over the last five years or so, I'd have to say 'yes'. Or at least, that it wouldn't be a utopia if you banned sex work, because there are people - and it doesn't really matter how many - who genuinely enjoy it.
Plus there is the not at all small matter of the organisation that Philip linked to upthread, yes.
-
Any comparison with banking in that sense seems misguided.
And Dentists! High suicide rates, what's that say about their work conditions? Just rosy?
-
I'm going to guess that members of all three of those professions support a P habit in NZ. Banking and dentistry are probably harder to get into and make enough money off if you've already got the habit however.
I'm sure they are. But if you weren't already a dentist or banker, but already had a P-habit my guess is that the lead time between deciding to take up those professions and actually making any money at it would make them unlikely destinations for our hypothetical addict.
Just a wild guess, but would be happy to learn that I was wrong.
-
Someone in a debate in another forum a while back asked people to consider if, in their perfect future utopia, there would be sex work. And after what I've learned over the last five years or so, I'd have to say 'yes'.
You're back! Yay!
My answer would also emphatically be "yes".
Why does the size matter? Rather than, say, working conditions, or the happiness of the people in it?
Yes. Or, rather, YES.
Which doesn't change the fact that for some of the people who work in it now -- and probably not a small proportion -- it's still a nasty, risky business to be in. I wish it wasn't, but in the real world I think it is. Even more so than banking.
Okay, gone now ...
-
you're simply refusing to acknowledge that he might have some idea what he's talking about.
No, actually. It was a discussion on what kind of job prostitution is, in which I said it's not all exploitation, and in which he said would you be proud if your son sucked dick for a living. Which to me is not okay, I don't care how many johns Ben knows.
And that was my point in the banker vs. prostitute comparison. It's not whether one job is better than the other, it's that the names of the jobs don't tell you enough. Because there are many different kinds of bankers, and many different kinds of prostitutes.
-
This is what happens with this debate, on both sides, pretty much everywhere, not just at PA. Each side believes they're presenting a piece of the picture that the other one is omitting. Each sees the other as universalising a particular experience when neither actually is, so in attempting balance you just end up skewing wildly between two extremes.
Happy to plead guilty to that one.
-
Happy to plead guilty to that one.
I'll put my hand up too. Can't help defending the underdog. Possibly because I can draw comparisons from all types in all walks of life. I'll leave yous there too.
-
Can't help defending the underdog.
Hey! That's what I was doing! ;-)
-
You're back! Yay!
What, you're not enjoying this? We could talk about... copyright? Cycling? Slut-shaming?
Also on the subject of balance. (I've been baking, and thinking.) When I look at the figures I linked to before (I love me some sweet, sweet data, it's true), what strikes me is that I don't think anyone looks at those numbers and thinks, "Wow, I thought prostitutes were older, less drug-addicted and better-educated than that." I'd like to know how many people were genuinely surprised. So apologies in slight advance for the huge quote:
Information was collected from 772 sex workers in Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington, Napier and Nelson and the final sample included workers from the diverse sections of the sex industry:
* There were participants from street, private and managed sectors.
* There were participants with the different gender identifications of male, female and transgender.
* There were participants from both large cities and smaller towns.The majority of participants were New Zealand European, female, between the ages of 22 and 45 years, had entered the industry after the age of 18 years and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level, with many indicating they have tertiary level education. Nearly half of the participants reported having children. Most participants (67.1%) had been in the industry for longer than two years, with more than half reporting working prior to the implementation of the PRA in 2003.
Okay, on reflection I didn't huge-quote. The section related to entering and leaving the industry (which includes figures on drug addiction) is here, but the table formatting is borked and it's giving me headaches.
-
Each sees the other as universalising a particular experience when neither actually is, so in attempting balance you just end up skewing wildly between two extremes.
Balance is always worth attempting. Otherwise you risk falling into the same trap as Martin did with his original comment.
Why does the size matter? Rather than, say, working conditions, or the happiness of the people in it?
I'll skip the obvious joke, but asking whether you would be happy to see the sex industry double in size is really asking whether it is a good thing for the great majority of its current participants. But if you can't make an argument that it should be bigger, then perhaps you are obliged to conclude that it should be smaller. (I am not arguing against better working conditions and all the rest of it, just that I doubt that many people would argue that sex industry is somehow akin to, say, clean tech start-ups, and what New Zealand really needs is more of it).
Someone in a debate in another forum a while back asked people to consider if, in their perfect future utopia, there would be sex work. And after what I've learned over the last five years or so, I'd have to say 'yes'. Or at least, that it wouldn't be a utopia if you banned sex work, because there are people - and it doesn't really matter how many - who genuinely enjoy it
I am not sure any decent utopia would have work, sex or otherwise. Some people lack imagination.
-
Balance is always worth attempting.
Absolutely. But not easy. I think it requires tempering what you think you're hearing as well as what you're saying.
I am not sure any decent utopia would have work, sex or otherwise.
Having watched my mother deal with "retirement" (HA!) some people appear to go slightly bat-fuck if they can't work. Which I suppose would lead us into a debate on what we mean by "work"...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.