| |
|
Let's take a look at the possible list of reasons why one might not want to be seen with a sex trade worker.
1. Because he might be seen as perpetuating the exploitation and oppression of women since the woman’s situation is largely assumed as being one of coercion. A misconception but it does affect behavior.
2. It is illegal
3. His friends may backstab him and tell his wife.
4. People generally keep their sexual practices to themselves, anyway.
5. Shame
Now, (5) appears to be tied in to Judeo-Christian ideas of "shame", which associate certain practices - exemplified here by the employment of sex trade workers and by homosexuality. However, that seems to be a slightly misplaced comparison (not pedantry, correctness, before anyone screams and screams until they wet themselves), as homosexuality is a behaviour in and of itself - the sexual desire for people of the same sex. The employment of sex trade workers, on the other hand, unless fuelled by the very specific condition of being sexually excited by the idea of employing a person for sex, is rather an action - a particular instantiation of a sexual desire for one's own or the opposite sex (assuming there are only two - let's put a pin in that for a second). One is a homosexual all the time, whereas one is an employer of sex trade workers only while one is employing sex trade workers. Unless there is some sort of miasma (deviant focialisation) surrounding one from one encounter to the next. Now, possibly one function of this "shame" is to elide the boundaries - the self-hating punter lies awake at night thinking "I am a user of sex trade workers", as opposed to "I am guy who just happens to employ sex trade workers". Possibly that's a confusion that ties into the "shame" aspect, as if one is predisposed to feel guilt (for the distinction between guilt and shame-cultures, see) in the employment of sex trade workers one may also be predisposed to feel guilt about it *all the time*, rather than just about the time of the employment.
That's the kind of thing that probably causes ulcers, and as such probably also foments very unhealthy attitudes. It's a bit like the man who hates himself for smoking, except in this case the inspiration of self-loathing is not just an object but a) a specific person and b) a specific person representing a trade and a series of economic relationships.
So, it's rather like somebody who is terribly ashamed of visiting lawyers, and who might thus a) not wish to be seen with lawyers, even though he wants very much to see *them* and thus b) comes to think of lawyers as morally evil, because they, by their existence, *compel* him to seek out their company. That's not a good position for anyone to be in.
However, it's not an unsustainable position, since lawyers tend to take good care about their own security, meeting people in well-lit, well-staffed spaces with the full recourse, pretty much ipso facto, of the law. Now, before Ms. Tricks decided that the murder of the head of the Exotic Dancers Union was all about her (and remember kids, every time you disagree with May Tricks another sex trade worker gets her wings), one could point out that one problem this highlights is that the law may not be so vigorous, or the situation so canted, that sex trade workers enjoy the same protections. As Maggie O'Kane's article points out, sex trade workers are often sort of *expected* to be murdered by the gen. public.
So, running it backwards, by *legitimizing* the profession of sex trade worker - with regulation, self- or otherwise, taxation, full legal protection et cetera - on could also take steps toward making the profession more *legitimate*, at least in combination with the increasing erosion of Judeo-Christian ethical and moral structures, and thus of the friction created by their conflict with people's desires.
(3) and (4) seem to tie in essentially to shame also, or social constructions anyway, although neither, at a moment's thought (and there may be further complications here) are particularly tied into the sex trade worker - people may not talk about their sex lives (although it seems at times that certainly many of my friends do little else. Still, they are young...), but this is not restricted only to their sex lives with sex trade workers. Likewise, if the friends saw the fellow with another woman of any kind, the backstabbing possibility would exist - perhaps it would be worse somehow if it was a sex trade worker? Although possibly exactly the reverse; as May points out (which is entirely relevant, and I thank her for her restatement), the lack of emotional connection in the relationship between prostitute and punter, and thus the lack of "commitment" except in a fashion clearly defined by financial exchange, and thus less of a threat, perhaps?
(2) is an interesting one, and where applicable certainly is likey to get seriously in the way of protecting sex trade workers from problems in (5) and in (1). Now, (1). This *is* an interesting one. Because it is presumably not always the case that "one would be perpetuating the exploitation and oppression of women since the woman’s situation is largely assumed as being one of coercion" is an incorrect assumption. That is to say, in some cases the woman's situation (or the man's - we have male sex trade workers as well, which is worth noting) *is* one of coercion, although not by the client, but by failures of social services, management, chemical dependency - at present there is no way to be sure that the sex trade worker you might employ will see the lion's share of the money you give her in exchange for hir labour, for example.
Which might lead us back to the "ad campaign for sex trade work". Something I am quite interested in is the idea of a "fairtrade sex trade" idea - where one could consult a website or directory or similar to discover whether the sex trade worker you are considering employing is classified, classification meaning that, say, ze is self-employed and self-managed and thus not in an unequal financial relationship with a pimp. Which would be a start. Employers of sex trade workers who remain unlicensed are not persecuted by the law, neither are the sex trade workers themselves, but those who profit from their labour are vigorously persecuted, and those from whose labour they are profiting encouraged to set up for themselves (or possibly, if they don't want the hassle of dealing with their own tax returns, with a licensed manager), with the guarantee of the protection of the law.
This, perhaps, would remove one of the elements that might lead to employers of sex trade workers feeling bad about themselves, and thus aboutthe sex trade workers, and might make the sex trade, if not utterly exempt from (4), at least a bit better off with regards to (5). Much as punters are able to spend a little more money to know that their coffee was offered to them without exploitation, by workers receiving a fair wage for their work, the same might be offered for sexual services. At the very least, the archaic legal strictures against sex trade work would be modernised and directed not against the blameless sex trade worker or sex trade employer, but rather against those seeking to exploit the dubious legal status of sex trade workers (at least in the UK - not sure about elsewhere - it varies on a state-by-state basis in the US, yes?), either from above or below, if you'll pardon the expression - abusive managers or violent punters.
But then, perhaps I am painting an unnecessarily dystopian picture of modern sex trade work and proposing unwieldy and ineffectual legislation... |
|
|
