Our Shared Shelf discussion

I just finished chapter 2, and liked Daniela's idea of discussing the book chapter by chapter, so here are some of the things I really thought about while reading chapter 2:

1. What are you guys' opinion on the methods of abolishing sex slavery? Crackdowns combined with social services vs legalise-and-regulate?
Personally, I'm getting pretty convinced about the crackdown, especially the Sweden-version where the prostitutes themselves aren't seen as criminal, but it can only work if social services are as vig a part of it as the actual crackdowns.

2. They sort of made Sweden seem like the country with the right approach, and I do think they're doing something right. But I couldn't help thinking how that doesn't really solve anything. Sure, Sweden doesn't have much trafficking now, but the world doesn't have less. The girls are just brought somewhere else.

3. I like and really agree with the fact that focus has to be on changing reality, not just laws.

4. It.completely broke my heart how drugs are used to, first of all, keep the girls obedient and easy to deal with, but especially to keep them from escaping for real. That is so sinister.

What made an impact on you in this chapter?

I am not a fan of the Swedish model. Whilst I do think it's vastly preferable to downright arresting sex workers, it is no more empowering. There are several reasons as to why I think it's bad for the sex workers as well, but the main argument I hear from proponents of this model is that it protects the sex workers from abuse but I most certainly disagree; criminalising patrons (and I must say, I'm a little let down that you didn't mention that) isn't effective in any way. Criminalisation of communities of colour (mainly via drug wars) has played a fundamental role in creating and perpetuating the rape culture within said communities. Similarly, criminalising people who pay for consent will, if anything, increase their likelihood of committing other offenses (including, I'd say, possibly physical ones towards the sex workers they frequent).

I started a thread about this topic some time ago and mentioned several sex workers' names there. I believe I linked their Twitter pages as well, though I am unsure (in any case, whatever I published I did with their consent). And if you don't have Twitter, the people I mentioned have been quite active in other forms of media as well (mainly blogs) and some of them have even spoken in official newspaper articles addressing the topic. The thread is still up for reading if anyone is interested, but as we're on the topic, I would like to mention one extra name: Dr. Brooke Magnanti. She's a forensic scientist and former sex worker (and current sex workers' rights activist) and she's authored books as well, though I'm not sure how many or which ones are about her former occupation. She was also recently in a legal battle concerning one of her books, so I think there might be a good deal to read about her in the press as well.

In any case, I think people, including feminists, have a one-sided view of sex work (more specifically, sex workers) and I believe this is if not equally harmful as stigmatisation, still harmful -to a more than short extent- when it comes to truly liberating them. I understand that there are many people who are coerced into sex work due to the threat of poverty, but unless one is willing to acknowledge that there's plenty of other non-sex work people only do due to the threat of poverty, I think one would be hypocritical to use it as an argument against sex work specifically. I know MRAs (though not all of them) will often be the first to defend sex work, but there is also a feminist side to its existence; one that I think is deeply intertwined with sex positivity.

NOTE: I do not whole-heartedly agree with all of these sex workers' views in general. However, I think we should be spending more time talking (and listening) to them, rather than talking about them.

I think the part of the author's goal was to interview sex workers... and that's what they seem to be doing. That + research is essentially the book.

I think a lot in chapter 2 addresses the comments made so far, actually.

Not everyone is a sex trafficker because of poverty, no. But that is mostly the reason.

And they know that they can't rid the world of prostitution, but if they can cut down on it, that makes it better for a ton of women (see the Hawaiian parable at the very end of the chapter).

I like Sweden's ability to tackle this as well. It's sad to me that the trade just moved outside of the country. But if every country outlawed it? If around the world this was the law? (So, essentially, a vast change in mindset) I think that would make a big difference.

Hi all just joining the discussion. The area of sex working has always been complex socially and culturaly. What seems to be missing in all these solutions is asking the sex workers themselves.

In places such as Amsterdam and others were prostitution is legal would be a good place ti start asking questions, can it simply be a job if so great if not what are the barriers to making sure the women involved are in charge if things.

Where there is trafficking and other offences the perpetrators should be the focus not the Women they exploite.

These things seem to me obvious but clearly are not the norm. Which begs the question is this deliberate or the result of social economic factors? In either case it can surely be changed.

Ross, I like that you're willing to ask how to place the sex workers themselves in charge of things. I personally think a great way to start would be to off the mentality of "You can't rape a whore". I think this idea is the one from which most people who assault the sex workers they patronise act. We need to establish that paying for consent does not make you immune to boundaries and respecting them; that boundaries must be set beforehand (before payment, I think that goes without saying), and that we cannot get people to understand the aforementioned two if we adapt the other end of the "You can't rape a whore" stick, namely the "All whores are rape victims" mentality. This is the idea from which I think the Swedish model acts and just today I heard that migrant sex workers in Sweden were (or could be) deported.

To give it something of an image, I think the two respective mentalities I just talked about can be seen as two people who hate each other, holding a common best friend each by one arm and tugging back and forth saying "They're my best friend!" "No, they're MY best friend!", while neither of the two listen to what the person has to say for themselves.

I don't feel that the authors are taking any particular position on how to deal with the issue of sex work in the west, but are focussing more on the issue of trafficking in women and girls, which unfortunately results in forced sex work in many (most?) cases, sometimes in Europe or North America but also frequently much closer to the girls' homes. This is further confused by the fact that sometimes the trafficking victims can themselves become the enforcers/abusers. While rescue remains important for those who are currently enslaved, it is also critically important to decrease the likelihood of girls being taken from their families, both by increasing their perceived value at home and decreasing their value to the traffickers.

Well I guess tracking the real reason for trafficking and mitigating it from root may change the reality. Laws are made for good reasons but contain many loopholes which makes it easier for people to not break but use cautiously in wrong direction.

What do you think can only people in power can do something about human trafficking?
What can be done at individual level?

Trafficking or to give it's original name slavery can be controlled. But you need have international cross border lines of communication. If the developed world got behind the UN which have many initiatives to address the problems but the need backing political will and money to enact them effectively.

One of the main areas which would have a practical impact is gender equality which would give these women, and it is mostly women, the confidence to know this is not an inevitable consequence of there lives.

What I liked about this chapter was its spotlight on the importance of working on the ground and talking to those involved and its criticism of policies and countries which do not do this -

'the debate is being carried on in a theoretical framework...very few of those theorists come to the grassroots and see what is going on...'

I also liked the authors talk about the lack of political will to make changes and the fact that these issues seem to be so low on the political agenda even though a few gestures would highlight them -

'the president (of the USA) could visit a shelter ...on a state visit to India. Europe could have made trafficking an issue in negotiating the accession of Eastern European countries wishing to enter the European Union...'

Ann, I did not read the book but I agree with you on your last point about how other governments have the power to shed light on these issues and can change their fate for a country. I can't help but feel now that it should be a duty of theirs to help other countries get rid of these inhuman acts. But of course, their political agenda gets in the way...

You have to be careful with the false positives. When the rate of aids is low, false positives are more common than true positives. always get two test done just to be sure, if they agree you then know, if not try again. just some things I learned in Stats class.

Though you would all like to know that...

I have found this article, it's from the Spiegel, so you can trust it. But you better not read the comments, they make me sick:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesell...

I'll translate it in the next few days. To be honest, I'm ashamed of my country. The comments are horrible to read sometimes.