A campaign slogan in Berkeley, California
Writing in the Guardian today, Cath Elliot trumpets the unanimously warm reception for a new attempt to lock men up for buying sex, in the form of a campaign called Demand Change. She’s proud of her own contribution to the debate, she says, though the hyperlink she gives for that contribution simply takes us to a remark about the International Union of Sex Workers which hovers between the blatantly inaccurate and the slanderous.
I’m unable to assess her contribution to the debate, because I was turned away from the Demand Change launch meeting at which Cath spoke last Wednesday. I got through parliamentary security with a bottle of wine and a cheese knife (!) but couldn’t get past the bouncers who were turning away anyone who is interested in actually debating the future of prostitution in this country. Also turned away: colleagues from the World Bank, staff from the offices of MPs supportive of rules that will make sex work safer, and (needless to say) anyone who actually chooses to sell sex for a living—the people the organisers don’t believe exist.
“As everyone in the room agreed, it’s time to bring an end to the selling of women and girls: who could possibly disagree with that?” concludes Ms Elliot. The organisers didn’t exactly need to police the crowd to get everyone to agree on that point. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that selling people is wrong. Not anyone outside the Premier League, anyway. Selling sex, on the hand, is not wrong, in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of women and men who choose it as a profession. Oh but wait, they don’t exist….
As I wrote in my article for Prospect this month, the truth is that they do exist, just as the ex-Nevada hooker who left the profession with debts because she hadn’t managed to save any of the $2000 + a week she earned while on the game does exist. Some women who sell sex do it because they are forced to. They are trafficked, and we already have laws against that. Some do it for the same reason people work in McDonald’s—because it is the best job they can get for the skills that they have (though you tend to earn more selling sex than burgers, and the hours are more flexible). Helping people who hate their jobs (in prostitution or McDonalds) to “exit” is surely a worthwhile thing to do. But some women (and men, of course) sell sex because they want to. Forcing them to stop by criminalising punters would be like promoting welfare in the restaurant industry by outlawing fast food. The distinction between the voluntary and involuntary sale of sex is an important one, and one that the draft policing and crime bill is inching its way towards recognising. Trying to keep willing sex workers out of the room is both undemocratic and unhelpful.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
The demand change campaign has the support of many women who have worked in prostitution. Check ou the testimonies on the demand change website and don’t believe everything the pimps, brothel owners and punters say.
God I hate articles like this by priveleged, ivory-tower do-gooders.
The ’sex-work is the same as any other low-paid, unskilled profession’ is blatant bullshit.
I worked as an ‘escort’ for a few months when my back was against a wall and wanted to kill myself every day. I now work as a cleaner and am basically content. Thats the fucking difference.
Most of these men know there’s a good chance they could be raping someone, even a child, and they just do not care. That should be punished. This campaign at least highlights that most women really don’t want to be there. legalising it makes it seem alright.
I really support them in what they are trying to do.
There were a number of women at the launch that have chosen to sell sex for a living. Or were they apparitions? Those women that have made a real and empowered choice to exit the sex industry and then go on to talk about their experiences, including ‘high class escorts’ are the ones that Elizabeth, and the likes of the IUSW wish to silence. Lets not forget that IUSW and ECP membership includes agency owners, pimps and punters with voting rights, claiming to be the voice of vulnerable sex workers. The pro-prostitution lobby is not interested in human rights; they are interested in profit. It seems reasonable to me that these organisations and individuals were excluded from the campaign launch. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity for them to contribute as the campaign gets going, where we will hear the same old and tired arguements about ‘choice’, disabled people blah blah blah.