In order to maintain continuity of thought, please read the article in its entirety before clicking on the links. Additionally, when using the links please use your back button to return to this article. Due to time constraints, we were unable to place a return link on every page to which we have placed links in the article below. Thank you.
Those who advocate the continued criminalization of prostitution on the grounds that prostitution exploits women and children, perhaps have no comprehension of what the consequences of such advocacy entails. On the other hand, maybe they know full well what will happen to the women and young girls who are each day singled out for arrest and the danger that they face from those who are supposed to protect them. If this is the case, one wonders what the true intent of the advocate is, and whether they understand the nature of exploitation.
According to these advocates, the laws which prohibit prostitution are enacted to protect our “basic human rights” and “preserve our dignity” for “our own good,” and to prevent "all women from being exploited." Even though I strongly disagree with this, I am not going to challenge it here. I will simply say that when I worked as a prostitute for about ten years, it was the best job I ever had. I never took drugs, did not drink alcohol or smoke or engage in any other damaging behavior. All I did was take money from men who wanted to pay me for sex I could have otherwise engaged in for free, and had I not charged money, I would not have been considered a criminal nor would the advocates for criminalization of prostitution have claimed that either I or all women were being exploited by my private behavior.
Dr. Janice G. Raymond, co-executive director of ‘Coalition Against Trafficking in Women,’ asserts “...some treat prostitution as a personal choice, ignoring the sexual exploitation of prostitution while at the same time announcing that the worst thing about prostitution is stigmatization. But the worst thing about prostitution is its violation of and violence against women and children.
“While emphasizing the harm that is done to actual women and children in prostitution, we must also note that the sexual exploitation of prostitution is harmful to all women. The sexual violation of any women is the sexual degradation of all women...... Prostitution is a practice that violates the human dignity and integrity guaranteed to all persons in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.* This Declaration proclaims that all human persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Any form of sexual exploitation, including prostitution, abrogates this human dignity.” She continues: “Recently, and unfortunately, some non-governmental and women’s rights groups have attempted to draw distinctions between trafficking and prostitution, between “forced” and “free” prostitution, and between child and adult prostitution ..……”
Dr. Janice Raymond seems to believe that the laws which prohibit prostitution are enacted to protect our “basic human rights” and “preserve our dignity” for “our own good,” and to prevent "all women from being exploited." I wonder how she feels about the cops having sex with prostitutes in order to gather “evidence” against them? We can argue the merits of these highly subjective arguments from now until the end of time and will not reach a satisfactory agreement if one is predisposed to believe that the above statements are true. What is not subjective and what is provable beyond argument and what we as sex workers know to be true of the implementation of the above argument, are the consequences of the enforcement of the laws prohibiting even consensual adult prostitution. These laws have been fortified by increased penalties for engaging in work that "violates our human dignity."
The truth is that there certainly are horrendous abuses around the world regarding trafficked persons- but these chronicled abuses include the trafficking in persons for labor other than prostitution. Sweatshops which manufacture garments are the recipients of many trafficked individuals, and many young girls are often sold into a lifetime of sexual slavery as child brides.
Shall we, as a concerned people who despise this unconscionable treatment of our fellow human being, insist upon outlawing marriage to prevent some young underage girl from being turned into a wife/ sex slave of some lecherous man who orders up his teenage bride over the internet? Should we do less for these poor unfortunate child brides than we do for all women of any age who engage in prostitution? If prohibition of all prostitution is a valid solution for eliminating the human rights violations of women who are "prostituted" it seems to me that it would also work for eliminating child brides and domestic violence...
Is there anyone who would deny that spousal abuse and domestic violence are serious problem in the US and around the world? In Los Angeles alone, seven in 10 of all the calls the police officers get involve domestic violence. So prevalent and widespread is abuse that cop cars sport bumper stickers reading “There is no excuse for domestic violence.” Battered women’s shelters are opening in record numbers and many more are needed because there are record numbers of domestic violence incidents and women needing shelter. But would anyone argue that an epidemic in domestic violence justifies prohibiting marriage to protect women from potential abuse? At the very least maybe we should mandate warning labels on wedding gowns? “Caution- connubial alliances may lead to serious bodily and emotional harm.” Heck, for that matter, so might any interpersonal relationship between any combination of genders! So what should we do? Ban all relationships to protect everyone from potential harm?
The irony is that when a prostitute is the victim of a rape and files a complaint, the justice system often disallows her claim, with judges such as Pasadena Superior Court Judge Gilbert C. Alston proclaiming that a prostitute can’t be raped! And so very often when there is a sting operation, the only arrests are of the prostitutes and madams, and not the clients! (But then, are the cops really going to arrest themselves or the men they hire to have sex with the prostitute before they arrest her?)
According to these advocates, the laws which prohibit prostitution are enacted to protect our “basic human rights” and “preserve our dignity” for “our own good,” and to prevent "all women from being exploited." Even though I strongly disagree with this, I am not going to challenge it here. I will simply say that when I worked as a prostitute for about ten years, it was the best job I ever had. I never took drugs, did not drink alcohol or smoke or engage in any other damaging behavior. All I did was take money from men who wanted to pay me for sex I could have otherwise engaged in for free, and had I not charged money, I would not have been considered a criminal nor would the advocates for criminalization of prostitution have claimed that either I or all women were being exploited by my private behavior.
Dr. Janice G. Raymond, co-executive director of ‘Coalition Against Trafficking in Women,’ asserts “...some treat prostitution as a personal choice, ignoring the sexual exploitation of prostitution while at the same time announcing that the worst thing about prostitution is stigmatization. But the worst thing about prostitution is its violation of and violence against women and children.
“While emphasizing the harm that is done to actual women and children in prostitution, we must also note that the sexual exploitation of prostitution is harmful to all women. The sexual violation of any women is the sexual degradation of all women...... Prostitution is a practice that violates the human dignity and integrity guaranteed to all persons in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.* This Declaration proclaims that all human persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Any form of sexual exploitation, including prostitution, abrogates this human dignity.” She continues: “Recently, and unfortunately, some non-governmental and women’s rights groups have attempted to draw distinctions between trafficking and prostitution, between “forced” and “free” prostitution, and between child and adult prostitution ..……”
Dr. Janice Raymond seems to believe that the laws which prohibit prostitution are enacted to protect our “basic human rights” and “preserve our dignity” for “our own good,” and to prevent "all women from being exploited." I wonder how she feels about the cops having sex with prostitutes in order to gather “evidence” against them? We can argue the merits of these highly subjective arguments from now until the end of time and will not reach a satisfactory agreement if one is predisposed to believe that the above statements are true. What is not subjective and what is provable beyond argument and what we as sex workers know to be true of the implementation of the above argument, are the consequences of the enforcement of the laws prohibiting even consensual adult prostitution. These laws have been fortified by increased penalties for engaging in work that "violates our human dignity."
The truth is that there certainly are horrendous abuses around the world regarding trafficked persons- but these chronicled abuses include the trafficking in persons for labor other than prostitution. Sweatshops which manufacture garments are the recipients of many trafficked individuals, and many young girls are often sold into a lifetime of sexual slavery as child brides.
Shall we, as a concerned people who despise this unconscionable treatment of our fellow human being, insist upon outlawing marriage to prevent some young underage girl from being turned into a wife/ sex slave of some lecherous man who orders up his teenage bride over the internet? Should we do less for these poor unfortunate child brides than we do for all women of any age who engage in prostitution? If prohibition of all prostitution is a valid solution for eliminating the human rights violations of women who are "prostituted" it seems to me that it would also work for eliminating child brides and domestic violence...
Is there anyone who would deny that spousal abuse and domestic violence are serious problem in the US and around the world? In Los Angeles alone, seven in 10 of all the calls the police officers get involve domestic violence. So prevalent and widespread is abuse that cop cars sport bumper stickers reading “There is no excuse for domestic violence.” Battered women’s shelters are opening in record numbers and many more are needed because there are record numbers of domestic violence incidents and women needing shelter. But would anyone argue that an epidemic in domestic violence justifies prohibiting marriage to protect women from potential abuse? At the very least maybe we should mandate warning labels on wedding gowns? “Caution- connubial alliances may lead to serious bodily and emotional harm.” Heck, for that matter, so might any interpersonal relationship between any combination of genders! So what should we do? Ban all relationships to protect everyone from potential harm?
The irony is that when a prostitute is the victim of a rape and files a complaint, the justice system often disallows her claim, with judges such as Pasadena Superior Court Judge Gilbert C. Alston proclaiming that a prostitute can’t be raped! And so very often when there is a sting operation, the only arrests are of the prostitutes and madams, and not the clients! (But then, are the cops really going to arrest themselves or the men they hire to have sex with the prostitute before they arrest her?)
Page #3
