Hating feminists as virtue-signaling

After the Vancouver Women’s Library was attacked by “queer” anti-feminists, even more anti-feminists started jumping on the bandwagon and writing social media commentary condemning the library. I read several comments by people calling for feminist books to be banned who did not seem likely to have ever actually read the books in question. I believe the reason why these people are calling for feminist books to be banned without ever having read them is because they are virtue-signaling.

There is a distinct culture that has formed out of the toxic soup of neoliberal “queer” culture and anti-feminism that has taken over what is supposed to be the political left. (I do not believe these people are actually on the left, but they are considered to be the left, unfortunately.) For the purposes of this blog post, I will call them radiqueers, short for radical queers. One of the things radiqueers delight in doing is hating feminists. They claim to be feminists themselves, but their views align perfectly with patriarchy, and they fail to recognize this because they refuse to listen to actual feminists or apply any critical thinking to their political positions. Because shutting down feminists is one of the goals of radiqueer culture, anytime they tweet or comment about wanting feminists shut down it serves as a way for them to show their group membership and virtue-signal to their fellow group members. It is not an intellectual disagreement with the information that feminists present, it is a performance to demonstrate their group membership. It’s a bit like making sure to sit with the cool kids in the cafeteria instead of the geeks.

Here I will show you what I mean by discussing one of the books that the radiqueers want removed from the Vancouver Women’s Library, Female Sexual Slavery by Kathleen Barry, a book which I have actually taken the time to read, unlike the radiqueers.

Kathleen Barry did extensive research into the sex trade in order to write this book. She interviewed survivors of prostitution and checked the facts of their stories as well as she could by also interviewing lawyers, reporters, police, district attorneys, and anti-slavery organizations. (p. 7) She traveled and visited brothels, and she researched historical abolitionist movements. From her research she was able to form a definition of female sexual slavery, name the methods used by pimps and recruiters, and name the reasons why the problem of female sexual slavery has not been sufficiently exposed or fought against.

Here is her definition of female sexual slavery:

“Female sexual slavery is present in all situations where women or girls cannot change the immediate conditions of their existence; where regardless of how they got into those conditions they cannot get out; and where they are subject to sexual violence and exploitation. (p 40)”

She explains further:

“Female sexual slavery is not an illusive condition; the word “slavery” is not merely rhetorical. This is not some condition in which a woman’s or child’s need for love allows her to fall into psychological patterns that make it possible for her to accept abuse with love or to feel joy in pain. Slavery is an objective social condition of sexual exploitation and violence. The experiences of sexual slavery documented in this book reveal that it is not a practice that is limited to international traffic but it is pervasive throughout patriarchal societies.”

Barry found that when she spoke to police and described situations where women were being sexually exploited and were unable to leave, the police still didn’t see the problem. They believed so firmly in prostitution as acceptable and inevitable that it didn’t occur to them that it was a human rights violation. They seemed to think there was a class of women whose role was to be prostitutes and that it wasn’t a problem. This problem persists today; people still think that the sexual exploitation of women and girls isn’t a problem, and radiqueers are perpetuating this belief by rebranding sexual exploitation as women’s choice and agency. They are working to hide the reality of male violence, just as misogynists have always done.

The definition of sexual slavery Barry wrote can allow people to see the objective conditions of slavery even if the victim has become convinced that she chose her situation or if the people controlling her are insisting that she chose her situation. Some women and girls brought into the sex trade were initially willing because they thought they were going to be in control of the situation, make money, and have a glamorous life. Instead, they found themselves controlled by a pimp, unable to choose their clients or to choose what sex acts they perform, and, due to both the violence of their pimps and the stigma against women in the sex trade, they find themselves unable to escape and begin another life. If a woman is being subject to sexual exploitation and she cannot change the conditions of her existence, she is objectively enslaved. This situation occurs in human trafficking, street-based prostitution, and forced marriages, all around the world. Historically, many wives have been in situations of sexual slavery, because divorce was illegal, marital rape was allowed, and wives were completely dependent upon their husbands and unable to say ‘no’ to sex.

She describes the role of pimps and procurers and the methods they use to bring women and girls into the sex trade and then keep them there. To summarize:

  • Befriending or love: Procurers find teenage girls who are naïve and seeking love and attention from men and they act as a boyfriend toward these girls. They particularly use this method on girls who are runaways or who are bored and looking for excitement. They make the girl feel like she is in a romantic relationship even though it is really just a business strategy for him.
  • Actions of gangs, syndicates, and organized crime: these organizations will often procure girls and women into prostitution as a part of their gang activities.
  • Recruiting women under false pretenses by offering them a job such as dancing or modelling, or by offering them marriage, and turning them to prostitution when they arrive.
  • Purchasing women and girls from other male “owners”
  • Outright kidnapping

“Together, pimping and procuring are perhaps the most ruthless displays of male power and sexual dominance. As practices they go far beyond the merchandising of women’s bodies for the market that demands them. Pimping and procuring are the crystallization of misogyny; they rank among the most complete expressions of male hatred for femaleness. Procuring is a strategy, a tactic for acquiring women and turning them into prostitution; pimping keeps them there.” Barry, p.73.

She described the abolitionist work of Josephine Butler, who campaigned against human trafficking in the late nineteenth century. She also described the backlash against Butler’s work:

“Mob violence began to accompany her speeches. During one campaign against a liberal who would not support repeal of the Acts, mobs of men and young boys scuffling and throwing rocks forced her to hide in a hotel attic. The next day she was forced by the management to leave the hotel. Wearing a disguise, she sought refuge at another hotel, but the mob located her there also. Despite the threats, she insisted on addressing the women’s rally as she had planned. A number of bodyguards, brought up from London by her supporters, enabled her to address the meeting, but afterwards she had to run through streets and alleys to escape the mob. She eventually made it safely to the home of a supporter where she was taken in and looked after.” (p17–18)

This book is excellent from start to finish due to its clarity in exposing male violence against women and its thoroughness in exposing how male violence operates. Wikipedia says that this book “prompted international awareness of human sex trafficking.” Radiqueers want this valuable and groundbreaking book on female oppression banned from a women’s library, on the grounds that it makes a group of people they call “sex workers” unsafe.

The term “sex workers” is misleading in a couple of ways. Firstly, “sex workers” can include anyone in the sex trade, including both exploited persons and their exploiters. Therefore the term hides the power relations between pimp and prostitute by branding both of them with the same name. The term “sex workers” is also designed to hide the coercion involved in the sex trade. Although most women in the sex trade are there due to a lack of better options and want to get out, the term “sex worker” seeks to rebrand exploited women as empowered women who are there because that is their true desire. When radiqueers claim that “sex workers” are harmed by books written about human trafficking, they are being misleading. It is certainly not harmful to exploited persons to describe the terms of their exploitation. It is, however, harmful to the men who are doing the exploiting.

I’m tempted to say that radiqueers are calling for this book to be banned because they don’t want people to know the definition of sexual slavery for the purposes of naming it when it happens, or that they don’t want people to know the methods that procurers use to bring women into the sex trade, or that they don’t want people to know the history of the abolitionist movement. But I can’t even give them that much credit. They haven’t even read the book. They don’t know or care what it says. They aren’t interested in countering the points being made in the book, by, for example, offering different procurement methods that they have found in their own research, or in offering a different definition of sexual slavery, or in adding to the historical documentation of the abolitionist movement. No, they aren’t interested in countering the points made in the book or even in explaining what points they disagree with. They only want it banned on the grounds that it names prostitution as violence against women, and they prefer to think that prostitution is a woman’s choice. Anything that challenges the idea that women “choose” their own exploitation is labelled “unsafe.” They would have a difficult time explaining how naming male violence against women is “unsafe” for women. In truth, it’s only “unsafe” for male abusers, because it threatens their ability to continue their abuse.

Ironically, the radiqueers who imagine themselves to be “feminists” are doing exactly what the mobs of men did to Josephine Butler. They are doing the 21st century equivalent to throwing rocks at her for daring to name male violence against women. Throwing rocks and threatening her in order to attempt to silence her. If radiqueers were actually concerned about women, they would have absolutely no problem with books that expose the problem of human trafficking, and they wouldn’t be threatening women for providing this information.

What would actually make women safer is knowing the information provided in Kathleen Barry’s book. Women and girls should know the strategies used by procurers for the sex trade so that we can identify them when we see them. We should all be aware that when a man starts flattering a young woman and saying he has a modelling job or a dancing job for her, that is a red flag. Law enforcement professionals need to understand the conditions of female sexual slavery in order to identify women who need their help. Far from being “unsafe” for women, the information in this banned book is crucial for keeping women safe.

The radiqueers who want to ban a list of feminist books from a women’s library are doing the work of anti-feminism, whether they’re aware of it or not, and they are engaged in the practice of woman-hating, whether they are aware of it or not. They are being intellectually dishonest because they are attempting to suppress information that is clearly helpful to women on the grounds that they imagine it to be “unsafe” for women. Although I cannot prove that no radiqueers have read any of these banned books, I think it’s a reasonable assumption to make, based on their politics and their behavior, and I find it reprehensible and cowardly for people to regard a book as unsafe without having read it. If any radiqueers have read any of these books, feel free to tell me I’m wrong about that, and let’s discuss the book! But I’m not going to hold my breath.

I hope that I will get time throughout the year to quote from more of the banned books on their list, in order to discuss what information radiqueers want banned and why. There is a general theme though: any time feminists describe male violence against women in the form of sexual exploitation or gender identity nonsense, radiqueers get all up in arms. That’s because their politics are generally about promoting the sex trade and promoting people’s choice to choose genders, both of which are harmful to women as a class. They are men’s rights activists cloaked in rainbow disguise.

Despite this group of anti-feminists throwing rocks at us, we will persevere, just like we always have.

Advertisements

A better way to think about consent

This image is being shared on the Internet and giving us radical feminists a major round of *headdesk*. Although the sex-pozzies claim to care about consent, they consistently show that they have no idea what it is.

consent graphic

Paying someone to make her agree to have sex that she wouldn’t otherwise want is not obtaining consent—it’s coercion. Coercing someone into sex is abuse.

Instead of viewing consent as “using methods to get her to say yes to something I want”, it should be viewed as “finding out what she actually wants and respecting that.” Imagine if men did this?

What women in prostitution really want isn’t sex with gross entitled assholes, it’s money. If you want to “support your local sex worker,” then provide her with rent money and food, without making her submit to sexual abuse. Give her a chance to put food on the table and also the power to decline unwanted sex. Now that would be support!

What this graphic is really trying to do is normalize prostitution and assure men that they can use coercion to obtain a “yes” from a woman and that makes it consensual. It tells us to “support” women in prostitution by pretending that they fully consented to the things that johns do to them. (This is also known as “victim-blaming” and “gas-lighting.”) And it brings us farther away from what consensual sex really is.

Anyone who has actually had consensual sex knows that it would be completely absurd to pay anyone for it. That would be as nonsensical as paying a friend to laugh with you about some hilarious inside jokes. It’s not something you pay for. It’s something that you do together for the joy of it and no money is required.

Rachel Moran explained everything there is to explain about prostitution in her book Paid For, and it would be impossible not to reference her here. In Chapter 16, the Myth of the Prostitute’s Sexual Pleasure, she talks about how women feel a “range between mild distaste and outright disgust” (p162) in their interactions with clients. She says that only two men out of thousands that she met ever pleased her, and these two exceptions actually proved the rule that prostitution is incompatible with women’s pleasure. The first time she met a john that she felt attracted to, she had consensual sex with him and then found that she could not accept money from him. She found it impossible to treat this experience as prostitution, because it wasn’t. The second man seemed pleasing at first until he reminded her she was being paid. At that moment she began to dissociate again, and she was reminded to never let her guard down during an interaction with a client because it is always preferable to dissociate rather than experience the feeling of being paid for and used, even if the man is unusually well-mannered. Moran concludes that “Female pleasure does not belong in prostitution, and both male and female participants intuitively understand that it has no place there.” (p166.)

Sometimes johns will claim that they give the women they buy sexual pleasure. These men tell themselves this because they do not want to consider the truth that the woman is faking it to earn money.

In consensual sex, both partners have freely chosen to be there and are having sex for the joy of it—not to gain an external reward or avoid a punishment. Both partners care about each other’s needs and desires and communicate to each other what they would like. In consensual sex, participants find out what their partner wants, either by asking, or observing their body language, and they avoid doing anything their partner doesn’t like. No one has to dissociate and no one feels disgusted. They feel joy and excitement. This is not at all compatible with prostitution, which is a system that allows men to use their money and power to coerce cooperation from a woman in order for him to get what he wants.

There are many more ways that women are coerced into saying yes to things they don’t want. Wives say yes to their husbands even when they don’t feel like it to avoid having discussions about it. Women are taught that we are responsible for keeping husbands happy and that he will cheat if we say “no.” And husbands do cheat if their wives don’t submit to their every whim.

If sex pozzies cared about making all sexual interactions consensual, they would abolish all the social institutions and cultural constructs that coerce women—such as compulsory heterosexuality, femininity and masculinity, the pornstitution industry, BDSM, traditional marriage, and patriarchy in general. But the sex-pozzies’ real interest is in making excuses for abusive men and trying to pretend that abuse is really okay. If they were actually positive toward sex, they’d join radical feminists in working toward a world where women’s consent is actually necessary and valued by men. When our “no” means nothing our “yes” doesn’t mean much either.

 

Prostitution survivor to pro-lobby: I’m sick and tired of you!

This is a letter written by German ex-prostitute Huschke Mau. I don’t know the name of the translator, but thank you, whoever you are! The original can be found here. Please read the whole thing to support Huschke Mau in her activism.

I’M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU!
After having read an interview with prostitution lobbyist Stephanie Klee, she’s had enough. Now, Huschke Mau, who has exited prostitution, responds to her. “I am one of those ‘voluntary’ prostitutes so many people talk about,” she writes. “And I am sick and tired of you prostitution proponents!”

Dear Stephanie Klee,
I am referring to the interview the city magazine Zitty Berlin has conducted with you and first of all, I would like to thank you for giving it. I would still be silent had I not read it. Before I go ahead: I hope you don’t mind me talking to you from colleague to colleague. Because, yes, I too know prostitution well, having spent ten years in it.
You know, I find your statements concerning prostitution fairly remarkable. I am just a bit surprised that you have forgotten to mention certain things—things that seem rather important to me.
For a start, you forgot to ask the fundamental question as to whether there is a real need for prostitution at all. I am glad that at least you do not use the same old, trite pseudo argument according to which the incidence of rape would go through the roof if we didn’t have brothels (which means that men aren’t capable of controlling their impulses and if they didn’t crawl the curb, they wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from raping).
But what does society need prostitution for, Stephanie? Why do we need to allow men to buy women (because most prostitutes are female and those who are male serve homosexual buyers). How do you explain this fact and what does it tell you? Apparently, for you, this does not constitute a forced relation. And there it is already, the first blind spot on your lens.
The only one living it up in prostitution is the punter!
You are writing that prostitution is sex. You know, for me, there are at least two persons involved in sex. It is not one person exclusively serving the client’s sexual wishes while having to “delete” her own sexuality and herself, who she is, her personality.
I would like to ask you which sphere of prostitution you are living in if you haven’t noticed that the “varieties” of “sexualities”, i.e. the punters’ “wishes” are becoming more and more violent and are more and more seeking to humiliate. Why don’t you read the punters’ websites, dear Stephanie? It is clearly written there that men (punters) experience it as an expression of their own power when they can spit into women’s faces in brothels and “squirt” their sperm into them; if they can test how much the woman can take when it comes to anal intercourse; when they ejaculate on her face and insist on her swallowing their sperm, after they, the punters, have pushed their dick up to her tonsils.
Why don’t you take a look at the language in those punters’ forums? Look at how they’re enjoying it, how they’re getting off on the knowledge that the woman does not like this, but only does it for the money, that she has to do it because she needs the darn dough or because there’s some dork sitting in the next room. How they consciously test out and violate limits and even if they may not fully indulge in their own sadist side, they at least are fully aware of it. In prostitution, it’s not about sex, but about power. Power and nothing else. Don’t pretend women could enjoy themselves in their sexuality there, the only one living it up is the punter whose desires you satisfy – at your own costs.
And no, Stephanie, the punter does not forget this feeling of power that he’s paid for. He doesn’t forget that women are disposable, that he can take them for himself, that they are there to satisfy his desires, that they delete their sexuality and soul during the act and aren’t allowed to have needs/boundaries/wishes. Oh, no. He takes this feeling that equates sex with power for him and carries it away from the brothel and it affects his behavior towards women who aren’t in prostitution. Prostitution is violence. A man-satisfying machine.
Don’t pretend you’ve never experienced the punters’ violence, and don’t tell me the fairy tale of the kind and gentle client who only wants some cuddles and always respects your limits. Germany has legalized prostitution and what has it led to? To even more prostitution and, most of all: to a more and more extreme demand. By this, I don’t only mean that there’s more and more punters, because men learn that it’s okay to buy women. (Yes, I already hear the pseudo argument according to which the punter isn’t buying the women, but a “service,” what nonsense! Can you separate your pussy, your ass, your breasts, your mouth and what you do with them from yourself? It’s always the whole person being touched.)
You do NOT speak for me, nor for any prostitute that I know!
Just take a look at what punters want: kissing, everything without condom, anal intercourse (without a condom as well), French complete (meaning, swallowing sperm), tongue anal, fist fuck, ejaculating in the face, they want gang-bang and rape-parties, they want younger and younger girls, they want girls “with no taboos” who are conditioned to do EVERYTHING the punter wants. They want flatrate-fucking, as many girls and women as possible, all included in the club’s entry fee.
How do you explain this to yourself? It is clear that with its legalization, prostitution has shown its true essence: violence. Complete disposability of women’s bodies. The unbridled acting out of male violence. And also: sexualized torture.
Because, dear Stephanie, if you took a look around the punters’ forums, you would see that punters are misogynists. That they love to torment women, to go to the limits of what’s bearable for them. And there’s something else: punters want forced prostitutes. Because they can be sure that they (have to) accept practices that every “decent”, old-established German prostitute would reject. That is what punters want. How do you manage to disregard the fact that by now there are several big brothels in every city and that almost all of the women working there barely speak any German or very little, their “protectors” bringing them there in the morning and picking them up in the evening, women who offer practices that hurt and put their health at risk? Do they enjoy that, or what? All masochists? And you write that for these women (from Romania, from Bulgaria) prostitution is a great alternative? You think that prostitution is a great alternative to poverty?
You talk about prostitution as if it were something worth striving for, something that’s supposed to be great for women and girls. Why do you not mention the reasons driving women into prostitution? And I’m even leaving forced prostitution out of the equation here. By the way, what does coercion mean for you? Having to opt for prostitution out of a place of poverty and lacking options? That is not coercion for you, but a great opportunity? Even the women who enter “out of their free will” are subjected to coercion in this business.
For example, when the room rent is so high that they have to accept a punter even if they don’t want to, because if they don’t, they are covered in debt they owe to the “landlord.” When they don’t dare to reject a punter or they will again get in trouble with the “guards” or the “brothel owner” who doesn’t like it when his girls have a reputation of “being difficult.”
You blandly present things as if women wanted to live it up in this business. Dear Stephanie, I am one of those “voluntary” prostitutes so many people talk about. I started at age 18, after having been battered and sexually abused by my stepfather for 17 years and after having run away from home. I thought this was the only thing I was capable of, that I was only good for fucking. And anyway, if this is the only thing I am good for, then this is my life insurance allowing me to survive.
At the beginning, I thought I had power. Well look, they’re even paying for you. I regulated access to my own body through prostitution. This is what I learned: anybody can jump on your bones anyway. And then, I was allowed to filter: nope, not anybody any longer, only those who can afford it.
I am not the only one in this. I have not witnessed one single prostitute who hasn’t been sexually abused/raped or experienced some other form of sexualized violence as a child or as an adult. I would even venture to say that the reason why our society doesn’t consistently shut down the mass abuse of young girls is that it profits from it. Abuse is like breaking in a horse at an early age. Which comes in useful, as through the abuse, women/girls learn to dissociate, to delete themselves during the act. To not being there (and this is exactly what the punter pays for – for the women’s will not being there in that moment, because he has paid it away).
The link between sexual abuse and prostitution has long been proven and documented: at least 60 percent of all female prostitutes have been sexually abused in their childhood (with other statistics stating 90 percent).The only thing these women are living out, Stephanie, is the re-enactment of their traumas which they hope to be able to process, but of course cannot. And with all of that in mind, you don’t want any support out of prostitution, but into it, right?
Don’t pretend you’ve never experience the punters’ violence!
There are women living in prostitution who are traumatized and prostitution traumatizes them further. Or how, dear Stephanie, do you explain that there are tons of prostitutes (including myself) suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (studies show at least 60 percent with fully developed PTSD)?
You talk about prostitution putting prostitutes in high spirits, that they are happy from making the client happy and having money in their pockets. But what does “making the client happy” even mean? This, too, only means that I have successfully turned violent against myself (by removing myself, my disgust, my revulsion and will) so that the client could turn violent against me by using me for his desires. And so this is what makes prostitutes happy, right? Does it make you happy to dissociate and to not be there?
You are saying that the prostitute’s traumatization only starts when she steps out of the brothel’s door and that this traumatization is based on society discriminating against her. Relating to this, I would like to tell you something, you who think that there should be support programs for entering instead of exiting.
I am one of those women who entered prostitution when prostitution stopped “offending morality” in Germany. Should I tell you what the effect of legalization was? Just like the majority of all prostitutes, I did not register as such because I was afraid that then I wouldn’t be able to exit. Because I was afraid of being asked why I didn’t want to work as a prostitute any more, as this was a job like any other. And this is exactly what happened when I wanted out. I had been seeking help at the public health department and only received incomprehension. And I didn’t get out.
What was I supposed to tell the employment office when asking for unemployment benefits so that I didn’t have to suck ten dicks a day any longer, so that I could have a place to stay and something to eat? With what, they would ask, how had I made a living in the past three months? And if I had told them, would they have asked me why I didn’t want to continue doing it, there was such a great brothel nearby, they’re still hiring…? Or would I have had to prove that I wasn’t prostituting myself any more? And how would you prove that?
What was I supposed to tell the employment office?
You also forget the use of drugs and alcohol among prostitutes, Stephanie. (Why? If everything’s so great? But apparently, it’s all just a great big party, an orgy, a debauch, and it’s just part of living it up, hey?) There’re so many things you forget. You forget the forced prostitution, the punters’ violence, the pimps’ violence (oh wait, they’re not called pimps any longer, but “partners”, “security guards”, “landlords”). You forget the hatred of women, the self-hatred. You forget that landlords, brothel owners, newspapers (yes, those ads in which prostitutes promote themselves are extremely expensive), the state (taxes), that they’re all profiting. You forget that everyone makes money off of a prostitute and that they exploit her.
Who benefits the least? The prostitute. She receives the smallest share of the money, everyone makes money out of her, everyone gets something out of her (sex, money, a satisfied lust for power), but what does she get? She gets post-traumatic stress disorder, a substance addiction and a whole lot of loneliness and self-loathing. And that’s all due to society’s discrimination, right?
What’s weird is that when I have those flashbacks that I get from the PTSD caused by prostitution, what I see before my mind’s eye are always the images of punters abusing me! Stephanie, why don’t you ask trauma therapists where the PTSD comes from that the prostitutes suffer from, the prostitutes who are lucky enough to manage to exit?
I’ve had enough of you prostitution proponents who have no clue about what prostitution is, you who want to tell me that prostitution is a job like any other. I’m fed up with you, you who try to feed everybody the fairy tale of the oh-so-great voluntary prostitution. You who have no idea about prostitution and blab something along the lines of “prostitution used to be an expression of power over women, but now, it’s a reversal of the power relations, the prostitute has power over the punter” in your leftist self-conception. I’ve never experienced any power when I lay under some damn punter and I don’t know any woman who’s ever experienced it that way!
You make me want to puke, you who are in prostitution and call yourselves “sex workers.” Because you arrogate the right to speak for us all, for all of us in prostitution, and because you make those who know nothing about prostitution (women — as men being punters mostly know, only they won’t tell you why they really go to brothels, what they’re looking for and what they’re doing there!) believe that it’s all just okay.
It’s NOT okay
I can’t bear it any longer that you pretend to speak for ALL prostitutes. You’re a minority in prostitution. The reality you’re depicting doesn’t exist that way. You deny victims of violence their being victims, and, what’s more, advise them to be cheerful about it because it’s all so fabulous. You’re silencing the MAJORITY of prostitutes.
The majority that’s still boozing, taking drugs or enacting their abuse again and again, in the treacherous hope this will ease the pain. The majority that, at some stage, adopts the hatred of those committing violence against them, transforming it into self-hatred and who “voluntarily” enter this spiral of violence. You spill your sneer over those women wanting to speak up about the violence in prostitution: “Oh well, I’m sorry YOU’ve had bad experiences,” as if the violence wasn’t inherent to the structure of prostitution, but due to the woman’s lacking professionalism, to her damaged personality that makes her unable to bear such an amazing experience.
You are liberating nobody with your neo-liberal drivel!
You want to speak for everyone? You do NOT speak for me, nor for any other prostitute I know. You profit from the fact that most prostitutes are simply too busy surviving, too traumatized to even talk. I forbid you to speak for all prostitutes, because you silence those who could name this violence, you use their silence and simply don’t mention them, making them victims once again.
When you say “everyone should be allowed to do what they want,” in reality, you only mean that the punters and pimps, those standing behind you, should be allowed to do what they want. Not the prostitutes.
You aren’t liberating anybody with your neo-liberal drivel. When you say that prostitution should simply be freed from any controls, sanctions etc. and then everything would be super, you’re lying and you pursue a strange theory: If the victims of slavery feel unhappy from being slaves, will it help to legalize slavery so that the slaves won’t be “discriminated against by society” any more and can have themselves enslaved even better within the walls of slavery?
Without regards,
Huschke Mau, huschke.mau@web.de

Huschke Mau has sent this letter to the German Feministische Partei as they’re the only political party in Germany advocating for a ban of the purchase of sex and for the punishment of punters according to the Swedish Model.

Survivor Jillan Mignon testifies on CBC

Jillan Mignon entered prostitution at age 13 and has now gotten out and is going to college. You can listen to her testimony in this podcast.

“My story of entering the sex trade is not very unique. It’s very very very typical. I came from, you know, a middle class family that struggled. We had abuse in our household, there was also some sexual abuse, and that made me a runaway. I started out on the street and it was very dangerous. I started out with survival sex, and survival sex is just, you’re not really trading sex for money, you’re trading sex for needs, you’re trading sex to be able to take a shower at somebody’s house, you’re trading sex to be able to sleep at somebody’s house, you’re trading sex for somebody to take you out for a hot meal. That’s survival sex. And that gradually progressed into working what we call “track” so that’s on the streets. I started in basically skid row of Winnipeg which is Higgins and Maine. You drive past there, you lock your car doors, it’s, that is, scary. And I’m still to this day I’m amazed that I actually stood there and sold myself there and made it out alive there. Because there’s no number of women who went to stand there at night and did not come back alive. So many of them, so many beautiful women, just didn’t even have a chance. Where I was, I was a nobody. In Winnipeg, the police sometimes won’t even, you know, they don’t even harass the girls that stand on the street. In Winnipeg, the police drive past them, they don’t care about who you are. They don’t care if you’re 12 years old and you’re standing on the corner. They don’t care that it’s midnight and you’re a little kid and you’re outside. They don’t care. In Winnipeg they have a phrase called a “ditch pig.” And that’s what was used at that time to describe somebody that worked “track,” that stood on the streets. Teenagers would drive, slow down and roll their window down and yell at you “hey, you ditch pig” and drive away and laugh about it.”

Please go and listen to the whole thing.