Prostitution

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Oct 19 2007 13:20
Prostitution

Myself and my comrades in Kent have been debating prostitution.Two of us are against it, one is for it and I'm in two minds about it.I think that certainly it is exploitative in our present society due to people trafficing, poverty and drug addiction but surely if there are people who are happy to do it we shouldn't stop them, plus making it illegal obviously doesn't work.So maybe we should collectivise brothels/prostitution.I would also put forward the point that prostitution provides a service for people who are not good with relationships/the opposite sex or disability/deformity.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Oct 19 2007 13:22

By that I mean people who are disabled or deformed might not get laid or feel confident about them selves and so will not get laid or chat up women.

ElliotParker
Offline
Joined: 30-06-07
Oct 19 2007 15:25

I would agree. You can't ban prostitution. It isn't titled 'the world's oldest profession' for nothing, it is always going to be around.

There are some people out there that are perfectly happy to be a prostitute, though it is politically incorrect to say so. If they choose to do it of their own free will, there is no reason to stop them. I think you are exactly right. Aside from being 'an easy ride' for those with cash, prostitutes do serve those with disabilities and those who are crippled. They also can help those that have their own social problems to become more confident around the gender they are attracted to.

The fact that governments ban the industry makes it worse, in my opinion. When something becomes illegal, supply is limited and when there is a demand, such as stated above, value goes up. This paves the way for the career criminals that treat these women like objects using force to make them do their bidding. They simply try to cut costs by forcing the women (as it is usually women in these situations) to work against their will, without having to pay them.

I think that they should be allowed to organise themselves the way they want, but support is necessary as it is essentially a black market operation.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Oct 19 2007 15:59
Quote:
Myself and my comrades in Kent have been debating prostitution.Two of us are against it, one is for it and I'm in two minds about it.I think that certainly it is exploitative in our present society due to people trafficing, poverty and drug addiction but surely if there are people who are happy to do it we shouldn't stop them, plus making it illegal obviously doesn't work

I think lots of different wage/piece work comes with the social ills of people trafficing, poverty and drug addiction. You can find these same problems in the garment industry among others. Prostitution isn't exactly special in that sence. Course, I don't really know what you were getting at there.

Quote:
So maybe we should collectivise brothels/prostitution.I would also put forward the point that prostitution provides a service for people who are not good with relationships/the opposite sex or disability/deformity.

Well certainly all workers should organise to fight and eventually kick out their boss...

edit: Wrong word, wrong place, fixed

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 19 2007 16:06

Elliot is on point, anytime you make you create a violent underground associated with it. Above ground, it can be regulated (ideally by a union, but in the real world by a gov't) to protect the women (or men) involved and to ensure proper pre-cautions (condoms, STD screenings) are provided. Incidentally, the IWW has a sex workers branch.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 19 2007 16:07

"you make anything illegal" sorry about that

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 19 2007 16:51

in the here and now criminalisation is counter-productive, reactionary moralism which hinders self-organisation by keeping it as a black market set-up without the normal hard-won rights and protections etc. however whether people would continue to sell themselves on any significant scale in a world where your needs being met is decoupled from wage labour is certainly open to question, imho.

marxfan69
Offline
Joined: 24-12-06
Oct 19 2007 18:48

I agree with j.k. It may be the oldest profession, but it is also probably as old as professions too. "Always" is not exactly in the communist spirit. Having some sort of stance for or against prostitution as such is not looking at it historically. Even if it seems eternal (like our current social realtions do), prostitution is based on exchange relations of some sort. And really, isn't prostitution an allegory for modern life. We are all prostitutes. Isn't that what Benjamin said...

Otherwise, I think legalizing prostitution is for the best. (The only thing stopping me is the risk). When you work, you are reified, and this is just a very literal version of the same thing everyone does... In fact, if the pay is right, you spend even less time as someone elses' object.

But I think when you want to go and make it eternal, that's when you go wrong, and it can only lead to moral discussions about whether it is good or bad.

I wonder if women would work as whores for labor tokens? One hour of sex for one hour of community goods. I'm guessing no one would pick that task. But you never know... there may be some cummunists out there.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Oct 19 2007 18:51
Quote:
Incidentally, the IWW has a sex workers branch.

NB this isn't actually true.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Oct 19 2007 19:35
OliverTwister wrote:
Quote:
Incidentally, the IWW has a sex workers branch.

NB this isn't actually true.

Since this is obviously a reference to IU 690, want to elaborate?

gurley's picture
gurley
Offline
Joined: 4-01-07
Oct 19 2007 20:59

I don't know a ton about this story. But the IWW was initially involved with the Lusty Lady organizing campaign. They eventually went with SEIU 790 (now SEIU 1021). I can't speak to it more than that. But I'm sure Oliver is correct when he says that there is no IU 690 branch.

There was a brief alliance between the IWW in the bay are and the Erotic Service Providers Union, where the wobs helped co-sponsor benefits and trainings. But i'm not sure where that is at either.
http://espu-ca.org/wp/

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 00:42
Joseph K. wrote:
in the here and now criminalisation is counter-productive, reactionary moralism which hinders self-organisation by keeping it as a black market set-up without the normal hard-won rights and protections etc. however whether people would continue to sell themselves on any significant scale in a world where your needs being met is decoupled from wage labour is certainly open to question, imho.

Yes agreed. De-crim it now - collectivization with outside support = great idea if de-crim does not happen or as well as.

Tho post-rev peeps need to realise when we reach this halcyon state peeps will not only not need to sell their bodies/sexuality but also the needs of the johns will change i.e they will not be made to feel as self-concious for being disabled or lame etc and the factors in society causing them to be pretty rubbish with women will be largely gone.

This is re: the largely harmless ones - as for the rapist/mentally abusive ones and those who use children and trafficked women well..black bloc . i mean these factors still have social causes but meanwhile i am sick of the service providers getting all the hassle and the johns being largely ignored. angry I was only reading today about a 12 year old trafficked girl whose clients were largely wealthy men who would talk about their wives and children and show pictures of them!! and brag about their achievements before fucking this child. twisted

Love

LW XX

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 02:07
revol68 wrote:
lone wolf stop shortening words all the fucking time, you aren't in some wanky managerial course. It's post-revolutionary and decriminalisation ffs!

ha ha ha can't believe you of all people are correcting me when your posts are well-known for their typos thus confusing the fuck out of people cos you are too bloody lazy and antsy to check anything before posting. Everyone can tell what post-rev. is short for on this site - some of your contributions have been hilariously unintelligible or just plain hilarious. : grin I think my favourite was yelling "Homophone" at someone as an insult. Fab. That was Dev's favourite. So at least you were doing something for Irish-Turkish relations. Every dog has its day. And you like dogs. wink

I am not saying to change mind.

In the immortal words of the late Mr. White..

"Don't go trying to change..

I'll take the bad times.
I'll take the good times.
I'll take you just the way you are. "

cool

Love

LW XX

ElliotParker
Offline
Joined: 30-06-07
Oct 20 2007 02:19
Quote:
Elliot is on point, anytime you make you create a violent underground associated with it. Above ground, it can be regulated (ideally by a union, but in the real world by a gov't) to protect the women (or men) involved and to ensure proper pre-cautions (condoms, STD screenings) are provided. Incidentally, the IWW has a sex workers branch.

I have nothing against creating an underground economy in the banned or even legal good or service, after all I'm an Agorist. I think the whole situation becomes much more complicated when it is a traditionally and politically black listed item such as prostitution. The reason for this is that because of the states very existence, even though it is out to destroy them, organised criminals rely on the state for the majority of their income as well as using them as their role models. Organised criminals need the state to exist and ban goods and services. They than use force to try and make sure that they are the only ones dealing in that specific item, and specifically in the case of prostitution, they use force to obtain free slave labour. In this way they are trying to regulate the market.

As for regulation, I think if you can set up a sex workers union to standardise participating brothels services than I'd support that, so long as none of those brothels have been forced into participating. As for government regulation 'in the real world', I would be totally against that simply because governments regulate in their own interest, not in the interest of the workers and also because every prostitute would be forced to participate. Any good that could be done through regulations would be quickly overtaken by all the bad a government will do.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 20 2007 03:57

First off, you're an agorist, you don't belong on Libcom. Property is theft. Market relations are inherently coercive and, thus, incompatible with an anarchist society or an anarchist vision of what society should look like. You can read all the Ayn Rand you want, go read some Marx and then come back and talk some sense.

You write, "They [organized criminals] than use force to try and make sure that they are the only ones dealing in that specific item." True, but so do legitimate capitalists, it's the nature of the capitalist system. Monopoly is the capitalist ideal. That's not them regulating the market, that is them operating under a market system, something that you as an agorist ostensibly support.

You say, "have nothing against creating an underground economy in the banned or even legal good or service." What would your underground economy look like? What role would currency play (assuming it is not a gift economy), would it be merely a means of exchange or have value onto itself? Would it be collectivized? Would it be based on worker control? Would it be based on need or would goods and service be commodities? Cause I've got news for you, if your underground economy is not based on these notions of solidarity and decentralized democratic control, the relations inherent to a capitalist model will surely develop again.

Governments don't necessarily "regulate in their own interests." The role of the state is to protect the capitalist system, so when gov'ts regulate that is the ultimate end. So take for example the drug industry. It is beneficial for capitalism that drugs don't kill people, that might scare the public and profits would suffer. So public money is used to test the safety of new drugs, drugs become safer because of this, and the cost of testing is shifted to taxpayers. This ultimately strengthens capitalism, but it is damn beneficial for consumers as well. In an anarchist society, this testing and re-testing--in a word, regulation--would not only continue, it would be strengthened. The drug company, placed under worker control, would be free to develop new drugs, but as a safety precaution these drugs would be tested by an outside, independent team of experts to ensure the safety of any new drugs before they are given to any ill patients. You can apply this same model (in the current and in a future anarchist society) to any number of industries: the auto industry, the medical industry and, returning to the original question, prostitution.

Also note, what we term regulation now can take many forms. The example I just gave primarily concerned consumers. In an anarchist society, with the profit motive removed, the need for regulation of working conditions would be non-existent. Workers would not self-exploit. The goal would be as much produced with as little effort possible and it the safest conditions achievable. Workers themselves, through the democratic control of the workplace can figure out how to best implement these goals. Concerning environmental impact of industry, well there again, a team of trained experts who can evaluate long-term affects of a particular manner of production would be embraced by workers. Their 'regulation' would help ensure that the community around the site of production, where the workers presumably live, would be as environmentally safe and sustainable as possible.

And yes, I was referring to IU690. I guess I should have been more specific, although we don't have a functioning branch, we are consciously willing to organize sex workers.

ElliotParker
Offline
Joined: 30-06-07
Oct 20 2007 07:36

Well, thank you for the welcome, and didn't Proudhon also say "property is freedom"?

First up, I would have to apologise for my second post being poorly written anyway, upon re-reading it, I didn't express the point I wanted to, or even express a reasonable argument. And as much as you may no appreciate me being on this forum, being of a market Anarchist variety, I want to thank you for this particular conversation. It gives me a chance to examine my own views from another angle, and I apologise for the length of this post.

Let me explain my position. Governments unnaturally shape a market, perverting it for their own self interest. They have an number of ways of doing this. Capitalists, those who both you and I are equally opposed to, outsource the task of forcefully ending the careers of their competitors to the government. I see it as a game to be honest. Most Corporations and Capitalists benefit in the form of tax breaks and less competition. Politicians benefit through donations, a well-paid job at the end of their career and support from that particular industry. They each work towards the enforcement of the others monopoly. I maintain that without the government, most businesses could not get large enough to even make a monopoly possible. Under a governmental system, yes monopoly is the ideal and I am against that. Criminal organisations on the other hand, simply perform the task of coercing their competition themselves, but still require the government to exist. They take the government as their mentor but just like the aforementioned capitalists, use the system to knock out competition and gain political control. Why do you think so many small time drugs dealers and users are caught? It's never big cartel. The state and the people that use the state to further their own needs are an entire class of themselves, the political class. I think we can both agree they're parasites, producing nothing for society.

Quote:
What would your underground economy look like?

You expect me to give you an exact blueprint on spontaneous organisation?

Quote:
What role would currency play (assuming it is not a gift economy), would it be merely a means of exchange or have value onto itself?

I would assume, initially the currency of the real would have to be used. But after a black market has been established it is entirely up to this involved. I've heard schemes for privet competing currencies, I've heard others that operate on credit, or a gift exchanges, barter exchanges - whatever. It is entirely up to the people involved and I see no reason to restrict it using a blueprint.

Quote:
Would it be collectivized?

If those involved so wished.

Quote:
Would it be based on worker control?

Sure, if a group of workers wanted to form their own cooperative, go for it.

Quote:
Would it be based on need or would goods and service be commodities?

Once again, entirely up to those involved.

I agree that the state is designed to set-up and protect their supporters and instead make life difficult with the rest of us. That is why they make up the political class. I somewhat agree that they protect their own perverted form of capitalism, but I think it's more a case of protecting the big players that give them the most benefits.

Quote:
So take for example the drug industry. It is beneficial for capitalism that drugs don't kill people, that might scare the public and profits would suffer. So public money is used to test the safety of new drugs, drugs become safer because of this, and the cost of testing is shifted to taxpayers. This ultimately strengthens capitalism, but it is damn beneficial for consumers as well.

I disagree. I think it is far more beneficial for the company involve in creating the drugs that they don't kill people, or they shan't be making any more profits. Understand this, why do their products need to be regulated? In the past the American FDA has prevented consumers from gaining access to new life saving drugs, which may have cost lives. Pharmaceutical companies risk a lot if they ignore the incentives to produce safe drugs.

Quote:
In an anarchist society, this testing and re-testing--in a word, regulation--would not only continue, it would be strengthened. The drug company, placed under worker control, would be free to develop new drugs, but as a safety precaution these drugs would be tested by an outside, independent team of experts to ensure the safety of any new drugs before they are given to any ill patients. You can apply this same model (in the current and in a future anarchist society) to any number of industries: the auto industry, the medical industry and, returning to the original question, prostitution.

I agree with you for the most part. Except I offer a different proposal to maintain regulation that is entirely voluntary. Seals of approval, such as the Heart Foundation in Australia, can be used to show tested drugs, foods, cars - whatever the product. These can be given from charities organisations, companies who are specifically designed to test drugs, insurance companies - even unions. Manufacturers have an incentive to seek out such seals of approval, as people will put more faith in their products. Doctors, retailers, anyone distributing the item equally has an even better reason, to prevent people seeking compensation for malpractice or faulty products, they are more likely to distribute only approved goods. In this way the entire process is voluntary, efficient and practical.

Quote:
Also note, what we term regulation now can take many forms. The example I just gave primarily concerned consumers. In an anarchist society, with the profit motive removed, the need for regulation of working conditions would be non-existent. Workers would not self-exploit. The goal would be as much produced with as little effort possible and it the safest conditions achievable. Workers themselves, through the democratic control of the workplace can figure out how to best implement these goals. Concerning environmental impact of industry, well there again, a team of trained experts who can evaluate long-term affects of a particular manner of production would be embraced by workers. Their 'regulation' would help ensure that the community around the site of production, where the workers presumably live, would be as environmentally safe and sustainable as possible.

Though I am sceptical as to whether or not you will ever be able to remove the idea of profit from Humanity, short of removing it from the language, I can understand and support the above, so long as no one is forced to be a part of it. As much as you may not think it, I think all forms of Anarchism are compatible, so long as no one is forced to live under another system, with the exception of Anarcho Fascism, whatever the hell that is.

And by the way, I loathe Ayn Rand and her entire objectivist following. I believe them to be the most dangerous statists.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 20 2007 08:04
Elliot Parker wrote:
Well, thank you for the welcome, and didn't Proudhon also say "property is freedom"?

that's why you need to read Marx wink

Marx wrote:
[the proletarian is] free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.
Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 20 2007 15:44

"Governments unnaturally shape a market, perverting it for their own self interest." this is true, but ALL powerful interests, within the gov't or otherwise, will attempt to shape the market for their own ends. This is the entire point, markets are not some magical, organic, democratic institutions. They are shaped by the powerful, for the ends of the powerful. If you remove capitalism (petit-bourgeois, state-capitalism/'communism', or corporate capitalism) the need for markets disappears. Markets are created in the need to find cheap labor and/or consumer to sell goods.

"I maintain that without the government, most businesses could not get large enough to even make a monopoly possible." This is where I dissagree. In the modern world one cannot separate the state and capitalism (a natural relationship). But If one could somehow remove the state, i foresee some kind of sick corporate feudalism. Like the old company town, but on crack. And steroids.

"I think it is far more beneficial for the company involve in creating the drugs that they don't kill people, or they shan't be making any more profits." Capitalist firms kill people all the time, once again the whole point: capitalism is based on profit, not need. It's a cost-benefit analyses, if someone dies but profits still go up, so be it. But this is exactly where the state steps, reforming the most blatant abuses of capitalism in the hopes to ensure its longevity.

"I am sceptical as to whether or not you will ever be able to remove the idea of profit from Humanity." Not to sound like a dick, but you do realize libcom is short for libertarian communism? Communism implies the abolition of the profit motive. If you'd like I can give you a million examples of people working with not even a nod to profit. To begin, i'm willing to bet your mother didn't get paid to raise you. And that was damn hard work. Outside of capitalism, freely undertaken, democratically controlled work is rewarding in itself. Humans are social creatures, profit, capitalism, and markets are anti-social creations. Remove them and humanity, solidarity, and an understanding of the social nature of the economy come to the fore.

Lastly, you can't just use the term markets when you mean capitalist relations and magically become an anti-capitalist. The economic system you describe leaves room for private owner of means of production and wages. If these relations are left in existence, capitalism, being a pervasive, predatory system, will creep right back up with them.

Anarchism directly comes out the anti-capitalist struggle. Any form of anarchism that incorporates 'markets' or 'profit' (two of the definitive characteristics of capitalism) is a bastardization of the term anarchist.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 18:50
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
revol68 wrote:
lone wolf stop shortening words all the fucking time, you aren't in some wanky managerial course. It's post-revolutionary and decriminalisation ffs!

ha ha ha can't believe you of all people are correcting me when your posts are well-known for their typos thus confusing the fuck out of people cos you are too bloody lazy and antsy to check anything before posting. Everyone can tell what post-rev. is short for on this site - some of your contributions have been hilariously unintelligible or just plain hilarious. : grin I think my favourite was yelling "Homophone" at someone as an insult. Fab. That was Dev's favourite. So at least you were doing something for Irish-Turkish relations. Every dog has its day. And you like dogs. wink

I am not saying to change mind.

In the immortal words of the late Mr. White..

"Don't go trying to change..

I'll take the bad times.
I'll take the good times.
I'll take you just the way you are. "

cool

Love

LW XX

it's not that it's not obvious what you meant, it;s that it's really fucking grating.

and there's a difference between not checking your posts for typos and actively shortening shit that doesn't need shortened all the time.

p.s. the 'homophone' comment is/was a piss take, a long running joke.

Yeah there is a difference - the first is laziness and the second is expediency. cool

So what if it grates you? You have habits that grate others and it doesn't mean you are going to mend your ways just to please others and neither am I. I don't like this one-sidedness that you and one or two of the others adopt - we are expected to accept your quirks and their result inconvenience but you do not accept the quirks of others.

So in this matter... much tho i enjoy your errors and piss-takes at times.. screw you.

Love

LW XX

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 20 2007 22:04
Lone Wolf wrote:
So what if it grates you? You have habits that grate others and it doesn't mean you are going to mend your ways just to please others and neither am I. I don't like this one-sidedness that you and one or two of the others adopt - we are expected to accept your quirks and their result inconvenience but you do not accept the quirks of others.

So in this matter... much tho i enjoy your errors and piss-takes at times.. screw you.

haha
revol pwned by someone who says peeps, I wish the libcom lol wasn't so shit smile

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 22:55
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf they aren't quirks they are yoou consistently shortening words like some sort of yank do gooder managerial consultant, it just makes me cringe.

Oh no - i made you cringe!!!! neutral

You want everyone to be like this - tough tongue

Ain't gonna happen boy!

Love

LW XX

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 20 2007 23:03
revol68 wrote:
not at all, every time i read your posts and vomit into my mouth I feel more alive, in a way I need someone like you.

save the flirting for pms and the bookfair.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 23:05
revol68 wrote:
not at all, every time i read your posts and vomit into my mouth I feel more alive, in a way I need someone like you.

You are right - you need to get all that bile out of your system - cough up boy! Get all that poison out - you will feel loads better. tongue

I AM your psychological bicarbonate of soda. cool

In fact - tagline -! cheers!

Love

LW XX

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 20 2007 23:06
jef costello wrote:
revol68 wrote:
not at all, every time i read your posts and vomit into my mouth I feel more alive, in a way I need someone like you.

save the flirting for pms and the bookfair.

He's already used his best technique. sad

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 20 2007 23:56
Lone Wolf wrote:
He's already used his best technique. :sad:

I thought you'd be a bit too mature for grooming.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 21 2007 00:03
jef costello wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
He's already used his best technique. :sad:

I thought you'd be a bit too mature for grooming.

It would have been the other way around tbh but he is about 7 years too old for me. sad

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 21 2007 00:13

I reckon you should try and give revol one.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 21 2007 00:42
jef costello wrote:
I reckon you should try and give revol one.

I only go for tall guys. sad

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 21 2007 08:25

mini-stilts?

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 21 2007 16:08
jef costello wrote:
mini-stilts?

He has to elevate himself somehow.

wink

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 21 2007 16:45
Black Flag wrote:
By that I mean people who are disabled or deformed might not get laid or feel confident about them selves and so will not get laid or chat up women.

There's a word for somebody who thinks that they have a right to get laid, whether the other party is interested or not. It's not a particularly pretty one, either.