Reconciling labor issues and individual freedom
A really interesting conversation about labor issues, collective interests and personal freedom started in the comments on Amber's post about how destigmatization could reduce profits for some sex workers.
I think it started with this passage from a comment of KerwinK's regarding a "labor speed up" of sorts in strip clubs in San Francisco:
"What's the big deal? Prostitution with willing sex workers in private booths - shouldn't that be a right?" Yes, I'd agree it ought to be a right, but I'm more concerned with the rights of workers in the particular clubs, and put those above the rights of clients or even the rights of a minority who wished to do "more" than an overwhelming majority. These were management-imposed changes, and most (though not all) workers at the time opposed them. Over time, most of these workers left, so those that remained were generally OK with what was going on (eventually lap dancing became quite normalized, as did the sex, and indeed there was more money to be earned), but I think the most useful frame for thinking about these issues is through a labor lens (i.e. what do the majority of workers want), rather than through a "sexual rights" perspective.
From what I am hearing from your comment, you believe that if the majority of an organized strip club are opposed to, as you say, "going further" sexually, their beliefs should prevail over those who have no problem with "going further". Even if "going further" can be done safely and even if the majority of clients (who remember, are the ones that actually allow for all of the workers' existence to begin with) would have no problem with "going further"??? I would say to that that if the majority of dancers really felt that way, then they could simply insist explictly to their clients that they would not "go further" and that if their clients wanted that kind of behavior, then they were free to go to those who freely offered such.
I responded to Anthony's comment with one about balancing labor/collective rights against individual freedoms using an analogy from my own workplace and then tried to reframe the labor issue in strip clubs:
To take it back to the strip club, if I chose to work in a strip club precisely because there was no sexual contact being sold, and then the expectations of customers began to change because workers could essentially do whatever they wanted, and a group of workers felt absolutely fine with selling sexual contact, and I started seeing a dramatic reduction in my earnings, and had to look for other work or give in to the pressure of the customers, I would be put at a great disadvantage.
I don't think that discussing that dilemma and its impact on workers is a matter of making moral decisions or evidence of sex-negativity/sex-positivity, but simply a matter of talking labor strategy: how do workers manage to balance individual interests with collective interests?
Anthony agreed with some of my reframing and then asked:
But, can you see my point, Elizabeth, how exactly that situation you described, where the majority of workers use their collective majority powers in their union to block a minority from expanding their personal boundaries, implicitly works against the very principle of sex positivity??
And so we continue the discussion of balancing labor/collective interests and personal freedom (and cultural attitudes toward sex) in the comments below!
rehashed comments
Thank you for creating this 2nd thread, Elizabeth. Such a good host! :)
I am simply going to re-post the two items that I wrote in the old forum here. If you already read them, there's nothing new below....
Best to all!
:)
k
******
Indeed, as Elizabeth surmised, the fact that some workers were willing to do "more"severely disrupted the ability of others to do "less," and that was precisely what was at stake in the mismatched struggle that ensued between the majority of dancers and a minority that had management on its side (management et al won). The rumor at the club was that management actually brought in a couple of women who were willing to do various types of sex into the strip club, having recruited them from an Asian massage parlor. Apparently the small number of people who were willing to do sex literally had lines of men waiting for them, while those who attempted to continue with lap dances found their client base much diminished. Dancers generally either made a decision to do "more" or they left the club. A few who did not want to do sex, yet felt they could not get work at other clubs and needed the cash remained behind and felt very pressured by the situation. Meanwhile, those who were willing to do the sex made money hand over fist, particularly at first when few others were competing against them. Over time, as I mentioned, the situation stabilized around a new norm that included sex, and now that this has happened, it certainly would not make make much sense to try to change things. In the early moments, however, I think it was perfectly legitimate for the dancers to attempt to exercise control over their working conditions (just as an earlier generation had mobilized against lap dancing), and the danger that I saw from the sex ad magazine was that they would unthinkingly use the banner of "sexual freedom" to take away the collective right of the workers to decide upon their working conditions; the position of the magazine (The Spectator) recognized only individual "freedoms" to the detriment of the majority and in willful ignorance of the fact that what individuals chose to do had a great impact upon others, even making it next to impossible to continue working at the institution. As this process happened at 11 of San Francisco's 17 strip clubs, only a small number of clubs remained where dancers could work and not do sex (and these remaining clubs had to be internally policed in order to make sure that no individual dancers were "underbidding" everyone else by doing "more").
*******
In fact, there already are a number of instances in which sex workers collectively organize themselves in order to promote their ability to work. I've seen this happening on the street in a number of ways, whether to prevent individuals from underselling a generally agreed upon base fee, or even to simply prevent sex workers from robbing from their clients as it would serve to chase clients away. In order to be effective, these collective mechanisms generally require that information about transgressions be at least somewhat accessible, and that some sort of disciplinary measure be available. In one scene I saw among male street-based workers in San Francisco some years ago, a very fast rumor mill (one that included information from some clients) facilitated informal monitoring while threats of violence and actual violence served as the ultimate sanctions. Not pretty, but the community order was maintained. At the strip club I mentioned in my earlier posts, the monitoring system among dancers largely broke down when management introduced private booths - no longer could workers simply look and see that no sex was being exchanged, and instead confrontations in the dressing room based on rumors became very heated. Clearly, there's a lot wrong with these types of informal mechanisms - not only are they brutal, but they are often ineffective and support hierarchies within the group - but I believe it is these sorts of nascent forms of collective self-organization that we must look toward and develop further if we wish to move forward. Not that all scenes require something like this - independent contractors working online have no equivalent other than friendship circles, activist groups, and forums like this one - but such collective mechanisms are understandable developments when one person's behavior immediately impacts another's. Perhaps one way to move forward is to think about the forms of organization that already "naturally" exist within various sex work scenes and think about ways to build upon those already existing models?
Just to add a final point, I am all in favor of unionization and collective organization (obviously), but I do not think that we should underestimate the difficulty of such organizing and slip into the idea that decriminalization will make a big difference in bringing it about. Decriminalization would help, to be sure, but I fear it would only make a small difference. The failure of sex workers to organize much in Holland subsequent to legalization should act as a caution, and scenes filled with migrant workers or street-based workers present their own challenges. Nevertheless, there are successful models out there (my personal fav is Washington DC's Different Avenues - yea rah!). I think, though, that we need a more concrete discussion about the possibilities for collective self-organization - otherwise I fear we will once again find reasons to praise decriminalization without genuinely engaging with the limitations of this agenda.
Does restricting work expectations contribute to sex negativity?
That's an interesting question, Anthony. I don't think it does contribute to sex negativity. I think it contributes to defining the boundaries -- the terms and conditions of employment -- of a particular workplace, not to defining the goodness or badness of any activity. I do agree, though, that it sets limits around people's individual freedom. But I don't think it is sex-negative. Even sex positive folks have boundaries they are personally not interested in crossing. That doesn't mean that they judge others who do cross them.
So in a labor situation, like a strip club, if the majority of workers vote for a contract that requires stage dancing and lap dancing but not hand jobs, and some workers perform hand jobs, they are undermining the collective power of the union. The other dancers might be angry not because they disapprove of handjobs in general, but because they don't want to be required to perform them at work.
When I first got to my job I posted more office hours than the contract required. (We are required to do fewer office hours than I was required to do at the college I'd previously taught and I was simply acting out of habit.) A very pro-student faculty member surprised me by criticizing my extra hours as "union busting." I was very taken aback. I like office hours. I like people dropping in. I like the environment. I like being accessible to students (who, as it turns out, rarely use office hours at my college). Anyway, she explained that it was a problem because if some of us voluntarily do extra hours, then it can easily become an expectation of all. She wasn't being anti-student, or anti-teaching ... she was being pro-union.
And I think the situation is the same here. I think you can be absolutely sex positive and pro-union, and say that selling sexual contact is fine but not in this workplace. In fact, I think a sex-positive culture requires that workers be able to collectively negotiate the sexual content of their work. And I really do think that
But, I'm curious about how other people see this. Does setting boundaries around what is allowed or not allowed under a given contract require that the not-allowed work be stigmatized? It doesn't seem so to me. It seems like the fact that we see "not-allowed" as stigmatized is an artifact of living in a sex-negative culture where "no" means "bad" instead of meaning "not right here."
And it would be fascinating to be able to compare things like wage and work expectations and worker satisfaction at union clubs with nonunion clubs. Alas we don't have enough of the former to make a comparison.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
For the benefit of those who might have missed it..
I will go ahead and repost the responses to Kerwynk and Elizabeth I posted on Amber's thread in their entirity.
First: my initial response to Elizabeth:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to Elizabeth's excellent rebuttal....
Anthony, I assure you that you and Kerwink are both in precisely the right place. I started this forum because I knew that those of us on "this side" need spaces where we can talk safely enough that our differences can emerge and we can discuss them. That doesn't have a chance of happening when we're all banded together in defending our basic premise against the prohibitionists.
I understand that now in the afterthought....and I want to apologize to Kerwynk for jumping his case. I was a bit over the top there.
I read Kerwink's labor speed-up analogy not as a suggestion that some kinds of activities were right or wrong in themselves, but that as a labor situation the expanding expectations of workers without negotiation presents serious problems for many. Of course the workers in most strip clubs don't have a union, and so they don't have collective bargaining..
But to remove the sex from the situation for a minute to make the point (maybe): I teach at a college where we do have a union and we do have collective bargaining. Our teaching load is 15 contact hours a semester. Some faculty do a lot of part time teaching in addition to that load in order to supplement their income. When enough of them do that extra work during the ordinary work day (instead of, say, on the weekend or at night) it makes it harder for the union to argue that the regular contractual contact-hour load should remain at 15 credits. What one group of workers finds useful, and what they do willingly, really can put other workers at a disadvantage.
To take it back to the strip club, if I chose to work in a strip club precisely because there was no sexual contact being sold, and then the expectations of customers began to change because workers could essentially do whatever they wanted, and a group of workers felt absolutely fine with selling sexual contact, and I started seeing a dramatic reduction in my earnings, and had to look for other work or give in to the pressure of the customers, I would be put at a great disadvantage.
Now, I can acknowledge how it is easy for the individual tastes of a few can sometimes undermine the collective solidarity of the group when it comes to union organizing, and I do think that open discussion and negotiation is very much important in a collective barginiing situation. And, I would never want to force anyone to do something they are not completely comfortable with.
But, can you see my point, Elizabeth, how exactly that situation you described, where the majority of workers use their collective majority powers in their union to block a minority from expanding their personal boundaries, implicitly works against the very principle of sex positivity??
I cede your point that those who don't want sexual contact would feel threatened by loss of revenue to those who would allow it, and that the peer pressure to go along against your will would be pretty intimidating for those not wanting it.
But....that still places a huge disadvantage on that minority who does want sexual contact, and they would probably be motivated to either (1) leave the union and go on their own and find employment in a non-union shop that would allow for more open expression; (2) forming their own counter-organization and competing directly with the majority orgianization for bargining rights; or (3) go along with the majority and suffer quietly (or not so quietly, possibly risking undermining the union from within).
It may not look like a morality issue from the outside, but it is one of the many ways in whiich more socially conservative worker organizations have implicitly maintained the sexual status quo by isolating and purging sexual radicals and liberals under the very guise of "protecting the majority".
This is one of the main reasons why, even though I am a strong supporter of unionization in general, I don't feel that the collective barginning model would work as well for sex workers.
This is just my own personal opinion...nothing more or less.
Anthony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then, my latest response to Kerwynk:
Not to extend this little rumble too far, kw...
...because there are other issues we need to get to, but I believe you are missing the point of my argument entirely.
You say that the attempt to impose looser restrictions of sexual contact on San Francisco strip clubs was merely an attempt by management to bust the union and impose a standard that "the majority" of dancers openly opposed, and that they had the right as "the majority" to retain the more restricted standard even if "a minority" of the dancers did not oppose such loosening of the standard. Is this really about taking away "the collective rights" of workers who organize to retain the old standards...or is this more about mere moral opposition to loosening those standards out of fear of losing their livelihoods, and using the collective barginning process as a wedge for their personal moral objections to loosening the rules of contact??
How is that any different from, say, a majority of parishioners at a local Catholic church getting together as a "majority" to oppose the ordination of a priest at their church because they don't like the priest's more open stance on abortion rights or homosexuality?? Sure, they have that right as members of that church to do so, but, is their stance of maintaining a conservative (if not, arguably, reactionary) position justified merely because it represents a "majority" view??
Yes, a union does need to represent the collective needs of its members, and it certainly must defend its members' interests. And yes, indeed, those dancers, if they were worried about being priced out of their livelihoods by dancers who were willing to "go further", had every right to use their collective bargining power to protect and defend their jobs. My dissent is NOT about that at all...and please, try not to put words to that extent in my mouth.
My dissent to your argument is simply this, though: when you talk about how "individual sexual freedoms" should be trumped by the collective will of the "majority" and that the "sexual freedom" of individual dancers who choose to "go further" should be constrained by those in the majority who don't want to go that far, how am I to react other than to say that you are condoning restricting the sexual choices of people??? You may mock my response all you want for all the "perverse pleasure" you get, but I think that it is a legitimate argument to say that you really do think that it is right to regulate what dancers can and should do....and that any attempt to loosen the rules is simply a plot by management to break the unions. That is pretty dangerously close to the antiporn "liberal elitist" argument, in my personal view; and I stand by my original statements on that regard.
Also, as to the threat of "underbidding"....considering that most of the laws these days concerning performer/client contact are far more biased toward restricting rather than enabling such contact (backed up by the real threat of criminal action and police busts to close down strip clubs that attempt to circumvent such laws (see the Erotic Eleven case in Las Vegas 10 years ago involving Nina Hartley and a few other porn performers who were busted for having live lesbian sex on stage); I'd strongly insist that if there is any dominant bias in the culture, it's NOT toward more open sexual expression; but the very opposite direction....toward greater restirctions, if not outright criminalization of even private sexual contact. If San Francisco is like any other jursdiction I know of (though, to its credit, it is a tad more liberal than most), the prospect of loosening up sexual contact between client and worker certainly has its benefits to management (more money for them and those workers willing to do such behavior); but it also carries with it much risk...particularly, the wrath of the media and the State, which would, since they are still controlled for the most part by conservative, sex-negative forces who care less about dancers' rights and their economic livelihoods, see such openings as an invitation to the same old "licentiousness" and call upon the full power of the authorities to crack down on such "illicit" and "filthy" behavior. Even the bars in SF have had their share of police raids, neighborhood association protests against "strip joints" in their communities, and media panics about criime and sloth and "declining property values" and "cheap sex" and HIV-AIDS scares....it is hardly likely that those forces would take too kindly to attempts to loosen traditional sexual mores.
Indeed, I'd say that if any group would be given the benefit of the doubt by the media and the dominant forces, it would be exactly those dancers whom you so kindly praise for their "collective activism" in resisting the call of their management to, as they would probably put it, "further degrade themselves". People who would never concern themselves about the rights of workers in more traditional professions to organize themselves to improve their workplace conditions would be falling over themselves to defend these workers...merely because of the angle of "we're just attempting to defend our livelihoods against the (male) establishment's attempts to make us into further 'sex objects'". In short, the very aspect of the sexual restictiveness of the campaign would give strong institutional strength to those "collective rights" of the "majority"; while constraining those in the "minority" as supposed tools of management....or merely "sluts with no shame and no limits of decency".
Again, I do NOT mean to undercut the rights of those in a collective to make decisions on majority consensus, and I do recognize the many ways how divisiveness is exploited by those in power to play divide-and-conquer games. But on this particular case, the context of our fundamentally anti-sex culture does matter, and defending an individual's sexual choices -- even if it does affect the choices of others -- remains as important a principle as defending the collective. Indeed, a collective group that does not respect individual sexual diversity and free choice and merely imposes the traditional sexual choices is an invitation for disaster. No one should be forced into doing something they feel uncomfortable doing...but neither should those who do want to sexually experiment on their own be isolated and derided and chased out of their groups merely out of the personal concerns of "the majority". Respect must be mutual to mean anything at all.
I've heard and respected your thoughts, kerwynk. Please try to respect mine. It's not about putting a "church lady's outfit" on you; it's just about a difference of opinion. With that said, I will move on.
Anthony
------------------------------------------------------------
That should pretty much put us up to date.
Looking for clarification...
Anthony, in the comment above, in your response to KerwinK, you wrote something that confused me and I'm looking for a clarification. (In other words, I'm not raising any argument for or against. I just need to better understand a distinction you are making.) Here is the quoted passage:
I am not clear about the distinction between "using collective bargaining power to protect and defend their jobs" which you seem to agree is a good thing (and which would have, in the instance we've been discussing, involved limiting other people's sexual freedom at work) and allowing the "sexual freedom of individual dancers who choose to go further" to be "trumped by the collective will of the majority."
Can you clarify the difference between those two kinds of collective power constraining freedoms of individuals? I think that's the part that we're all bumping heads on, and if we could clear up that difference I have a feeling we'd either all be saying the same thing, or at least we'd more clearly understand where the disagreement lies. Or I would, anyway. (Wow, how self-centered of me! ;) )
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Sorry for taking so long to respond, Elizabeth...
I will acknowledge that my wording was more than a bit confusing and probably even a bit contraditory...so I will try to clarify myself here.
I don't challenge in any way the dancers who challenged the rules on sexual conduct by using the collective bargining process to prevent being forced to do things they don't want to do. That's part of the process of collective bargining, and a basic human respect for personal boundaries.
What I did challenge was what I saw in kenwyk's response an implied assumption that such a challenge effectively negates those workers who may support the collective in general but oppose the position on limiting sexual contact; and who may not see such contact as nearly a threat. From my vantage point (and perhaps only mine, I will admit), I saw kerwynk's response that anyone not agreeing with the majority position is putting "individual sexual rights" above the collective rights of the majority, to be hightly subjective, a bit assuming, and ultimately insenitive to the motives of such a "minority". I just happen to think that there could have been a way in which the boundaries of those wanting not to engage in such behavior could have been reconciled with those others without it seeming to be imposed on individuals by the "majority".
I also happen to really question the notion that sexual conservatism didn't play at least some role in the position of the workers. I do respect their right to resist the "speed-up" charges of management, but it still looks to me as if a major motivation of the opposition continues to be some deep resentment towards people who support a more open form of sexual expression....and thusly an attempt to constrain that expression using the bargining process. However motivated by safety and legitimate factors that may be, it still ultimately, within the context of this society, tends to reenforce and sustain the overall sexual conservative attitudes that predominates our culture...at the detriment, I say, to what I consider true collective (yet respectful of diversity) activism.
It is understandable that many in the majority would feel that their jobs would be threatened by going further than what they would have personally liked...but it still could have been possible to make compromises with their fellow/sister workers that did not alienate those who may have not agreed with their basic principles while still maintaining their cohesion and unity.
Any collective action, of course, by definition involves some surrender of individualism to the collective; I do not disagree with that. But..I really don't agree with the notion that one has to totally surrender their rights to determing their own sexual autonomy and to establish their own sexual boundaries and have them respected merely to protect their economic rights through collective action. It's one thing to say that people shouldn't be forced to do what they don't want to, and that sexual contact should be practiced with the utmost safety and mutual respect and consent; it's another thing entierly to impose a sexually restrictive code of conduct and dismiss the opposition as "tools of management" who "place individual sexual rights" above the group. That, to me, comes dangerously close to the ideology of antiporn activists with their charges of "liberal elitism"....and in my view, that is totally unacceptable for a position that is supposed to be both pro-worker AND sex-positive.
If kerwynk wants to defend his position as defending labor rights, then that's totally fine. I simply reserve my right to disagree....and respect his right to disagree with me. And yours', too.
Hopefully, that clears things up.
Anthony
more thoughts....
Hiya gang!
I think Elizabeth hit upon the exact contradiction in what Anthony posted. Support for collective organizing can be difficult to reconcile with individual "freedoms," and while I strongly support collective organization within and across workplaces, I do see that this involves some potential downsides as well.
Anthony, for example, writes about dancers who wish to organize against lap dancing or against outright sex within strip clubs, asking:
Is this really about taking away "the collective rights" of workers who organize to retain the old standards...or is this more about mere moral opposition to loosening those standards out of fear of losing their livelihoods, and using the collective barginning process as a wedge for their personal moral objections to loosening the rules of contact??
How is that any different from, say, a majority of parishioners at a local Catholic church getting together as a "majority" to oppose the ordination of a priest at their church because they don't like the priest's more open stance on abortion rights or homosexuality?? Sure, they have that right as members of that church to do so, but, is their stance of maintaining a conservative (if not, arguably, reactionary) position justified merely because it represents a "majority" view??
I have no doubt that dancers had a wide variety of reasons for not wanting to have outright sex in the clubs, ranging from a preference for the artistry of dance to something of a moral revulsion to prostitution (and a complete distancing of erotic dance from that). Nevertheless, I would side with worker self-control over and against "anything goes," despite the fact that I would undoubtedly disagree with many things that the collective would decide. I'd also say that any sort of community - including a conservative church group - should have a right to select its own leaders (recalling them if necessary); the fact that this process will not automatically result in a perfect system doesn't negate the things that are valuable about this approach. If the idea here is that refusing to allow others to do sex-for-pay in an environment designated as a strip club is inherently conservative (when doing so causes others who do not wish to do sex to lose a large number of clients), I simply disagree.
Anthony also writes that:
I think that it is a legitimate argument to say that you really do think that it is right to regulate what dancers can and should do....and that any attempt to loosen the rules is simply a plot by management to break the unions. That is pretty dangerously close to the antiporn "liberal elitist" argument, in my personal view
Well, I support the ability of sex workers to collectively regulate themselves, and to me that is quite a different stance than "liberal elitism" (which I identify with the efforts of outside do-gooders to impose standards from the outside. To me, the ability of people to have as much control as possible over their local working lives is not the same as having politicians who operate within a so-called "democracy" introduce a standard via the law.
In an earlier post, Anthony also writes that:
[Having a majority decide against sexual contact] still places a huge disadvantage on that minority who does want sexual contact, and they would probably be motivated to either (1) leave the union and go on their own and find employment in a non-union shop that would allow for more open expression; (2) forming their own counter-organization and competing directly with the majority orgianization for bargining rights; or (3) go along with the majority and suffer quietly (or not so quietly, possibly risking undermining the union from within).
I have no doubt that these three scenarios could all happen in the scenario we're talking about, but just to be clear, the example given still posits a world in which a minority is sexually persecuted by the "moralism" of a majority. In fact, people not wishing to do prostitution were forced to go to the few remaining clubs that did not have prostitution, or to remain within the clubs with prostitution and to do the best they could (a situation that put them at an extreme disadvantage). The people who felt compelled to remain (for a variety of reasons) but who did not want to do sex were the ones who were forced to "go along with" the will of...not even the majority, but of management. People indeed got screwed over by this situation, but not the people identified in the above theoretical example. We need to be able to see both how people can get oppressed by the logic of individual sexual rights as well as vice versa.
But to return to the three dangers that are identified above, all three basically seem perfectly fine to me. And in terms of finding employment elsewhere, I'd be much happier with a system that enabled strip clubs and brothels to compete against each other than a system that placed erotic dancers and those doing sex into such direct competition within the same club. Having multiple clubs of various sorts does not resolve the difficulties of competition vs. collective decision making - competition is merely removed from the individual level and replaced by competition between institutions - but this solution generally seems to me to strike a fair balance between the rights of various parties. To address a theoretical (but completely unrealistic) possibility, a fully collectivized system might enable the entire commercial sex industry to control (and possibly restrict) the actions at all clubs, but in general I support the ability of people to control their own lives, so the personal right of individuals to engage in whatever sort of sex work they choose seems inviolable. That'd be one limit I place on collective management over these things, and ideally there would certainly be more freedom involved than just that.
Anthony, I'm wondering if your rejection of this line of reasoning stems from the fact that you believe there are no circumstances whatsoever in which a majority has a right to place some sort of restriction on sexual behavior. I also reject the suggestion that any and all attempts to regulate sex derive solely from sexual puritanism. Is that really what you are saying? If not, what would be appropriate limitations based on your line of reasoning, and why do you reject what happened in the case under discussion here?
In terms of the specific case of San Francisco, Anthony also writes:
If San Francisco is like any other jursdiction I know of (though, to its credit, it is a tad more liberal than most), the prospect of loosening up sexual contact between client and worker certainly has its benefits to management (more money for them and those workers willing to do such behavior); but it also carries with it much risk...particularly, the wrath of the media and the State, which would, since they are still controlled for the most part by conservative, sex-negative forces who care less about dancers' rights and their economic livelihoods, see such openings as an invitation to the same old "licentiousness" and call upon the full power of the authorities to crack down on such "illicit" and "filthy" behavior.
Indeed, I'd say that if any group would be given the benefit of the doubt by the media and the dominant forces, it would be exactly those dancers whom you so kindly praise for their "collective activism" in resisting the call of their management to, as they would probably put it, "further degrade themselves".
Anthony certainly has a point here, though the situation is much more complicated than he suggests. Indeed, workers who were resisting the introduction of sex in the dance clubs at time utilized explicit and implicit anti-prostitution stereotypes in fighting what was going on. I initially got involved in this story when writing a piece for the SF Bay Guardian; the title for the piece (which I did not choose and would not have chosen), was "Peep Show Pimps," thus relying upon and reinforcing a moralistic term that often undercuts sex workers' ability to rely upon management of their own choosing or to even have lovers. At the same time, it should be noted that "the State" was fully complicit with the shift toward sex in the clubs; although the private booths that facilitated sex were already illegal, and although the protesting dancers' central demand was to have these booths removed, the City never took action against the booths, deciding instead to effectively decriminalize prostitution within the clubs. "The State" in this case was completely in league with the clubs, with the mayor having acted as a lawyer for club management a number of years earlier. Furthermore, the strip clubs/brothels represent a significant component of the tourist industry, whereas the protesting dancers represent no one politically important (and indeed, they lost this political struggle, badly). The haphazard decriminalization that resulted required that certain basic facts could not be openly acknowledged, and, most specifically, management never made condoms readily available on the premises. While moralism remains an important theme in US politics, obviously, it's not the only dynamic governing various branches of the government.
But in returning to the main theme here of unionization and majority rule of the workers, I don't believe that this principle of collective self-management offers a utopic possibility that would signify the end of politics. I merely hold open this possibility as a critique of the way things are done in contemporary capitalist society, and also as a critique showing the limitations of "individual rights" (or "sexual rights") as a rhetoric for understanding social justice. Of course I support individual rights, generally speaking, but I do not think this approach is sufficient in and of itself, and there are definitely cases - such as the instance under discussion here - in which I believe an absolutist belief in individual rights will lead us astray from a full understanding as to the issues involved and from a more just approach.
Oy! So much writin'! :)
My final rebuttal, since this will only end up going in circles.
It is obvious that my points are not being understood correctly, or I'm not stating them clear enough...or simply that I guess that I'm not hearing the same thing that kerwynk's hearing out of my comments...so I will try one last time to make my points before I move on.
I will follow the form of responding point for point to kerwynk's comments First:
But my point is exactly that the process still involves enforcing the dominant conservative traditions and mores....similar to a church that enforces bans against interracial marriage or homosexuality...and I seriously doubt that anyone progressive would even attempt to defend any organization that used its "majority status" to defend such things as aparthied, even if that was the will of the "majority". Let's remember that in the South, bans against interracial marriage and lynchings were also justified as the "will of the majority" and federal court rulings against segregation were attacked as the imposition of a "minority" against the will of the "majority" of White citizens using the organizations available to them to defend their "rights". It was that against very institutionalization of the "tyranny of the majority" for which the philosophy of protecting individual rights was developed.
And you still only attempt to dance around my main point that your insistence that the organization of the dancers against "anything goes" (which is actually a fallacy, since my point was to defend the right of the dancers who wanted to go further to exercise their right of choice without in any way threatening the majority's right not to go further; not to defend management's right of "anything goes") effectively assumes a sexually conservative beleif that such dancers should simply not do so and succumb to the "majority" position that allowing sexual contact must not be allowed for whatever reason. Even the language you use ("self-control") has an implied notion that those dancers who wanted to go further somehow have no "self-control" and obviously cannot be allowed to pass their risk of supposed lack of "self-control" to others...a pretty clear bias against sexual self-expression, if I say so.
And kerwynk's response also avoids the basic fact that most activism against lap dancing or other sexual contact comes mostly not from dancers or clients, but from the more traditional conservative political and social groups who also tend to oppose consensual sexual acts in more private places on the same fears and folkways (fear of diease; threat to "marriage" and "family"; simple disgust at sex unredeemed by "commitment" and "intimacy") that they use against homosexuals, feminists, and other supposed threats to their social/sexual order. Just because he apporpriates such a belief within a putatively progressive context of protecting "labor rights" doesn't make the social context here any less conservative and reactionary.To continue:
Now this is interesting....you talk about extending "worker control over their local working lives"; yet you would deny the same right of control to those who do not succomb to the "will of the majority" and basically subjugate their personal sexual beliefs to the concept of "the majority"...which just so happens to be at one with your personal sexually conservative view of "self control". But what about those workers who don't share that view...will they be basically shut out of your ideal labor organization merely because they might have a more expansive view of sexuality than you do??? Even though they might even respect the other's right to disagree with their beliefs??
And you talk about "liberal do-gooders" imposing their will from outside...as far as I see it; the only ones that are imposing any views whatsoever are the sexual conservatives, whether they come in the form of antiporn feminists, antifeminist religionists, or pseudo-sexual elitists imposing their notions of "superior sexuality". Those who fight for more open and safe sexual expression are the ones who are usually reveiled and repressed everywhere. Last I heard, it wasn't "liberal do-gooders' who held the reigns of political and social power; otherwise, Joycelyn Elders would still be Suegeon General today.
Where, oh where do I begin?? With the complete twisting and distorting of my defense of the dancers as supporting "prostitution"??? (I am for decriminalization and legalization of sex work; and I would assume that kerwynk does also; but with using such rhetoric as calling lap dances and mere body contact "prostitution"; it certainly begs to wonder.)
The assumption that those in the majority who would be so offended by such opening of sexual behavior would have no choices in the matter?? (Like, for example, boycott or strike or actually use their resources to buy out the club and run it on their own terms??? The Lusty Lady club in San Francisco was able to do just that...and it remains the prototype of worker-run collective that would allow workers the maximum of protection and autonomy; whether or not they allowed lap dances. )
Or...the implied assumption that the most desirable means of worker controlled regulation would be where collectives could regulate sexual behavior in clubs...presumably to remove such threats as direct sexual contact as a means of protecting the "collective rights" of the majority of workers, who are assumed to be against such behavior. I ask you again, kerwynk: is your motive really based on protecting worker rights in general; or is it really to impose your personal ideas of sexual restriction??
And this nonsense accusing me of wanting no sexual regulation at all (in effect, calling me out as a "libertarian" who wants NO limits on sexual regulation whatsoever); only says more about your thinly-veiled agenda than it does about my statements. I have made abundantly clear that I am no right-wing libertarian of the "anything and everything goes"/"do it, and damn the consequenses" philosophy; my principle of sex radacalism rests upon the belief that sexual behavior must be conditioned on three basic elements: mutual respect; mutual consent; and mutual pleasure. That in itself places a great deal of condition on how people should interact sexually. And no. attempts to regulate sex often do not arise from sexual puritanism; but most attempts in this dominant culture can't help but be influenced by such puritanism. It's one thing to say that dancers deserve protection from unruly clients or shifty club owners who impose against their will orders to perform acts they may not want; it's quite another thing all together to dismiss and distort dancers who may not agree with such restrictions as "tools of the establishment" and scabs....and, ultimately, "mindless sluts" and disease carriers and "liberal elitists". My goal is to protect the rights of BOTH sides and of ALL sex workers, not merely pit one side against the other.
No one doubts that San Francisco's more tolerant attitude towards sexual behavior in general (fueled in large part by its large gay/lesbian/bisexual population and its legacy as a haven for sexual nonconformists everywhere) allowed it to be more hostile to the kind of sexual regulation that dominated elsewhere. But, even San Francisco had its limits....let us not forget the Stonewall Riots; the occasional raids on strip clubs in the 80s for performing public sex acts on stage which attracted some opposition from a few local neighborhood moral organizations; the rise of antipornography/antiprostitution feminism in the 80s, of which a pretty strong base of such activism was San Francisco and Berkeley; the war on gay bathhouses which only intensified with the HIV-AIDS pandemic; and the influence of residential gentrification where whole communities were basically ripped asunder for "urban renewal" to attract a wealthier and presumably more conservative clientele.
I would also say that your point does exemplify what I wrote about sexual elitism; it was no surprise that those workers who opposed the relaxation of sexual contact rules often resorted to the "anti-prostitution" rhetoric and language of antiporn feminists, of which the title "Peep Show Pimps" was a typical example. But there was also an elitist asthetic opposition as well; most of the opponents often saw themselves as more "erotic artitsts" who used their particular art form to express more "artistic" means of expression that were more "erotic"; distinguishing themselves from those lowdown, nasty, "filthy" women who were only "putting out" for men and "selling their bodies" and "selling sex". This is the very same "erotic" ve. "pornographic" paradigm that has been classically used by those who want to justify their own sexual choices against a conservative sexual context by throwing other, less "artistic" forms of sexual expression under the bus. Not only does this type of elitism do much harm to a unified philosophy of defending collective rights by openly reinforcing the dominant sexual conservatism (in the same way the Democratic Leadership Council acts as a conduit reenforcing the Republican Right even as they invoke against it through endless attacks on liberals and Leftists as beyond the pale...and mainstream liberal groups like MoveOn.org do the same for Democrats against independent Leftists); but in the long run, it simply allows the Right to play the usual game of divide and conquer by giving sexual conservatism a bipartasian cover...and implicitly making sexual fascism appear merely "conservative". (No, kerwynk, I am not and have NEVER accused you of being a sexual fascist or even being a sexual conservative; I'm simply making a point that many of your points do, in my view, quite a bit in justifying sexual conservatism under a label of "labor protectionism" and distorting ses-positive radicalism under the label of "individualism" and "libertariansim".)
And while you may say that the protesting dancers ultimately lost their battle because they were "no one important" as compared to the power of management and the dependence of San Francisco tourism on the sex industry (as if the Golden Gate Bridge and the Mission District and the other major attractions of business and industry were mere tokens as compared to the attraction of "free sex"); I'd say that probably the main motivation for their loss was simply that they did represent, in the ultimate, a minority of the workers; and that there were, ultimately, many who became sex workers who, influenced by more generous sex radicals and pro-sex femiinists as well as other sexual liberationists, simply rejected outright the more restrictive belief system of the protestors. It also may be that technical reforms such as the rise of the Internet and the development of in-house escort services where clients could much more directly interact with their clients rather than use the private booths of strip clubs, undermined the position of those opposed to direct sexual contact. An, of course, there was the HIV-AIDS pandemic, which ultimately dealth a grave blow to all forms of sexual expression by fueling the "sex=death" backlash against all forme of "free" sex. So yes, it is a complicated mix, but that does not necessarily disprove or devolve my original point that sexual conservatism had a lot to do with the opposition to looser sexual behavior in the clubs.
As to the safety factor, towith the condom issue: that management refused to offer the option of condoms to those clubs that did open up sexual conduct is a failing of their own; I don't argue that at all as a supporter of condom usage. But...was that necessarily the fault of those who defended their right to freer sexual expression...many of whom did in fact favor and insist on "safer sex" practices incorporated into their behavior?? Let's remember that "sexual contact" in this context can mean anything from a fully-clothed lap dance where the client remains fully clothed and merely gets rubbed against to orgasm, to a handjob, to oral sex (usually fellatio), to full on intercourse. Or, it can basically consist of a client watching a performer do solo masturbation or performing sex with another girl performer (usually while masturbating him/herself). While the safety issues involving such behaviors are certainly legitimate and the principle that ALL performers should have theri personal boundaries and limits respected must be fully upheld, that is fundamentally different from the arguments that many who opposed this behavior raised. Since such acts are already being done in a consenting and freely sought environment, the notion that they should not be encouraged in a private venue under conditions of compensation of the performers involved ultimately becomes one of moral disagreement over the acts themselves; rather than any concerns about safety that can be easily mitigated through mutually considered compromises and practices. It is possible to negotiate such differences and respect individual workers' personal sexual boundaries while simultaneously reaching for collective goals such as better compensation, safer workplace conditions, and protection from abuse of power or coercion by client or by management. To insist on imposing a single restrictive sexual standard on such a diverse group of performers is an invitation for discord, disaster, and ultimately, a wedge in which management can exploit to destroy all workers' rights and privilege a few at the expense of the many. And besides, it simply won't work anyway, since those who are adult enough to make their own decisions will probably go ahiead and follow their hormones anyway and pursue such behavior in more devious ways.
Kerwynk concludes:
Here is one point that I will agree with Kerwynk: "individual rights" activism alone cannot by itself liberate groups of people who have suffered from institutional discrimination, nor is it the be-all and end-all to progressive political activism. But, collective rights that does not fully respect the diversity of the individuals called upon to make the sacrifices neccessary for activism, and which attempts to impose a single, non-bending, and restrictive standard on all, is simply a recipe for failure. And a collective movement that does not respect the diversity of consensual sexual choice and sexual diversity, even as it brings individuals together in the name of collective action, only becomes yet another means for dissension that will only harm the overall movement as a whole.
My point in all this is NOT that those dancers have no right to protest the managers of the San Francisco strip clubs that wanted to impose rules on them that they opposed...or that people do not have the right to be sexually conservative and have those rights respected. I never said that, and never will. My point is only that they at the very least give the same respect to those workers who may not agree with their stance.....and that "collective rights" not become an wedge for allowing the larger forces of sexual conservatism to roll them under the bus.
I know that my view is probably not the most popular or the majority view, but it is my view, and I will stand by it, as much as I will respect those who will disagree with it. It may not even answer all (or even some) of Kerwynk's questions..but it expresses my opinion and mine alone.
And with that, the gentleman yields the floor, and asks the previous question be ordered.
:-)
Anthony
enuf for me...
You know, Anthony, I really do not appreciate having my personal sexuality attacked on these pages. You first write:
(No, kerwynk, I am not and have NEVER accused you of being a sexual fascist or even being a sexual conservative; I'm simply making a point that many of your points do, in my view, quite a bit in justifying sexual conservatism under a label of "labor protectionism" and distorting ses-positive radicalism under the label of "individualism" and "libertariansim".)
That would have been fine, if a few paragraphs earlier you hadn't have written:
will they be basically shut out of your ideal labor organization merely because they might have a more expansive view of sexuality than you do???
and
I ask you again, kerwynk: is your motive really based on protecting worker rights in general; or is it really to impose your personal ideas of sexual restriction??
My personal ideas of sexual restriction have never been part of this discussion, until you brought it up; I've been discussing how we might address sex workers' views on work restrictions within a strip club. And as for my "non-expansive" view of sexuality, what would you know of it?
I've tried to keep this friendly and to inject humor, but I'm unwilling to keep dialoging with someone who insults me at a personal level. So, despite the fact that you raise some interesting substantive points, I'm out. I think I've expressed my opinion on this matter more than sufficiently in any case.
*******
Also, just a clarification for others, Anthony writes:
(I am for decriminalization and legalization of sex work; and I would assume that kerwynk does also; but with using such rhetoric as calling lap dances and mere body contact "prostitution"; it certainly begs to wonder.)
Anthony mistakes my reference. I am indeed talking about handjobs and blowjobs and intercourse within the strip clubs.
Reflection and distance
While I was off neglecting my forum and relaxing a bit it seems a point has been reached in this discussion where we can go no further. Not only that, it sounds to me like frustration is getting in the way of clear communication on all parts.
I suggest a period of reflection and distance. Let's let this topic settle a bit and move on to other things.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
And, to keep the record straight....
...here was Kerwynk's first response to my initial rebutall:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
to the fundament! ;)
Well, I deliberately wrote in a somewhat provocative manner, and I suppose I should not be surprised to find that my posting provoked! Elizabeth indeed understands my argument precisely. Not that I can blame Anthony for not entirely seeing my point, as when I look back at my posting, I realize I did not explain the full circumstance.
Indeed, as Elizabeth surmised, the fact that some workers were willing to do "more" severely disrupted the ability of others to do "less," and that was precisely what was at stake in the mismatched struggle that ensued between the majority of dancers and a minority that had management on its side (management et al won). The rumor (perhaps correct, perhaps not) at the club was that management actually brought in a couple of women who were willing to do various types of sex into the strip club, having recruited them from an Asian massage parlor. Apparently the small number of people who were willing to do sex literally had lines of men waiting for them, while those who attempted to continue with lap dances found their client base much diminished. Dancers generally either made a decision to do "more" or they left the club. A few who did not want to do sex, yet felt they could not get work at other clubs and needed the cash remained behind and felt very pressured by the situation. Meanwhile, those who were willing to do the sex made money hand over fist, particularly at first when few others were competing against them. Over time, as I mentioned, the situation stabilized around a new norm that included sex, and now that this has happened, it certainly would not make make much sense to try to change things. In the early moments, however, I think it was perfectly legitimate for the dancers to attempt to exercise control over their working conditions (just as an earlier generation had mobilized against lap dancing), and the danger that I saw from the sex ad magazine was that they would unthinkingly use the banner of "sexual freedom" to take away the collective right of the workers to decide upon their working conditions; the position of the magazine (The Spectator) recognized only individual "freedoms" to the detriment of the majority and in willful ignorance of the fact that what individuals chose to do had a great impact upon others, even making it next to impossible to continue working at the institution. As this process happened at 11 of San Francisco's 17 strip clubs, only a small number of clubs remained where dancers could work and not do sex (and these remaining clubs had to be internally policed in order to make sure that no individual dancers were "underbidding" everyone else by doing "more").
Even if others do not agree with my line of reasoning on these points, I hope my comments clarify things sufficiently so that I might no longer be accused of "constraining sexual expression" or such. I admit, however, that being compared to a member of the religious right and to an anti-porn feminist does engender a certain amount of perverse pleasure. Now where is my church lady outfit?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we are up to date. Commence firing, please. :-)
Anthony
I see both your points
...but I have to agree more vociferousely w/ kerwynk. The example of the dancers who stayed but did not want to have sex, so they either left or felt pressured to stay because of economic need, is a perfect example of the "free market" theory falling apart in reality. This is an argument I've had many times with self-identified free market Libertarians, who argue that a truly free market will solve everything. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way... instead we see scenarious like this one. Or, to use an example I'm sure we're all familiar with, we see locally-owned small businesses having to close their doors because they can't compete with large national Big Box stores.
Keep in mind I say this as someone who is not anti-capitalism! But I do think the free market might be a ncie theory, but as we know, reality is usually a different and much more complex matter entirely. (Besides, the notion of a free market is based on a fallacy anyway... who establishes this "free" market? But that's another rant for another time!)
Updating with another KW rebuttal and my response...
First kerwynk:
---------------------------------------------------------
on the matter of church lady outfits ;)
Hi Anthony,
I think you misunderstand me, and perhaps I misunderstand you. In mentioning church lady outfits, I was merely trying a humorous rebuttal to your criticism (which you apologized later for - thank you). I actually quite like church lady outfits and have done political drag in such costume on several occasions. In any case, it is so difficult to measure tone and such in blogs, and these things are all too easy to misread, but my hope was to inject humor into the disagreement as I thought you had clearly crossed a line by attacking me personally. Sorry it didn't work.
Unfortunately, I have a number of things I need to attend to for the next day and a half or so, but I'll respond to the substance of what you say as I can (and, in general, I am quite glad to be having the substantive discussion, even if it's not entirely a smooth ride). I'm more than happy to drop everything else.
All best,
k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then my response:
Fair enough, kerwynk...
And again, I apologize to you publically for getting out of line with my original statement...it is possible to argue ideas without attacking the individuals personally.
Anthony
-----------------------------------------------
Positioning commercial sex within labour standards
To return to what I see as the purpose of this discussion, we need to envisage commercial sex in a legal non-stigmatised market. I have not seen a lot of empiricism here in terms of how sex workers have handled these issues in countries that do not have there restrictions. Furthermore one has to look for analogies in non sexual markets. What we have to avoid is a discussion about sexuality rather than a discussion about sex as work.
Once you remove prostitution from the criminal lae it becomes subject to not only civil law but also regular market forces which will shape both remuneration and working conditions. As Julia O'Connell Davidson points out, the difficulty with the binary of voluntary vs. involuntary prostitution is losing sight of the continnum of consent and control that exists in all labour markets. Markets coalesce and fragment as demand and return and net profit varies, and there is no reason to thinl that commercial sex will be different if other restraints are lifted. This one might expect both unionised and non-unionised shops.
There is however another factor, under civil law it is likely that sex work will be regulated, and will be subject to both employment standrds and health and safety regulations. In New Zealand and parts of australia this includes the right to refuse unsafe acts and to retain control over working conditions and refuse clients.
All of the above considerations make it extremely difficult to generalise in a diverse market and work force. It is not simply a question of majority rule or collective bargaining vs. individual freedom. One aspect of New Zealand legislation is to encourage co-operatives where women (or men) retain control over their earnings and working conditions.
References
O'Connell Davidson: Will the real sex slave please stand up? Fem Rev 2006 (Word)
I was a dancer in SF while this transition was hapening...
"What's the big deal? Prostitution with willing sex workers in private booths - shouldn't that be a right?" Yes, I'd agree it ought to be a right, but I'm more concerned with the rights of workers in the particular clubs, and put those above the rights of clients or even the rights of a minority who wished to do "more" than an overwhelming majority. These were management-imposed changes, and most (though not all) workers at the time opposed them. Over time, most of these workers left, so those that remained were generally OK with what was going on (eventually lap dancing became quite normalized, as did the sex, and indeed there was more money to be earned), but I think the most useful frame for thinking about these issues is through a labor lens (i.e. what do the majority of workers want), rather than through a "sexual rights" perspective."
Yeah, that's about what was going on....
The issue that as I saw it though was less about the free-will of the dancers and more about the control and restrictions on the dancers that enabled those choices to be compromised.
Issues centered on space-privacy-$$$$ ie: private booths, champagne rooms, VIP rooms increased stage fees..... The system was specifically in place to force the girls who preferred to be on stage into more private spaces in order to pay for the right to be on stage. Naturally, this created drama among the dancers more so than it provoked a unified effort to attack the real issues...
Then there are the issues of being a private 'contractor' yet required to follow schedules and other practices of an 'employee.' And the fact that the club chages you to work on top of charging your clients $10 for a budweiser. Would they be paying that much for a beer if I weren't here dancing? The club should be paying me AND I should be able to keep all of my tips.
I'm fine with the private spaces existing. I'm opposed to the stage fees. It's great to be able to dance on stage and not be pressured into doing private shows in order to pay stage fees. That way you have access to the private spaces with clients that you really like and you're not pressured to use them with anybody who wants to.
I've got big fantasies about the ideal adult entertainment venue!
Hope that can help give some perspective about the majority/choice concept. ;-)
Anarchy vs. regulation
I would love to comment at length if I had about 4 hours to spare. So just to highlight a few admittedly "knee-jerk" reactions I'm having to all this ...
kerwynk said:
In fact, there already are a number of instances in which sex workers collectively organize themselves in order to promote their ability to work. I've seen this happening on the street in a number of ways, whether to prevent individuals from underselling a generally agreed upon base fee, or even to simply prevent sex workers from robbing from their clients as it would serve to chase clients away. In order to be effective, these collective mechanisms generally require that information about transgressions be at least somewhat accessible, and that some sort of disciplinary measure be available. In one scene I saw among male street-based workers in San Francisco some years ago, a very fast rumor mill (one that included information from some clients) facilitated informal monitoring while threats of violence and actual violence served as the ultimate sanctions. Not pretty, but the community order was maintained.
For some reason this scenario just makes me feel sick. I wonder why sex workers, who are concerned about violence being committed against them from outside forces, would permit such violence between among themselves. I have no data to back this up, but perhaps some violence against sex workers from outsiders may be provoked by a sex worker robbing a client or a sex worker not performing an act that (allegedly) "everyone else" does. Maybe one sex worker beating up another sex worker who robbed a client would prevent more violence against the group as a whole, so maybe it could be a good thing. I just think this whole "mob justice" approach could be taken too far, that other arbitrary "offenses" against the collective could soon be considered punishable by violence if those at the center of the group deem it such -- personal spats could be trumped up into "s/he undercut me" or "s/he robbed so-n-so" and the alleged offender could be beat up for no reason but rumors. I was a part-time escort for about 3 years and subject to many untrue rumors about myself that spread rapidly through the community, and I more than once feared for my own personal safety. The underground sex trade (along with the black market drug trade) as it stands IS anarchy, and I wasn't comfortable with it.
I hope that decriminalization, or even legalization (i.e. regulation) of prostitution would make all sex workers safer -- from clients and from each other -- by having recourse to a legitimate justice system once their livelihoods are legitimized. If you're raped or robbed, you can press charges. In the current completely unregulated/underground system, you could get someone to hunt down your robber/rapist and beat him or kill him, which may be satisfying in and of itself, but this vigilantism seems like savage "gang wars" to me. But, I guess the only recourse at ALL with the prostitution trade being underground is sex workers coming together themselves, though, again, this seems to occur with message board and other online communities, which often do spill over into real life.
As much as I bitch about competition among escorts, when I first entered the business it was through a very nice lady who introduced me to a tight-knit community of providers and hobbyists who all knew and trusted each other and had private socials that weren't advertised online. This coming together really does work! It's the individual egos that got in the way though. "Why are you seeing MY client? I'll go tell him you're a heroin addict and ruin your reputation" blah blah. The whole anarchy thing sits ill with me too b/c I knew of a fellow provider's boyfriend who was murdered (supposedly through a drug deal), and, though extreme, murder is to be expected among those who deal with problems through violence.
Re. the will of the majority eclipsing the will of the minority/trumping individual rights: That seems to be the essence of democracy, "mob rule." The will of the majority goes. What are the alternatives to democratic process? On one hand you've got totalitarian rule by a power elite who dictates the terms to the entire group, and on the other hand you've got anarchy. I'm really no fan of either, as they both imply, in my opinion, subservience to the will of others under threats. Of course, you have that with democracy too I guess. But it's really the best alternative.
Re. the girls in the SF clubs who were eventually ousted by the minority who wanted to do more -- from what Stacey said, these changes were imposed by management, i.e. a totalitarian rule -- "love it or leave it." So the girls that didn't like it left. What I like about competition among businesses, though, is that ALL clubs aren't owned by the same management. If ALL clubs were owned by the same group, ALL clubs would have the same rules -- all would have the "do more" rule. But, with "free market" competition, the girls could choose to go to another club, owned by different people with different rules.
I know "free market" is a trigger word for many people, but what I mean here is that businesses should have some level of freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. Of COURSE capitalism needs regulating [I'm no fan of anarcho-capitalism]. But see by my example above, if all *club owners* in a city or state decided to collectivize and run all their businesses the same way, say, to force girls to offer sex, the sex workers who DON'T want to offer sex would have no choice but to either offer sex or leave the city/state entirely.
I like the idea of having union shops and having non-union shops, and having the businesses be in competition with each other, while fostering more solidarity between individual sex workers within each organization to make them stronger. (Of course, the management at the club that encouraged prostitution did it to be competitive with other clubs. But should there be a higher regulatory power that says he CAN'T have prostitution in his club? Wouldn't that be sex-negative?)
This seems pretty par for the course in the business world in general -- you've got businesses that compete with each other, and the workers within the business are "team players." I could get into how in most businesses there are hierarchies and how they're not very collective, but you see what I mean, ppl need to work together to make things work on the micro level. Though on the macro level competition is good and gives any worker -- of course including a sex worker -- the choice to work where she wants, for the rates she wants, for the clients she wants, etc.
I am for decrim/legalization b/c I believe that ALL sex workers should have the SAME rights under the law. "The law" sounds authoritarian to many, but, someone needs to maintain order. At the same time, sex workers should have the choice to be in a union, or not. Now, of course, chicken/egg ... what comes first, the unionization or the decriminalization ... I could chase my tail for hours on this one.
That was much longer than I thought it would be! I don't post around here much, so, I hope this is a safe space to post possibly dissenting viewpoints.
Post new comment