[rantrave88]

what I should have said - There are problems, they exist, they are bad, etc. but to complicate our ways of "helping" does not scream of choice-feminism.


and on cleanin up, all i can think is "My My Metrocard"

[pepper]

so long as there are people willing to sell their ass, or a glimpse of it, to strangers for cash there will be others willing to sell some other, unwilling person's ass for less money.

it's been said here recently that i ain't gonna go nowhere any time soon, there has to be a move towards making it legit and safe. i have to agree with that, no matter how i feel about it as a whole. it has to get cleaned up as it is before anything else happens. light one candle instead of cursing the darkness kinda thing, ye know.

[girlbomb]

You know, rereading the Foriegn Fuck and Empower links Snafooey posted and rantrave refers to, I think it's great that some people choose to do sex work, and I'm delighted they're happy with it. I'm certainly not trying to stop anybody from doing it safely or profitably; my goals are their goals in that respect. At the same time, these sex workers do the same thing they accuse anti-prostitution activists of doing -- they assume their experiences are the only ones that matter. In my experience, knowing both voluntary and involuntary sex workers, I'm inclined to believe that there is a *huge* fucking human trafficking and rape-for-money problem, and it's not my goddamn xenophobia talking, because the shit is happening right here in New York.

Hey, if you want to do sex work, do sex work! But don't assume everyone else in your line of work does.

[venetia]

Random thought - I wonder if forced prostitution and slavery gets brought into the debate all the time because when it happens (like, when you read how your immigration service had to rescue people from your local red light street and retrieve their passports from their kidnappers) it seems somehow to say something about prostitution per se - what is it in itself that permits this to be part of its context?

What does it tell me about my local red light street that it could keep going, regardless, while some of the workers were held there against their will and threatened? What does it tell me about those who use it and their attitudes to their fellow human beings?What does it tell me about the structure and the purpose, what is it in itself? What is sex work qua sex work, that this can be a part of it?

I'm not sure if it tells us much, actually, it seems way too variegated to be reduce like that. But I think that might be why the spectres of the migrant slave or the third world sex tourist kind of haunt our discussions.

[rantrave88]

hmm.

I have question in regards to the thread title. Is the joke that porn is cock-blocking feminism because in the usual context feminism would be cock-blocking porn? (cock-blocking prevents the cock from doing X, assuming the stereotype: hetero, cocks' quest for porn) 'cause porn can't really cock block anything except sex.

anarch, these links look good, I will check them out later once I get home!

some comments on the thread as a whole:

1.) The erotica vs. porn stuff is tired. as in, "I mean, feminist porn is cool, but the really degrading stuff is bad for women." I think pornography (print, video, film, web) is neither feminist nor antifeminist as is. Societal taboos come and go, and are harmful/okay in different contexts. Granted there are various pros/cons to cultural relativism, but making a distinction out of personal, private choices is kind of problematic. Laws? well, yeah, that's life. But people will find their fetishes anywhere. I just think that blanket subersive/not subversive decisions made for the "good of women" and "feminism" are broad and universalising. And acts/entertainment/fantasy are very very different things - completely linked, but the distinction is still there.


Numbah 2.

Nohope says:

<i>There seems to be this view that women in the west are FREE… that they are on the other side of the liberation struggle and that they have won and that Feminism is not primarily about liberating women, but rather in protecting their liberated statues… </i> (yay-uh!)

hmmm, are you getting at the problematic Opressed Third World woman vs. Liberated Western Woman thing goin' on?

THANK YOU Snafooey for the SASHA linkage. Good stuff. There is so much victimization of the "poor asian sex worker" that contributes this very monolithic Third World Woman archetype; all that stuff about saving the "developing" countries...bah. I find it interesting that "The asian sex industry" tends to be a nice little outlet for us to point fingers at how badly the Third World treats its women (they have to do THAT for work?? What a country!) Anybody read Transnational America? (Inderpal Grewal) Quite an interesting chapter on the human rights as women's rights discourse within various NGOs and the UN.

ok back to real thread.

[battygurl]

Thanks anarch! I feel guilty about busting in here all ms.know.it.all without references to back up what I said.

[lucizoe]

Oooh, nifty! Thanks anarch!

[anarch]

battygurl, I would really like to see some documentation or sources regarding the state of marriage changing in the fifties.

I'm late to the party but lucizoe and battygurl, a great source re changing concepts of marriage is the historian Stephanie Coontz, if you haven't already read her stuff. She dates ideas of middle-class male-breadwinner "traditional marriage" as beginning in the Industrial Revolution and becoming most idealized in the 1950s. Also talks about marriage shifting from being an almost exclusively economic contract to the radical notion that it should be based on love. The linked article is too short to get into the 1950s and the shift from economics to love, but her fantastic book Marriage, A History does. I can't recommend the book highly enough. Great read.

Thanks all for the discussion. I'm learning lots.

[greenbean]

Heres the local peepshow I sometimes frequent:
http://lustyladysf.com/history/index.html
Its the only unionized/dancer-owned strip joint (in the world apparently, yeesh)
Maybe more places should be this way, huh?

[katiebelle2882]

wow girlwithasecret, thank you for all the info. still absorbing! i love to hear about all the amazing busties who have seen and done so much with their lives. really for me, its just such an education that i feel i really couldnt get anywhere else.

[girlwithasecret]

To answer the question of who makes the profits, it depends on the "profession".

By far porn companies do speaking from experience. They are the distributer and therefore hold the (in most cases) exclusive rights to the film/photos. They want the most from the women and pay the least. Web porn (not to be made into video, yes there is a difference) pays starting at $100 per scene and goes up to $15,000+ depending on the actress and what she is willing to do etc etc. Girls are in most cases responsible for their makeup, hair clothes etc unless it's a big company. The company stands to make $5+ per dvd or viewing if it's web based.

Stripping, varies upon place and the by-laws of where you are located. I worked in Toronto (that is the only place I've worked for that matter) and was paid $10 for each "dance" a dance by the way no matter what song is always less than 3 1/2 min long, that's why there's a dj. I was nude and there was no contact / touching me or you get the end of my heel in your crotch and a bouncer to finish the job off. When you strip you pay a "fee" for working there and having a locker, "it's percent of" eventually I just paid a straight ammount. You also tip the dj, the bartender and the bouncer. All told I paid out on average $80 and pocketed $300-500 a night and my shift was from 4pm'ish -2:30 am. I was responsible for the money I took in so if some crazy chick "took" my money it was still my responsibility. Also just to mention most places (in Canada) will fine you if you don't show up for work, leave early or to "see people" or come in drunk and high. I've seen places blacklist girls for "behavior". Everybody talks in that industry and nice bars don't want the hassel. Costs incured include: "upkeep" of your apperance (I have never spent so much on self tanner, hair spray and foundation in my life), transport and clothing (those shoes aren't cheap!).

As an escort you fee is your call if you work independantly. The worse was working "outcalls" the Madame (for the most part I have only worked for women) made the prices and you made part. I only worked for one outcall agencey and the more I knew her the got greedier she got! Average pay was $90 per "service" (straight sex) plus tips and whatever else you charged for extras. Costs incurred "working for someone" again your apperance, safe sex protection and whatever goodies you carried around in your bag. As the madame, you have to pay for your ads in the phone book (full page in the yellow book is $3000) plus the papers and the websites, buisness cards, multiple phone lines, receptionist and the driver makes their fee off each call he drops a girl off at.

Working "incalls" as an escort was/is in my opinion the safest - creeps won't fuck around in a public place not of their own turf. Incalls are usually in an apartment building or a hotel (I won't stay at a Quality-inn again) to avoid the legalities of being caught running a "brothel" agencies have a girl in each apartment so it looks like the guy is comming to visit her, plus more private. I did incalls independantly for 2mths and found it to be too sketchy, men will try anything if they think you work on your own. When you work for an agency you tell them the days you are available and they fit you into the schedule (most are open 9am-11pm so 2 shifts and 7 days a week) what you work is really your choice I guess. You also have alot of regular clients, mainly blue or white collar men. The agency pays for the apartment, the ads (same as above), receptionist, cleaning and some bitches charge a room fee/cleaning fee. Also they have to bribe the landlord /hotel desk, anonomoty (is that a word?) isn't free. The girls made about 70% usually again it depends on where you work I suppose, plus you make tips and can charge for extras. I also ran one of the agancies I worked at for a summer, being in those shoes i saw exactly what came in and out $ wise and I can't say that the person who owns the agency makes all that much from my perspective. The good placse don't hire girls who do drugs, have pimps or are "foreign". You also can refuse clients for a whole list of reasons, god knows I did on a regular basis!

I haven't worked as a masseuse but know girls who have, rub'n'tugs charge for the "massage" the girl makes her money from her show and what she will do, anywhere from $10-whatever. This job by the way has the most "sex-slaves" alot of those places are run by men who also "supply" their own girls mostly from Eastern Europe or Asia.

Street prostitution is something I know little of except the few girls I met as an outcall escort. I hate saying this but they are usually (98%) the ones with the major drug problems and have pimps. Alot are runaways and many start in the sex industry underage. My heart breaks just typing about these girls. They have the least protection (physically and sexually) and are often so desperate.

**please note what I've written is based on my experience in Toronto and what I have been told by other women whom I've worked with over the span of a few years. Also the major cities cosmo areas charge more and can be pickier because there is a certain degree of competiton amungst themselves, in smaller towns and the US I don't even have a clue!

ps- puff puff pass, I hope I didn't make too many gramarical errors, long day at straight job!

[katiebelle2882]

Ha puff puff pass-share the love maddy:)


it made sense, i dont think it can be a straightforward answer. if people are independent, then they themselves profit. if they have a pimp the pimip profits. if they make porn, their is a whole string of people but i would assume the distribution and production company profits the most. if its in a brothel, the madame profits.


hard to say and i guess it depends on the work.

[maddy29]

ok, i was just thinking about who profits from porn/sex work/whatever you want to call it. Like, follow the money up. Sex workers/strippers/etc are making money, but who is above them? is there always someone up in the hierarchy that's making money off of your body, too? or usually?

i'm thinking the whole spectrum, who is really making money off of this? not just who likes it or who consumes it, and not just who provides it, but who profits from it and makes it all happen?

i'm a bit stoned right now so i hope that made some kinda sense.

[greenbean]

I was a swimmer too, katie, and everyone at the pool, guys and girls, shaved their nether-regions. Some boys even shaved their legs and arms. I still shave because the habit stuck and I feel uncomfortable when my bush grows out. I dont do it for boys, honestly it just feels 'right' to me. Like trimming my fingernails.

But, yeah, I totally agree that hardcore porn must not be seen by kids. I remember watching softcore as young as ten, and I dont think it had a bad affect on me,..but hardcore would have really been traumatizing.

Zahia: "it really does disturb me that at the same time this country is cutting back on sex education drastically, its also allowing this other stuff to pretty much flourish. I think that sends an extremely contradictory message."

I coudnt agree more! Sex education (or as the call it in Kansas, "abstinance plus") is vital in shaping kids perception of sex. Otherwise, if their parents dont teach them, all they have to go on is what they see in porn.

[katiebelle2882]

good point maddy, however, most women i know just like it better that way. including myself. its just neater. i mean, in my own personal experience (which of course is nowhere near necessarily what happens to everyone) no guy every expressed a problem when i didnt shave it all, i made the choice bc i just dont like a jungle down there. by no means do i keep up on it so its not always perfect.


i wont rule out being socialized to like it better this way, bc i agree with you that sometimes we do things without even realizing why we do them, however, no guy every mentioned it to me, so who knows.

i meant women i personally know around my age. i mean, i dont know how old you are, but i do know that most girls i know who are my age either shave or trim or something along those lines. perhaps its a generational thing, a trend thing, i dont know. most of them do it for the same reasons i do, bc its neater, esp when you have your period.

i was also a swimmer right thru college so i couldnt let hair be everywhere.

i am not sure its porn though that gets this message to boys. i think its just the general societal view on grooming. i mean, to me its no different then having hairy armpits, which clearly is a message not conveyed through porn but through society and advertising in general.

[maddy29]

word pepper. katie- why DO women shave their crotches? when did that start being a trendy, expected thing?

[pepper]

um, katie, you know me and I don't shave my crotch. but i Have been with boys who think any body hair whatsoever is absolutely vile and repulsive and have made no bones about trying to make me feel gross about my natural body, as though have any hair was totally unnatural and freakish. so i have to disagree that it isn't detrimental to young minds. body modification of any kind should be a personal choice and not considered the norm as far as i am concerned. my son will grow up thinking that choice and personal expression are the sexiest things if i have anything to do with it.

[katiebelle2882]

most women i know shave their crotches. i dont particularly think that is very detrimental to young boys. the violence at such a young age. the cum shots. the women being treated like meat. that most certainly is.


why are they getting this porn. the age is 18! thats what i want to know. enforcing existing laws could go a long way to get rid of this problem.

[maddy29]

zahia-that's what is so scary to me-that most guys i know were exposed to porn at a really young age. now, that's not so bad if it was just nekkid people and boobies, ya know? But when they are watching the degrading, violent stuff-and they don't have the context to know that this isn't real, isn't what sex is actually about, that they are acting, that that's not what real girls/women want, etc. it's SO influential to young horny minds and not just the violence, but the whole thing- the loud screaming orgasms, the shaved crotches, the fake boobs, etc.

the sad thing is, if we weren't so repressive about sex in the FIRST place, young people woulnd't have to turn to black market and possibly ickky stuff. i mean, why can't a 14 y.o. get off to some sexy images? but where do they get "nice" sexy images?

[katiebelle2882]

well, technically, its not so much that its widely available, but that the rules for obtaining it are not enforced. i mean, technically its 18, and establishments should be held to that far more than they are. also, with the internet, it becomes virtually impossible, bc all they do is have a little button on which you click to "promise" you are 18. i mean come on.