Saturday, March 27, 2010

All sex is prostitution, all prostitution is oppression

Main

In the meantime I have read hundreds of book about prostitution. Quite naturally I came across the books of radical feminists who are staunchly against prostitution. One of the books I read was ‘The idea of prostitution’ written by Sheila Jeffreys in 1997. I find this book very special. I read it once years ago, and I somehow became addicted to it. Every once in a while I just grab the book and open a random page as many people do with the bible or the Quran. It is very hypnotizing, a piece of art. Everytime you discover something new.

I'm not negative about radical feminism, although I watch pornography and sometimes visit a prostitute or chat with a camgirl. Radical feminists are angry. They clearly show their shock when women are abused. People who support prostitution or pornography rarely seem to be shocked. Everything goes as long as a woman consents, no matter what kind of horror happens to her. Radical feminists seem very humane. I miss that anger in people who support the sex industry.

Sheila Jeffrey's book doesn’t contain much information about prostitution and prostitutes themselves, usually this information is related to some research about street prostitution. Unfortunately Sheila Jeffreys doesn't seem to approach prostitutes on her own, which she had ample time to do. Actually, the most fascinating thing about the book is how she describes sexuality. She tells about things in her book where I never thought about. All in all, what it boils down to, is that there is nothing natural about sexuality. Although it seems to be in the animal kingdom, the influence of culture in human beings is too big to call it natural in human beings. So for instance, in Jeffrey’s opinion, prostitution can never be called ‘just sex’ this way. Jeffreys cites Kate Millett who wrote in her book Sexual Politics in 1972: “Coitus can scarcely be said to take place in a vacuum; although of itself it appears a biological and physical activity, it is set so deeply within the larger context of human affairs that is serves as a charged microcosm of the variety of attitudes and values to which culture subscribes. Among other things, it may serve as a model of sexual politics on an individual and personal plane.”

What Sheila Jeffreys basically tells is that sexuality is a way for men to subjugate and gain power over women. There is a massive propaganda campaign going on to send messages out how people should have sex. She is especially critical of sexology. She refers (on page 37) to Thomas Szasz according to which the science of sexology is simply a branch of the sex industry which gives the imprimatur of science to the practices of the industry. And according to Stephen Marcus sexology incorporates the values and methods of pornography. She says (on page 228) that:
It is in the act of intercourse that women’s subjugation to man must be clearly established. Women’s failure to make obeisance to male power in the act is interpreted as resistance. (…) In my books The Spinster and Her Enemies and Anticlimax, I showed the great political significance accorded to the act of sexual intercourse in the works of sexologists throughout the twentieth century. Sexologists from Havelock Ellis to Alex Comfort have been concerned that sexual intercourse should take place in the correct male-dominant form, and with sufficient frequency to ensure the efficient reproduction of male dominance in the marital relationship. But they were concerned with the construction of sexual pleasure too. The woman, in sexual intercourse, must not just be penetrated, but be swept away in a delicious submission to the will of her master and mate. The experience of female orgasm was supposed to signify and effect the woman’s subjection. For this reason sexologists remained in a high state of anxiety for decades about women’s resistance in celibacy, lesbianism, frigidity, lack of enthusiasm, for such women remained unconquered.
With horror Jeffreys quotes the sexologist August Forel on page 199:
Her smaller stature and strength, together with her passive role in coitus, explain why she aspires to a strong male support. This is simply a question of natural phylogenetic adaption. This is why a young girl sighs for a courageous, strong and enterprising man, who is superior to her, whom she is obliged to respect, and in whose arms she feels secure. (from The sexual Question: A scientific, Psychological, Hygienic and Sociological Study, 1910)
Another interesting quote from pages 262-263:
Women are not free and equal individuals in making marriage or relationship contracts or in giving consent (Jeffeys, 1993). The force which has operated on them all their lives and continues to operate on them all their lives and continues to operate on them within marriages and relationships remains largely invisible. This force consists partly of economic constraints. In the survey of male sexuality by Shere Hite (1981[,the Hite report on male sexuality]), men share their strategies for forcing an unwilling woman to submit to sexual intercourse, one of which was economic blackmail. The coercion consists of simple bad temper as well as physical violence, and all those forces which have worked upon a girl and woman in her life to persuade her that she must be attached to a man to have value and that she has little right to bodily integrity. Such forces include the massive industry of sexology, sex therapy, sex advice literature, all of which make women feel guilty and inadequate for unwillingness to fulfil a man’s sexual desires. They include sexual abuse in childhood, which can train girls to have a concept of self-worth based simply on the sexual use of their bodies, and harassment on the street and at work. They include subtler forms of harassment in the family and at school, which simply make a girl feel less important than a male. How else, apart from the use of force, are we to understand why a whole class of people, women, allow access to their bodies which can be undesired, painful, even humiliating, on a routine basis, often with no consciousness that it would be reasonable or possible to resist.
Nicola Gavey’s research in New Zealand was based on interviews with women who are “articulate, educated, middle class” about what several saw as “very ordinary” experiences of sex with men. Her work shows these kinds of pressures in operation and demonstrates that these women find it hard to resist unwanted sex. One woman explained the controlling power of anger: “Things like actually being called a fucking bitch and having the door slammed. And trying always to explain that it didn’t mean that I didn’t care because I didn’t want to have sex, but never ever succeeding” (Gavey, 1993, p. 109[Technologies and Effects of Heterosexual Coercion. In Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1993), Heterosexuality: A Feminist and Psychological Reader]). Another talks of giving in simply to get some sleep. The women describe a variety of pressures that made it impossible for them to say no. Gavey concludes from her interviews that women are “sometimes not aware of consent and non-consent as distinct choices” (ibid, p. 116). The sort of men who use women this way, it must be reasonable to surmise, are those who find it acceptable to use women in prostitution.
Sheila Jeffreys also quotes Catharine MacKinnon (page 233) who criticises pornography:
From the testimony of the pornography, what men want is: women bound, women battered, women tortured, women humiliated, women degraded and defiled, women killed. Or to be fair to the soft core, women sexually accessible, have-able, there for them, wanting to be taken and used, with a little light bondage. Each violation of women―rape, battery, prostitution, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment―is made sexuality, made sexy, fun, liberating of women’s true nature in the pornography (from towards a feminist Theory of the State, 1989).
She refers to Kate Millett (on page 249) whose understanding is that "the oppression of women, like other political systems, is held in place by force to include the wide variety of sexual violence that men enact against women. The act and the fear of rape, sexual abuse, sexual murder, sexual harassment, are seen to control women’s movements and behavior, even their clothings and ways of sitting and walking.”

All this is very interesting and it has made me think. Let’s take pornography again. I believe nowadays it is very difficult to defend pornography. Sheila Jeffreys and Catherine MacKinnon are absolutely right here. The world of prostitution is a vague world and I have difficulties to determine what happens in that world, but pornography is out in the open and it is clearly visible what happens in pornography. I you watch a random porn movie, what you will likely see is a guy with a big cock fucking a girl in her ass and then immediately fucking another girl in her mouth. This is called ass to mouth. Pornography nowadays is very degrading, almost violent. There are some porn films which are more friendly, but these are only a very small minority, the mainstream is filthy and degrading. I do regularly watch porn myself but I feel embarrassed about it. It is very hard to admit that I like watching women being sexually tortured and humiliated. It is interesting that for other men probably the same is true. Several polls indicate that basically all men who have access to the internet watch pornography, many daily. It tells me that essentially radical feminists are right, men like women being sexually degraded.

And then something else. During the last years you hear more and more often that most women and men shave their pubic hair. According to a poll among 2000 women (done around 2008) in the Netherlands done by Vrouwonline almost half of the women shave all their pubic hair, and another one third have a so-called landing strip. Only 4,9% don’t cut their pubic hair. This is confirmed by a dermatologist in Santa Monica California USA. "I do full body exams to check for skin cancer, and I can think of almost no female patients who come in with natural pubic hair. Either they have nothing left, or they have a small patch that is two inches by half an inch, but the trend is toward having it all gone." (Skin Deep, The revisited Birthday Suit, The New York Times, by Natasha Singer, September 1, 2005). This is also confirmed by the Dutch family doctor Sylvie Lo Fo Wong who says that below the age group 30-35 nobody has hair in their pubic area, neither male nor female (Niemand wil nog schaamhaar, AD, June 19th 2009). And according to the same source the Dutch gynaecologist Carina Hilders says she rarely sees any woman who has full pubic hair, even the older women.

That’s interesting. Because I wonder why women do that? I for instance don’t shave my pubic hair. Why should I? Nobody sees it!!!! There could be only one explanation in my opinion: women shave their vaginas to please their lovers. Women know their lovers like bald pussies because they know that their lovers often watch … pornography!!!!

It also tells how sexual our society is. That so many women go through such great lengths to every couple of days entirely shave themselves just for the sexual pleasure of their lovers. And that with all the risks attached to shaving your pubic hair, like inflammations and wounds. It is interesting to notice that on discussion forums women don’t say that they do it for sexual reasons. Actually many tell they do it for hygienic reasons. Possibly the shame and humiliation is too big. Also interesting is that women generally dislike pornography, finding it degrading. It must be really difficult for them to watch their sisters being molested on film and then performing the same degrading acts on their boyfriends. It also tells how big the influence of pornography is. Probably, the only sex education many people around the world get is from pornography. The same violent pornography which is discussed above. So Sheila Jeffreys is right on another point, sexuality is a form of violence to subjugate women. Pornography is a tool of propaganda which men and women swallow whole.

Also funny is that women haven't developed their own pornography, they always seem to walk two steps behind men, eventually following them in every way. Women's sexuality is just a vague mirror-image of men's sexuality. Perhaps August Forel is right after all.

So that leads to the following conclusions regarding this website. I’m incapable of finding a girlfriend, so sex is unavailable to me in the regular way, but prostitution was open for me. I noticed that many prostitutes are coerced to do this work so I tried to find voluntary prostitutes that I could have sex with and ways to separate the forced from the voluntary prostitutes. I discovered slowly that this is an impossible task: such a distinction is impossible to make. Basically all prostitution is more or less forced, either way by a pimp or by financial problems. Now for the following, if sex in general is a form of oppression of women, what if I really at one point would find a woman who wants to be my lover????

Then sex really becomes a big problem with the new understanding that I have of sexuality. If I would see my girlfriend naked and also her shaved pussy I would probably tell her that she should stop internally oppress herself and allow her pubic hair to grow back. If she would touch my genitals I would tell her that she shouldn’t be afraid that I find her a big tart if she doesn’t want to have sex with me or perform certain sex acts and that she shouldn’t feel obliged to do anything, and that I’m okay with it. It probably leads to a situation with a flabbergasted girlfriend and no sex.

But actually, how do you have sex with a girl without offending her? Perhaps that you want to fuck her doggystyle and she hates it but goes along with it because she doesn’t want to lose you. Perhaps that you grab her breasts and she feels offended. Or you ask her to show her ass and she complies but internally she hates it to be treated like an object. Another point: what about penis-into-vagina penetrative sex? What I hear and read a lot is that women have few nerve endings inside their vaginas. Only through direct clitoral stimulation can women be sexually stimulated. That basically means that if you fuck a girl in her vagina she probably feels very little. She probably moans and says like: ‘oh go on, don’t stop’, but that is only acting. That means from a male point of view fucking a girl is basically a solo-act, masturbating inside another person’s body. From a female point of view being fucked is basically only just to please him.

So what it boils down to: when you have sex with your girlfriend you probably experience many of the same ethical problems when you have sex with a prostitute. It is all the same: prostitution is bad, pornography is bad, sex is bad. Poor women.

I like to exaggerate here (I'm not a terribly good writer anyway), but perhaps as an end-conclusion: perhaps that sex is really fundamentally about degrading and being degraded. Perhaps that men naturally like to degrade women and perhaps that even women naturally like to be degraded. Take for instance a fascinating article from Psychology Today called Flirting Fascination (from 1999). I'll quote from the text, and I will emphasize where needed:
Flirtation first emerged as a subject of serious scrutiny a scant 30 years ago. Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, now honorary director of the Ludwig-Bohzmann Institute for Urban Ethology in Vienna, was already familiar with the widespread dances and prances of mate-seeking animals. Then he discovered that people in dozens of cultures, from the South Sea islands to the Far East, Western Europe, Africa and South America, similarly engage in a fairly fixed repertoire of gestures to test sexual availability and interest.

Having devised a special camera that allowed him to point the lens in one direction while actually photographing in another, he "caught" couples on film during their flirtations, and discovered, for one thing, that women, from primitives who have no written language to those who read Cosmo and Marie Claire, use nonverbal signals that are startlingly alike. On Eibl-Eibesfeldt's screen flickered identical flirtation messages: a female smiling at a male, then arching her brows to make her eyes wide, quickly lowering her lids and, tucking her chin slightly down and coyly to the side, averting her gaze, followed within seconds, almost on cue, by putting her hands on or near her mouth and giggling.

Regardless of language, socioeconomic status or religious upbringing, couples who continued flirting placed a palm up on the table or knees, reassuring the prospective partner of harmlessness. They shrugged their shoulders, signifying helplessness. Women exaggeratedly extended their neck, a sign of vulnerability and submissiveness.

For Eibl-Eibesfeldt, these gestures represented primal behaviors driven by the old parts of our brain's evolutionary memory. A woman presenting her extended neck to a man she wants is not much different, his work suggested, than a gray female wolf's submissiveness to a dominant male she's after.

Since then, researchers have turned up the intensity, looking, for example, at compressed bouts of flirting and courtship in their natural habitat-hotel bars and cocktail lounges. From observations at a Hyatt hotel cocktail lounge, researchers documented a set of signals that whisks a just-met man and woman from barroom to bedroom. Her giggles and soft laughs were followed by hair twirling and head-tossing; he countered with body arching, leaning back in the chair and placing his arms behind head, not unlike a pigeon puffing his chest.

If all went well, a couple would invariably progress from touching themselves to touching each other. The first tentative contacts could be termed "lint-picking." She would lift an imaginary mote from his lapel; he would brush a real or imaginary crumb from her lips. Their heads moved closer, their hands pressed out in front of them on the table, their fingers inches from each other's, playing with salt shakers or utensils. Whoops! An "accidental" finger touch, then perhaps some digital "dirty dancing," more touching and leaning in cheek to cheek. By body language alone, the investigators could predict which pairs would ride up the elevators together.

Social psychologist Timothy Perper, Ph.D., an independent scholar and writer based in Philadelphia, and anthropologist David Givens, Ph.D., spent months in dimly lit lounges documenting these flirtation rituals. Like the ear wiggles, nose flicks and back arches that signal "come hither" in rodents, the women smiled, gazed, swayed, giggled, licked their lips, and aided and abetted by the wearing of high heels, they swayed their backs, forcing their buttocks to tilt out and up and their chests to thrust forward.

The men arched, stretched, swiveled, and made grand gestures of whipping out lighters and lighting up cigarettes. They'd point their chins in the air with a cigarette dangling in their mouth, then loop their arms in a wide arc to put the lighter away. Their swaggers, bursts of laughter and grandiose gestures were an urban pantomime of the prancing and preening indulged in by male baboons and gorillas in the wild. Man or monkey, the signals all said, "Look at me, trust me, I'm powerful, but I won't hurt you." And "I don't want anything much... yet."

All the silent swaying, leaning, smiling, bobbing and gazing eventually brought a pair into full frontal alignment. Face to face, they indulged in simultaneous touching of everything from eyeglasses to fingertips to crossed legs. Says Perper, "This kind of sequence-attention, recognition, dancing, synchronization-is fundamental to courtship. From the Song of Songs until today, the sequence is the same: look, talk, touch, kiss, do the deed."

The fact that flirting is a largely nonexplicit drama doesn't mean that important information isn't being delivered in those silent signals. By swaying her hips, or emphasizing them in a form-fitting dress, a flirtatious woman is riveting attention on her pelvis, suggesting its ample capacity for bearing a child. By arching her brows and exaggerating her gaze, her eyes appear large in her face, the way a child's eyes do, advertising, along with giggles, her youth and "submissiveness." By drawing her tongue along her lips, she compels attention to what many biologists believe are facial echoes of vaginal lips, transmitting sexual maturity and her interest in sex. By coyly averting her gaze and playing "hard to get," she communicates her unwillingness to give sex to just anyone or to someone who will love her and leave her.

For his part, by extending a strong chin and jaw, expanding and showing off pectoral muscles and a hairy chest, flashing money, laughing loudly or resonantly, smiling, and doing all these things without accosting a woman, a man signals his ability to protect offspring, his resources and the testosterone-driven vitality of his sperm as well as the tamer side of him that is willing to stick around, after the sex, for fatherhood. It's the behavioral equivalent of "I'll respect you in the morning."
So, perhaps that the sexologists are right after all. Romantic relationships, sex, flirting are all part of domination and submission. Perhaps in this light pornography and prostitution are not strange after all. Perhaps it is natural to assume that men want to signify their domination this way. In that sense, prostitution and pornography are very normal. And indeed there is no difference between fucking your girlfriend or a Romanian debt-bonded coke-addicted prostitute (okay, that was very rude to say, but I'm still very cynical). Radical feminists say that when men visit prostitutes the biggest sexual thrill for them lies in the power that they get when they choose the woman from a line-up. That is absolutely true in my experience, I know that first hand because I visit(ed) prostitutes myself and also chat with camgirls. But, you can't say that prostitution differs this way from non-paid sex. After all, as it has turned out, non-paid sexual relationships are all about power and dominance too!!!

So prostitution, pornography and sex are in a way natural. But not all what is natural is automatically good. Infanticide is natural among gorillas and lions, but that doesn't mean we as human beings should support it.

I feel sorry to say this, because if sex is really all about domination and submission that leads to only one conclusion to me:

MEN AROUND THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!

DO NOT HAVE SEX!!!!!

IT IS ABUSE!!!!!


What a great luck for me that I can't find a girlfriend! For now, I should focus on not visiting sex sites and stopping with masturbating myself.

PS: I took the effort of actually buying and reading the books by field-researchers David Givens ('Love Signals - A Practical Field Guide to the Body Language of Courtship ', 2004) and Timothy Perper ('Sex Signals - The biology of love', 1986). To be honest, about the ideas mentioned in the article quoted above about dominant males and submissive women, I couldn't find them in the books by Perper and Givens. After reading 'Love Signals' I must conclude that both men and women tend to be submissive during courtship. Dominant behaviour could be counterproductive because it could scare people away. And after reading 'Sex Signals' I must conclude that women take the initiative during courtship most of the time. That is a surprise to me because I always thought that women simply waited for a guy to come along, because men are less critical (that's my experience on dating-sites where I both acted as a man and as a woman, I can conclude that you must send 40 messages to women before one responds, while you don't even need a profile as a woman before a man seeks contact!!). On the other hand (I couldn't derive this from the books), it could be that women tend to seek contact with a small group of lucky bastards (the alpha-males), and that the large majority of men are forced to take the initiative first and face dozends of rejections. (So regarding the dating sites, it could be that women seek contact with men most of the time, but they only send messages to a small group of very attractive men, not men like me. And the men send messages more evenly distributed.)

Friday, March 12, 2010

Unsafe sex

Main

The Belgian researchers (Stef Adriaenssens and Jef Hendrickx of the Hogeschool/Universiteit of Brussels) discovered that lots of prostitutes in the Netherlands and Belgium provide unsafe sex.

Sources:
'Eén op de drie prostituees speelt met vuur' - Hoerenlopers betalen graag meer voor hoger risico (De standaard online, Steven Crombez, March 6th 2010)

The report can be downloaded over here (unfortunately, the link is dead):
SEX, PRICE AND PREFERENCES
Unsafe sexual practices in prostitution markets of the Low Countries
Stef Adriaenssens & Jef Hendrickx
HUB RESEARCH PAPER 2010/5
MAART 2010

Well we knew that already didn't we? They researched prostitutes by studying reviews on hookers.nl (like I did 2 years ago, really time consuming, and so nice that others joined my hobby, they actually analyzed 7451 reviews!!!!!). Approximately a third of the prostitutes provide unsafe sex, mainly oral sex without protection (coitus without protection doesn't happen that often, in 2% of the total number of visits. One in 10 of the anal contacts happens without protection). They also discovered that unsafe sex happens much more often in the upper segment of the prostitution industry. Also, the average amount of money paid for safe sex is 81 euro, and for unsafe sex it is 112 euro (that's 38% more). They also noticed (like I did) that older prostitutes offer unsafe sex much more often. A quarter offers unsafe sex in the age group below 25, that's almost half for 37+, and 60% for 50+. And there is a direct connection between the attractiveness of the prostitutes and the safety of their services. And prostitutes who offer oral sex without condom are rated 7% higher and prostitutes who offer coitus without condom are rated 5% higher.

What I wondered lately however, is oral sex without protection really that dangerous? A serious question, it is difficult to find reliable information about that. Rumours are that the largest risk having blowjobs without condom is that you'll contract herpes, and that's what basically everybody is infected with in the first place!!!! And to go further, I have read comments by prostitutes on forums who say that they suck without condom because they dislike the taste of condoms. Really silly. Also, one prostitute told me that it was said on a conference that oral sex without protection is as (un)harmful as French kissing. Only, I couldn't find which conference that was.

But my knowledge here is very limited so if anybody can comment over here!

I'm doing some googleing again and there is some very interesting information over here:
Is oral sex safe? - oral sex and STDs (by Elizabeth Boskey, retrieved from std.about.com, 2007?)
According to that article the biggest risk of unprotected oral sex seems to be syphilis:
Syphilis is extremely easy to transmit via oral sex. In fact, in some areas of the United States, oral sex has been shown to be responsible for as many as 15% of syphilis cases. Although syphilis can only be transmitted in the presence of symptoms, during the primary and secondary stages of the disease, the painless sores it causes are easy to miss.
The article mentions that you can also contract various other STD's this way (like chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV ....) but it is not so clear about the risks. The risks of HIV seems to be much smaller however than for unprotected vaginal and anal sex. HPV can be contracted and that can cause throat cancer in a later stage, but is the probability big? I have the idea that this is unknown.

Here is some information about kissing (what many prostitutes also do on their clients), also on the same website (about.com):
Kiss of Death...(Or Diseases) - Diseases Spread by Kissing (Ingrid Koo, February 6th 2009, retrieved from infectiousdiseases.about.com)
It seems that you can even get sick from that!!! (Cold sores [Herpes], Hepatites) But You won't contract HIV that way.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Nurse sex workers

Main

Perhaps beyond the scope of my blog but I found this/these news article(s) very interesting.

Hier trek ik mijn grens (March 12th 2010, Nu'91)
Studente zwicht niet voor seksbehoefte van patiënt (March 6th 2010, Eindhovens Dagblad)
Campagne tegen seks verplegend personeel (March 11th 2010, Trouw)
Ophef over seksuele handelingen in de thuiszorg (March 9th 2010, Nursing.nl)
Ophef over seks in de thuiszorg (March 6th 2010, Eindhovens Dagblad)
Behoren seksuele handelingen tot zorgtaak? (March 3th 2010, Nu'91)

(from here on no direct translations except when between quotation marks)

Nu-91 is a professional organization for nursing and care in the Netherlands and it started a campaign to better protect nurses and carers against sexual requests from clients. A 24-year old female student hbo-v got a request from a PGB-client (who could only move is eyes and mouth) to sexually satisfy him. The carers/nurses who accompanied the student indicated that they complied with such a request and saw it as a part of their care task. She actually witnessed that the man was masturbated. When she refused the request the man said that she was unfit for work in care. The shocked student reported her experiences to the police, the employment agency and at Nu'91.

Quote from student (Eindhovens Dagblad): 'The man was washed first and then to my big suprise the care provider started to masturbate him. I was told that this was normal and that all care providers did this. I didn't know at first how I had to deal with this and then I left. Two days later I came back because I wanted to know if things would run differently. There was a different care provider this day, but the same thing happened again. The man asked me what I thought of it and if I wanted to do it also. I have said that I didn't want to do it upon which he the man told me that I was unfit for nursing.'

Nu'91 states that "sexual acts can never be part of the task package of carers/nurses. The request in itself is already an insult for the professional care provider. It can be seen as pure sexual intimidation."

A spokersperson for Nu'91 said: "One nurse once told that some clients behave like a sort of loverboy [pimp]. That way she felt bad if she didn't fulfil the sexual request."

It is according to Nu'91 not the intention to deny the wants of patients and clients. "When staff members are being requested for sexual acts, they can also refer to specialized bureaus for that. The demand is no problem, but it shouldn't be the case that care personnel have to deal with it themselves."

The response of Per Saldo, an organization which defends the interests of PGB-patients, was that 'every client is free to ask what he or she wants. And the care provider is free to agree or not', upon which Nu'91 responded that this reaction was 'too crazy for words'.

This all makes me wonder, if requesting sexual acts from nurse is sexual intimidation, isn't the same true for prostitutes also? You don't ask a worker for sexual requests. It's bad, indecent, sexual intimidation in the workplace.

All this without defending the Swedish model of course. And without saying that working in prostitution is traumatizing and that clients should be criminalized, or so.......

(it seems that I've slipped back to another anti-prostitution phase again!!! This get really silly!!!!!! I'm totally schizophrenic.)

On the other hand, is the hbo-v student just prudish? Is the campaign by Nu'91 an overreaction? Am I prudish? (Actually, I see this story as an absolute sensation! Titillating..... Naughty.... I'm such a bad guy.)

To be honest, perhaps this story was just an incident. But a very interesting incident. Perhaps that in the far future we will move into a situation where there is no difference anymore between workers and sex workers. Perhaps that in every barber shop there will be rooms upstairs where you can retreat with the female hair dressers. And it will be very normal and acceptable.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Positive report

Main

Hi, a new report came out where 94 prostitutes in Amsterdam were interviewed. I'm very happy and excited about the new report, I still must read it so I can't wait (update: I read it), but I have made some furtive looks in it. The work was ordered by the political party Amsterdam Sociaal and carried out by students of the UvA (Universiteit van Amsterdam) (and shamefully unmentioned in the report) and you can download the report here:
De Amsterdamse Prostitutie Monitor

But anyway, the main conclusion is that forced prostitution in Amsterdam is largely exaggerated and that the large majority of prostitutes are working voluntarily in prostitution and can leave the work at any moment if they want to. And also, prostitutes are satisfied about about their clients, so I was very wrong to say that prostitutes don't like their work. All the massive amount of evidence about forced prostitution I gathered over the years (including my word-document with over 700 cases of forced prostitution I found in the media) can be presumably thrown in the dustbin. At this moment I think about what former victim of forced prostiution Anna Ziverte said when she did fieldwork (probably) for TAMPEP in Alkmaar in the late nineties, she said that forced prostitution was much larger than she could have ever imagined!!!! But that was more than 10 years ago, I admit. (A more recent example are the admissions of a hookers.nl-moderator who has visited lots of prostitutes, read my post about the moderator).

The reports which keep coming keep on contradicting each other, and it makes me wonder, if there really is nothing as a customer of prostitutes to worry about? The prostitutes are happy, like their jobs, like their clients, like the sex and like the money they earn. And we (the clients) don't have to worry about forced prostitution or that our sexual behaviour is in any way intimidating towards the women. We can just close our eyes, lie down and relax.

But just to make some minor objections about the report: It is very difficult to create a representative sample of prostitutes (the response rate is not indicated in the report), the probability is large that prostitutes who are actually forced to do this work don't admit that to the interviewers or even simply don't participate. Another objection is that some prostitutes give contradictory answers to certain questions. (On page 14) 93 of 94 say they work independently and don't hand over money to third persons except to family. (On page 15) 98% says they work voluntarily and then suddenly (on page 15), 9 out of 94 ........

......... admit they are being forced to do this work ..........

(and they don't mean forced by circumstances by the way)

I still have to fully read it (update: I read it), but I definitely hope I was totally wrong over the years!!! It is always good to solve a problem just by discovering there was never ever a problem in the first place (except for Saban and his gang).

PS: I have read further and it is striking that they haven't interviewed Latin American women, I think because they only did the interviews in Dutch or English. They interviewed mainly young Dutch and Eastern European women. These women don't seem to work particularly hard, and receive a surprisingly low number of clients per week (21,3% receive 10 clients per week or less, and 56,4% receive 20 clients per week or less, calculate: that's just 4 clients a day given a 5 day workweek .... only 2,1% receive more than 40 clients per week, half of the prostitutes don't work every day). This is in contrast with reports by the municipality (using information form the prostitution and health centre P&G292) which states that the prostitutes often work way too hard, sometimes more than 100 hours per week (see this link to the newspaper article in De Telegraaf, 'Amsterdamse prostituees werken veel te hard' February 11th, 2009). What's also interesting is that nearly all women state that they have no knowledge of women who are coerced to work in prostitution. I find this all very interesting. I would typify exactly these women (young and Dutch and working behind windows, plus young Eastern European women) as the typical kind of women who are coerced/forced/manipulated to work in prostitution! It is funny to see how these women react to questionaries.

But then again, perhaps that I was alllll wrong. It is always good to be honest. But I always fear the worst (I am a very frightened person).