"Sex Work" and Double Standards
I have a clear opinion on prostitution. Whenever I express this, I am asked why I am even expressing an opinion on it - as a man who has never had anything to do with the milieu personally, I am not affected. But my criticism is directed at a system in which we all live and which affects us all. A system in which consent is negotiable and which is based on the exploitation of the most vulnerable groups.
by Imp.
by Imp.
First of all, I would like to make it clear that I do not in any way want to condemn women in prostitution. They are a logical part of the unjust system that I am concerned with. They are "just doing their job" - but it is not a job like any other. It is bad enough that we as a society try so hard to portray it that way.
For what other "normal job" are there exit programs? In what other job is there such a high rate of poor, traumatized and disenfranchised workers - and such a clear gender ratio?
If it were simply a "completely normal" service, like a massage or a visit to the hairdresser, why then make demands on the gender, age, phenotype of the service provider? The most romanticized term I heard for it this year was "full service sex work". If I were a client, I would want it to be called that too.
You treat yourself to a "service". It sounds completely harmless, like going to a car wash. But here you are not ordering a service, but the power to dispose of another person's body - in full awareness that you only give consent to sexual acts through the previously agreed financial transaction.
At the same time, you hear complaints about stigmatizing terms such as "whore". However, the practice, the system behind it, remains uncriticized. Renaming it a euphemistic term takes the place of actually improving real conditions. Language will somehow create reality. Anyone who believes that the ethical concerns about prostitution will simply disappear if you rename it and ask the clients to be a bit more respectful will certainly also believe in the trickle-down effect or that women will suddenly occupy all management positions if you just call them "employers" often enough.
It is certainly no coincidence that difficult CVs are more common in the field of prostitution. Traumatized women, women from poverty, refugee women without a passport or residence permit, who have no social network here and often don't even speak German.
In public discourse, we hear predominantly uncritical voices. Individual examples are given of women who say that they enjoy their job as high-class escorts, dominatrixes or on internet platforms such as OnlyFans. Their experiences are just as often covered by the umbrella term "sex work" as those of those who are exploited every day in brothels or on more or less remote country roads in the middle of Germany under inhumane conditions. The legend of the "happy hooker" is the legitimizing voice of those affected. As if you could compare street prostitution with occasionally selling a self-taken foot photo on Onlyfans for good money.
But even if you want to believe the legend: In the reports that you find on TV and the Internet on the subject, even "high-class escorts" often report on aggressive clients who are under the influence of drugs, on experiences of violence, on dangerous and even life-threatening situations.
How can a leftist dream of a "fair society" that assumes that a certain percentage is systematically exploited and mistreated industrially?
Again and again, we leftists - rightly - hold up the social progress in the world of work that we have fought for - that bosses are no longer allowed to beat their workers or put their lives in danger, that they get enough free time and vacation. But what about jobs that clearly include prostitution, where occupational safety can practically not be guaranteed? How can that be okay? Why is a solution like "the prostitute has an alarm button next to her bed" considered adequate?
Or the so-called "Cologne model", in which clients drive the prostitutes in a small box, a kind of battery cage that serves no other function than to enable the woman to escape if necessary, to shorten the escape route - is that our understanding of "protection of vulnerable groups"? I really don't understand how people describe themselves as left-wing or even woke, which they translate as "vigilant for discrimination", and at the same time have such a big blind spot here.
You can demand that people speak differently, eat differently, not smoke in public places, ban certain parties, etc. But the demand that rape for money no longer takes place goes too far?
I grant every person their sexual fulfillment in any form, as long as all participants are of legal age and consent. However, if the desire for this turns into an industry, I see some potential for ethical conflict here.
Of course, the fairy tale of commercialized sexual self-determination sells well. Women enjoy sex too. ProstitutesProstitutes turn their hobby into a career, they can choose their clients and have the right to refuse. But what happens when money runs out? A single mother in her early twenties can't just stop buying food for her child. If you're about to be evicted, you can't just pay the rent later and if you're addicted, you can't just stay clean for a month to get your bank account back in balance. This illusion of voluntariness ignores undeniable practical constraints in a neoliberal, globalized capitalist world.
The umbrella term "sex work" includes women who work in prostitution as well as the pimps who bully them. I have a general problem with the industrial exploitation of other people and I won't be convinced otherwise when pimps in lobby groups talk about self-determination and above-average working conditions. Unfortunately, such opinions dominate public discourse in our "sex-positive" society. One inevitably remembers the neoliberal narrative that homeless people have chosen their own fate - or that the meat industry is interested in animal welfare. The fact that profiteers - and victims - of the system are promoting it to us in the best marketing manner should not convince us.
How can you simultaneously chant "No means no!" but then degrade the "no" to a paywall? There is a reason why rapists are socially ostracized in the same way as murderers, so why does that change as soon as they put fifty bucks on the table? Consensus cannot be a negotiable good as long as neoliberal interests determine the economy. Voluntariness cannot be guaranteed under our social conditions.
In many other matters, we have reached a social agreement that, at least in this country, certain things are a thing of the past. We were able to overcome slavery and colonialism, for which similar arguments were made at the time, so why not this type of exploitation too? "This has always been the case, there is nothing we can do except improve the conditions" is a maximally conservative justification for a demand that can only at first glance contribute to a more self-determined society.
Due, among other things, to German laws in this area, which seek to portray prostitution as a "normal business", we are Europe's top destination country for human trafficking and forced prostitution. That must change.
01/31/25
Imp is a YouTuber and Twitch streamer.
For what other "normal job" are there exit programs? In what other job is there such a high rate of poor, traumatized and disenfranchised workers - and such a clear gender ratio?
If it were simply a "completely normal" service, like a massage or a visit to the hairdresser, why then make demands on the gender, age, phenotype of the service provider? The most romanticized term I heard for it this year was "full service sex work". If I were a client, I would want it to be called that too.
You treat yourself to a "service". It sounds completely harmless, like going to a car wash. But here you are not ordering a service, but the power to dispose of another person's body - in full awareness that you only give consent to sexual acts through the previously agreed financial transaction.
At the same time, you hear complaints about stigmatizing terms such as "whore". However, the practice, the system behind it, remains uncriticized. Renaming it a euphemistic term takes the place of actually improving real conditions. Language will somehow create reality. Anyone who believes that the ethical concerns about prostitution will simply disappear if you rename it and ask the clients to be a bit more respectful will certainly also believe in the trickle-down effect or that women will suddenly occupy all management positions if you just call them "employers" often enough.
It is certainly no coincidence that difficult CVs are more common in the field of prostitution. Traumatized women, women from poverty, refugee women without a passport or residence permit, who have no social network here and often don't even speak German.
In public discourse, we hear predominantly uncritical voices. Individual examples are given of women who say that they enjoy their job as high-class escorts, dominatrixes or on internet platforms such as OnlyFans. Their experiences are just as often covered by the umbrella term "sex work" as those of those who are exploited every day in brothels or on more or less remote country roads in the middle of Germany under inhumane conditions. The legend of the "happy hooker" is the legitimizing voice of those affected. As if you could compare street prostitution with occasionally selling a self-taken foot photo on Onlyfans for good money.
But even if you want to believe the legend: In the reports that you find on TV and the Internet on the subject, even "high-class escorts" often report on aggressive clients who are under the influence of drugs, on experiences of violence, on dangerous and even life-threatening situations.
How can a leftist dream of a "fair society" that assumes that a certain percentage is systematically exploited and mistreated industrially?
Again and again, we leftists - rightly - hold up the social progress in the world of work that we have fought for - that bosses are no longer allowed to beat their workers or put their lives in danger, that they get enough free time and vacation. But what about jobs that clearly include prostitution, where occupational safety can practically not be guaranteed? How can that be okay? Why is a solution like "the prostitute has an alarm button next to her bed" considered adequate?
Or the so-called "Cologne model", in which clients drive the prostitutes in a small box, a kind of battery cage that serves no other function than to enable the woman to escape if necessary, to shorten the escape route - is that our understanding of "protection of vulnerable groups"? I really don't understand how people describe themselves as left-wing or even woke, which they translate as "vigilant for discrimination", and at the same time have such a big blind spot here.
You can demand that people speak differently, eat differently, not smoke in public places, ban certain parties, etc. But the demand that rape for money no longer takes place goes too far?
I grant every person their sexual fulfillment in any form, as long as all participants are of legal age and consent. However, if the desire for this turns into an industry, I see some potential for ethical conflict here.
Of course, the fairy tale of commercialized sexual self-determination sells well. Women enjoy sex too. ProstitutesProstitutes turn their hobby into a career, they can choose their clients and have the right to refuse. But what happens when money runs out? A single mother in her early twenties can't just stop buying food for her child. If you're about to be evicted, you can't just pay the rent later and if you're addicted, you can't just stay clean for a month to get your bank account back in balance. This illusion of voluntariness ignores undeniable practical constraints in a neoliberal, globalized capitalist world.
The umbrella term "sex work" includes women who work in prostitution as well as the pimps who bully them. I have a general problem with the industrial exploitation of other people and I won't be convinced otherwise when pimps in lobby groups talk about self-determination and above-average working conditions. Unfortunately, such opinions dominate public discourse in our "sex-positive" society. One inevitably remembers the neoliberal narrative that homeless people have chosen their own fate - or that the meat industry is interested in animal welfare. The fact that profiteers - and victims - of the system are promoting it to us in the best marketing manner should not convince us.
How can you simultaneously chant "No means no!" but then degrade the "no" to a paywall? There is a reason why rapists are socially ostracized in the same way as murderers, so why does that change as soon as they put fifty bucks on the table? Consensus cannot be a negotiable good as long as neoliberal interests determine the economy. Voluntariness cannot be guaranteed under our social conditions.
In many other matters, we have reached a social agreement that, at least in this country, certain things are a thing of the past. We were able to overcome slavery and colonialism, for which similar arguments were made at the time, so why not this type of exploitation too? "This has always been the case, there is nothing we can do except improve the conditions" is a maximally conservative justification for a demand that can only at first glance contribute to a more self-determined society.
Due, among other things, to German laws in this area, which seek to portray prostitution as a "normal business", we are Europe's top destination country for human trafficking and forced prostitution. That must change.
01/31/25
Imp is a YouTuber and Twitch streamer.
Write a comment