(no subject)

[novapsyche]

There's a really interesting discussion about prostitution and pornography over in feminist. I haven't added to the conversation yet, but I probably will.

Comments

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I thought it was actually pretty balanced compared to some discussions of porn and prostitution I've seen in feminist circles. Almost all the women thought that sex work should be legal but regulated, and thought it wasn't inherently bad, just bad the way it's currently being done. I think that's a fairly reasonable, moderate, sex-positive approach.

You're seeing bitching from women who worked as strippers bitching about problems with the industry. You'd see similar bitching about working conditions in a customers_suck community on LJ, too.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

argh, one too many instances of "bitching" in that last paragraph. . .

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

I didn't keep track of who complained about what. I don't have any problem with legalization and regulation (and taxation) of sex work. That's a great idea. I don't, however, think that either the simple act of putting women in charge will magically make everything better OR that the act of regulating it SHOULD necessarily automatically mean women are put in charge of it. I am against "quotas" of whatever sort. If a woman qualifies for a sex-management job, and is a better candidate than anyone else regardless of gender, then she should get it; same for a man.

As a separate issue, I don't think the regulation *should* take the competition out of the job. You may be right that it was only ex-strippers/hookers complaining about that part; I'm not going to re-read it to check. But either way, competition is a part of almost any job, and saying it's the male-sexist pigs causing the competition is crap. Models compete for the best jobs by looking better than their competition. MALE models, too! It's a part of the job description that you have to be hot. For a stripper, that definition is extended to "you have to be sexy", and since sexy varies from person to person the stripper has to be willing to accomodate whatever definition her (or his) client follows, or else turn down the client. The things that male strippers do are often FAR more explicit than acts performed by female strippers. There are a lot of non-sexual jobs that pay really well that nobody likes, and yet do anyway just for the money. Complaining about it doesn't make the job "wrong" so much as just wrong for that specific person. And taking the competition out of the job doesn't even make sense.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I don't, however, think that either the simple act of putting women in charge will magically make everything better OR that the act of regulating it SHOULD necessarily automatically mean women are put in charge of it. I am against "quotas" of whatever sort.

I agree it's silly to think that putting women in charge would magically make the porn or stripping or prostitution biz more humane and woman-friendly. Women can be catty and competitive (Showgirls!). However, I DO think that having people who are ex-strippers running strip joints, and having ex-hookers running brothels, and having former porn stars making porn would put a different spin on things. It's not so much a gender issue as "I've been there and I know what it's like."

As a separate issue, I don't think the regulation *should* take the competition out of the job. You may be right that it was only ex-strippers/hookers complaining about that part; I'm not going to re-read it to check. But either way, competition is a part of almost any job, and saying it's the male-sexist pigs causing the competition is crap. [snip] For a stripper, that definition is extended to "you have to be sexy", and since sexy varies from person to person the stripper has to be willing to accomodate whatever definition her (or his) client follows, or else turn down the client.

While I get your point, some of the things they were complaining about were things like ramping up the competition to "take things further" with clients. If a woman signs up to be a stripper being told that she won't have to touch clients, and they dont' get to touch her, but there's an unspoken understanding that strippers who bend the rules get better time slots (not because they're sexier or better dancers, but because they're willing to let men push the line on touching, etc.), then that's problematic and could potentially lead to not feeling it's a safe place to work.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

I DO think that having people who are ex-strippers running strip joints, and having ex-hookers running brothels, and having former porn stars making porn would put a different spin on things. It's not so much a gender issue as "I've been there and I know what it's like."

I can buy that. That's probably true for most industries. I never liked the idea that a shop of programmers is run by someone with an MBA and exactly ZERO experience in the industry he's running. I've always thought that as small companies grow, the best of their employees should be trained in management and bumped to the top slots. In practice, it's mostly been a question of hiring an outsider with an MBA or bumping up from inside without management training, neither of which works well.

...some of the things they were complaining about were things like ramping up the competition to "take things further" with clients.

I have no problem with that aspect. Taking things further with clients is how one gets bigger tips. BUT!! Being bumped to crappier time slots because you DON'T do that is crap. A few simple changes could clear up that problem once and for all. Starting with having the house NOT take a cut of tips. That alone would make it irrelevant to the owner how much any given stripper makes. I don't really care if the stripper pays a stage fee or if the house pays a dance fee; that can all be taken care of with cover charge or drink charges, and has very little to do with the environment. So long as the stripper is free to choose who to dance for and how far to go WITHOUT the house taking any interest except in her safety (i.e. obvious bouncers, etc.) that particular sort of competition will only be for cash, not for time slot. The strippers would be free to choose which house to work for based on how far they're ALLOWED to go rather than how far they're expected to go. In addition, I think some sort of negotiation should take place between the stripper and client BEFORE the dance takes place. As things stand, there's a flat fee (usually $20-30) that never varies except in the tip. It'd be nice if the client could say "I expect X and Y, and will pay $Z" and the stripper could accept or decline. Or if the stripper could say "I do X and Y, and charge $Z" and let the client accept or decline. That way there are never any false assumptions, no dashed hopes or unexpected demands. I mean, honestly, the strippers are getting naked and wriggly, so what could possibly be embarrassing about setting the limits of that beforehand? It's not like they're shy, shrinking violets!