Sex In The Public Square - Comments

Enlightenment

Jill Di Donato — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:28:18 -0800

Thanks, Chris (and others). It's dialog like this that can help women (and men) arm ourselves against the language of perfection that's ubiquitous in our consumer-driven society. I wonder if men feel the pressure to be perfect as much as women. I surmise the answer is yes, but that they judge themselves and others using different criteria than women do.

fair minded or balanced representation

Chris OSullivan — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:38:34 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

A thing I've noticed on the news and on tv shows that claim to be balanced In representing issues is a really irritating tendancy to gather people for soundbites that are diametrically opposed. Extremists in many debates tend to be uninformative at best and are commonly scatological. News show after news show after special takes clips of extreme opposed viewpoints and claim some level of balanced coverage. Covering only extreme views and not covering either points of agreement or points close to the center of potential compromise dilutes the news into a useless pile of sensationalistic dung.

Unfortunately this sloppy model of coverage bleeds into academic and political arenas where it's not only useless but rather detrimental,

You might want to have a look at this

Iamcuriousblue — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:41:18 -0800

In reply to Sex Work and Civil Liberties: A Panel Discussion at Harvard Law School:

I hadn't seen this paper before, but it looks intriguing and I wanted to point others to it:

"Prostitution 2.0: The Changing Face of Sex Work" by Scott Cunningham & Todd D. Kendall

Its in a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" form, but looks worthwhile nevertheless. Basically, it reviews evidence that prostitution in devoloped countries is moving away from street prostitution and generally changing the character of prostitution.

The author's CV links to a number of intersting-sounding papers on sex work, porn, media effects, and other social questions from an economics point of view:

http://www.toddkendall.net/

Present state of the ACLU

Iamcuriousblue — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:49:18 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

Unforunately, the ACLU has really declined from the strong, unabashed defender of individual rights that they were in the 60s and 70s. There has been a move away from defending rights and forms of expression unpopular among the liberal base that it depends upon for funding. Hence, its general lack of intervention in campus speech wars of the 1990s, in recent obscenity cases, and a move away from advocacy of legal prostitution, among other things.

Wendy Kaminer details this in her book "Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU". Admittedly, much of her stance is derived from a bitter faction fight she had with Nadine Stroessen a few years back. Nevertheless, there has been a noticable move away from defending sexual speech and sexual freedom issues in recent years on the part of the ACLU. Unfortunately, it sounds like the atmosphere Elizabeth encountered at Harvard, or the Yes on K campaign dealt with in regard to the San Francisco ACLU is very much in keeping with that.

I certainly wouldn't advocate giving up on the ACLU, as they are still an important and powerful voice for civil liberties. But it might be worthwhile to "lobby" the ACLU in such a way as to win them back to their earlier support of sexual civil liberties. And also, try to build alternative civil liberties law groups with a focus on sexual liberties so the ACLU wouldn't be the only game in town.

Well intentioned or not...

Visitor — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:36:58 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

These panel discussions don't benefit workers. Besides they chose four presenters with widely differing viewpoints and they included one who made a mockery of accurate ethical scientific research. How serious could they have been really.

entrenchment

Chris OSullivan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:47:37 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

EUC

the implication of a lot of the comments and questions was that one either [thinks] there is a bad side to sex work or you think it should be decriminalized.

The truth is that there are bad sides to prostitution and it should be decriminalized.

Much about what is bad about prostitution stems from that it is illegal. What harm it does to women is tightly bound to the fact that the legal system is not engaged to protect and serve these citizens, it is engaged to ignore their need for help or harrass workers and their clients.

If in a governace capacity your desire is to help a section of society the first task is to find out from them what help they need. If your purpose is to generate an uptick in political popularity the first task is to identify a disenfranchized group and scapegoat them for those things that you have failed to address effectively and punish them.

Allies and Partners

Chris OSullivan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:16:47 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

Hi Maxine,

It was a shame that Prop K failed to pass, decriminalization seems to be much harder to accomplish than criminalization.

I'd like to point out that Elizabeth and SITPS consistently and outspokenly supports sex workers as their own advocates. She speaks out in academic settings because she works in an academic setting and she was asked to speak at Harvard due to her body of work done in collaboration with a wide variety folks including prostitutes.

I don't think that the outcome was inevitable. As far as I can tell from the west coast with only the information that I have available it could have been much worse.

The organizers of the panel discussion were very likely well intentioned, they chose four presenters with widely differing viewpoints to speak on a set of controversial topics that need sane discussion to dispel lies myths and stereotypes.

Unfortunately one of the panelists they chose is an academic professional that has made a mockery of accurate ethical scientific research. She throws out statistics based entirely on self-defined self-referential sophmoric papers that fly in the face of much more sound, peer reviewed studies.

Contrary to branding the ACLU is not a very unified group. That the San Francisco chapter chose to withold an endorsement on a good and ground breaking proposition is both unfortunate and serves to tarnish their reputation. The Harvard Law School chapter of the ACLU is a different group as the law school today is different from the school of government in 1998 at Harvard University.

While it might have been fun to heckle the opposing viewpoint in the struggle between freedom and persecution Elizabeth chose to enter the panel discussion armed with years of study, research and as much preparation as she could squeeze into the month that she had between being asked and showing up. Unlike Farley she did not seed the audience with allies armed with friendly questions. Unlike Farley Dr. Wood followed the rules as set forth by the moderator and conducted herself in a respectful and professional manner. I don't know that I could have held my composure under such adverse conditions.

Given the challenge of going on a panel with a known character assassin and smear campaigner Elizabeth could have chosen not to go, or could have lobbied for a less rigid structure, or could have peppered the audience with supporters, but she pulled through with her eyes open and learned a great deal about the strategies and tactics that some people use to derail open exchange in favor of propaganda and politicization. She reached a few of the audience members and performed brilliantly based upon firm scientific and anecdotal information despite a strategic and tactical blitz of misinformation and inappropriate questions.

For the audience members that were there with open but critical minds, ready to listen to an insightful discussion, I'm encouraged to hear that a few left wanting to learn more as a direct result of Elizabeth and Sam.

Thanks Maxine and keep up the good work,

Chris O'Sullivan

sex educator

off-topic

Visitor — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:57:09 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

Please excuse the digression, but I'm hoping to see some commentary on the BdJ thing happening in Britain. It raises a variety of issues, and I am hoping she'll become something of a public intellectual on those topics - though there's no sign of it at present. So some of your insight would be welcome. Any plans to write about it?

Ideal - no deal

Chris OSullivan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:58:49 -0800

In reply to Little Miss Perfect:

Thanks Jill,

Perfection in small doses is nice, but I find packaged so-called perfection bland and character free. Give me the rugged beauty of waveworn sea cliffs, knarled oak trees, a face that has seen the sun and a share of pain, eyes that assess for threat, humor or appeal. Keep your vacant stares, flawless skin stretched taunt over strengthless arms, fake lips, fake hair and fake thoughts.

Chris O'Sullivan

Don't overlook fundamental points of disagreement, however

Iamcuriousblue — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:54:18 -0800

In reply to Lessons Learned at Harvard Law School:

I think that while it might be important to look for points of agreement, I think too much can be made of that. If you read Melissa Farley's work, it becomes quite clear that she, like Catherine MacKinnon and other radical feminists, considers any form of sex for money to be a form of violence against women, and that payment for sex is by definition, a form of sexual coercion that should be harshly punished. Naturally, proponents of decriminalization or legalization don't agree with this at all.

Whatever agreement there might be about helping those who really are victims of forced prostitution, or those who simply want to get out for whatever reason, the fundmental divide over whether prostitution should always be treated as a form of victimization by definition, and hence criminalization of buyers and business assocites a blanket answer, versus a rejection of that approach is a gap that is ultimately not possible to bridge. (There is also an idea floating around that the "Nordic model" of criminalizing the client is a sort of "comprimise" model, when it is really nothing of the sort.)

Add to this that for Farley, Hughes, and other ideologically-motivated people in the "abolitionist" camp, their views are part of a an all-encompasing, total ideology of radical feminism (or conservative religious belief, or in some cases both), and that kind of fundamentalist belief system is not very amenable to working with opponents on shared concerns.

It is true that in some cases, productive alliances with more moderate prostitution abolitionists might be possible in terms of allying against the increased criminalization of prostitutes. In the case of the Rhode Island legislation, there did seem to be a tenuous alliance between some anti-trafficking organizations who, I believe, ultimately advocate something like the Nordic model and proponents of decriminalization or legalization. However, ultimately, the most hard-line anti-prostitution actvists (including many who identify as feminists and proponents of the Nordic model) got behind the most hard-line legislation that most strongly criminalized prostitutes themselves, and it is this group that has the ear of law enforcement and government officials.