One in nine men hire prostitutes - Want to talk about it?

Hi friends,

I work with a non-profit organization that provides support and outreach to sex workers. I myself have been working with former and current sex workers for almost a decade (male, female and transgendered).

Malarek is pulling numbers out of his ass. When you see his stats, please ignore. You can't put stats on sex work. It is damn near impossible due to the transient nature of the trade, and because it is criminalized and pushed beyond the margins of society. He is doing more bad than good and his theories are completely misguided. 

If you want to help sex workers, please push for decriminalization of sex work.

Thank you everyone for your insighful comments on this issue.

Explain.

Well, the left was fractured thirty years ago and much of the notion that there was a commonality to all forms of exploitation got buried, in favour of single-issue campaigning that unwittingly played into the hands of exploiters by defining the self-interest of each group as a separate issue. Small wonder that the last 30 years has been characterized by success after success for the right and defeat after defeat for the left - even as superficial gains were made here and there on single issues (such as racism, sexism, etc). Often forced to jostle with one another for a spot in the public consciousness.

The duty of solidarity defies division by race and unites under common interest. Workers of all races (including whites) must unite to combat it - it is the interest of not just those suffering racial oppression, but all those suffering any form of capitalist oppression.

Exploitation actually unites all these groups with a common, mutual concern. Exploiters attempt to mask that commonality to prevent united action and prevent victims of one form of exploitation from understanding that it is in their direct self-interest to oppose exploitation in all its manifestations, even those particular manifestations that do not appear to directly target them. The "us" is all of the exploited.

This defies a 'special interest' approach to exploitation which, while it might campaign on this or that issue, does so separately and fails to recognize that workers of all walks of life share the same mutual self-interest. There is only one issue: exploitation. A male who is black, or a male who is a worker, share the common cause of exploitation with the prostitute - they are one and that is why they should oppose it; not because they should feel guilty for belonging to a group that isn't exploited by prostitution in particular, but because she and they are exploited (whatever form that exploitation may happen to take is irrelevant - it will always vary in form or severity from individual to individual). The root problem is exploitation, and they all share it as a going concern. Prostitution or racism or what have you is just a particular expression of it. Labels like 'racism' 'sexism' 'classism' and so on are arbitrary distinctions.

To give a different example: is a white prostitute guilty of supporting racism, because she is white and she does nothing to end it? Do you think that's a very appealing motivation for her to actively oppose racism? Or - is it in her self-interest to simply oppose exploitation, regardless of how it might manifest, and therefore oppose racism because it is a manifestation of precisely the same phenomena which is in her self-interest to oppose?

I am not interested in perspectives which attempt to find a role for exploiters in ending exploitation by appealing to their guilt or empathy or whatnot. I am interested in perspectives that unite the exploited in mutual self-interest to oppose the singular phenomena of exploitation, regardless of what mask it wears.

You're parsing it incorrectly. It can only be read that way in a literal manner that lacks all context. It is intended to mean "an injury to one (of us) is an injury to all (of us)" with the "us" being defined by the context in which it is repeated. In a solidarity context, that would be the exploited.

That's not really the position of the "old Left", a form that was far, far more succesful in uniting opposition btw - your "30 years ago" marks the beginning of a social coup by the right and a fragmented, weak opposition, the beginning of a gradual and unabated shift to the right across the whole spectrum of oppression and the intensification of oppression at a global level, even as the "new left" congratulated itself on superficial gains while bemoaning its newfound powerlessness in the face of a renewed and intensified assault against the populations of whole continents. The "New Left", with its focus on deconstructing offensive words and so on, has miserably failed the people of Africa, the Palestinians, Yugoslavians, Afghans and oh so many others. So weak is the approach that the right has even been able to manipulate things like anti-sexism and weaponize them in the service of oppression (a ploy that has been much exploited by proponents of the War on Terror), pitting one form of oppression against another. It has become nothing more than a philanthropist's club, a feelgood association for balming the conscience of well-heeled, affluent suburbanites. Given circumstances, I expect (and welcome) that the etiquette-based leftism embraced by soccer moms, spoiled university students, and men who wear it like a peacock's plumage is about to be rolled back into oblivion, and the left will be renewed and rejuvenated by exploited groups - with the strongest renewal probably emerging out of other parts of the world altogether, beyond the control of the affluent.

Economic oppression was viewed as a "mask", too. The reality being social relations between people.

For instance, this view would hold that it's a kind of magical thinking and fetishism to say that the racist does some racist thing because some entity called 'racism' compelled him to, and by making the appropriate penances, he can free himself from its influences - almost as if it were some sort of evil spirit. And if we all make the penances we can banish the evil spirit forever. 'Racism' is not an entity with agency - a trap much of the left has fallen into, in fetishizing the institutions of oppression and crediting them with an almost supernatural agency. All that exists in reality is social relations between individuals. These may be characterized as racist, sexist etc and we may speak of social relations being characterized by these behaviours and ideas, but they are still no more than social relations. There is no spirit of racism, animating racists everywhere. There is only a common theme to certain social relations between individuals, learned behaviours on the part of individuals.

In this particular case, we wish to marshal support to end the exploitation of prostitutes. I don't think your perspective can be very succesful in doing that, it's just going to turn people off. Imagine going up to a white prostitute who doesn't have a racist bone in her body and attempting to get her involved in anti-racism by telling her she's guilty of supporting it because she's white and she hasn't 'actioned' sufficiently to constitute the appropriate penance. What kind of response do you think you're going to get? A hostile one, and rightly so. Now imagine trying to get her involved by showing her that what she suffers, and what minorities suffer, is similar in many respects - appealing to her ability to relate her experiences with those of others. Which do you think is going to be the more succesful approach? The first doesn't make any sense at all to me. It is not only theoretically untenable, it is unworkable in practical terms. It is a complete departure from reality in every respect, and she would have every reason to be pissed off about it.

It's the same thing in getting people to support prostitutes. The best way to gather that support would be to talk about prostitutes in ways that people can relate to, not alienate people from them and then demand penance.

Janet Bagnall features Malarek's findings in a Montreal Gazette op-ed

Malarek is an abolitionist. He finds prostitution unacceptable undre ANY circumstance. I freely choose to be an escort. I've done so for 6 years. I have a degree. My clients are nothing like the men he describes. If anyone were so much as rude to me I would walk out. I can do that because I work for an agency. That's illegal, but it has provided me with a problem free career. I applied for the job. I like my job.

As an autonomous person I have the right to choose this work and I resent Mr. Man trying to pretend he has a clue about the 80% of Canadian sexworkers who are not represented in any stats because we aren't addicts, homeless or in trouble with the law. We're boring and invisible. We do need decriminalization though.  

The Canadian government take my taxes from escorting . 

If I massaged nude people but didn't touch their genitals everyone would be fine with it.  It's all anti-sex moralists that are up in arms. Victor's representation of sexwork in Canada is bullshit. (that 90% of us want out).   He wrote in a NY Times article that the Spitzer escort was an oppressed victim.  He needs to quit pretending he's trying to save people who's rights he is attempting to trample on.  That's me (all sexworkers)  I'm talking about.  

 We sexworkers have meetings on university campuses and with various advocacy groups and we're getting really pissed that we aren't consulted on topics that impact prostitutes.  The swedish workers suffered after they started prosecuting the clients.  All the best, stable and delightful men with too much at risk ran scared and they were left with more high risk clients that they previously would not have seen.  I communicate with these women . 

P.S.  I have never sold or rented my body. I use it in my job just like we all use our minds and bodies on the job.  Hell people are renting their wombs as surrogates - but that's OK.  Decriminalize sexwork, so I can legally work for an agency, where I book on and off anytime I want and I am an independent contractor.  I call the shots.  If your into anonymous sex where you are your own boss what better job is there?  And we never do anyhting with a client without being paid first!

http://www.nswp.org/pdf/KINNELL-FEMINISTS.PDF

http://www.iusw.org/

Because they want access to sex at that time.  Because they can.  They want to. They have the money. Testosterone.  Disposition. Some people will pay to indulge an impulse, a drive, a need or an ego.  There are some people that will likely not have access to sex any other way while there are others with a lot of access who still choose to pay.  Who knows? 

I have asked a few people because it seemed that they would have access to sex via conventional means fairly easily,  They have said that it is hassle free.  Who knows?

I really would disagree that clients are enraged women haters as Malarek contends.  Perhaps there is a bit of that strain when they must travel abroad to find people who will see them because the escorts of canada do not tolerate a bad attitude and they would be quickly blacklisted.

Closing for length.