>This debate should always proceed on different lines, I think. You
>FIRST ask the guy whether he is for decirminalisation or not. If he is,
>then you can have a meaningful discussion about the degree to which sex
>work represents freedom or unfreedom. But if he refuses to support
>decriminalisation unequivocally you're wasting your time with a
>conservative who will continually twist and turn and evade the point.
>Tahir
At first I thought, OH! Excellent litmus test. But then I remembered that the list of organizations Dwayne mentioned -- such as $pread -- are representative of women, not just in illicit trades, but in completely legal trades. Bill doesn't respect what they have to say, either. Much like Robin Morgan, people who object to sex work come up with a multitude of ways to dismiss women -- often in the name of feminism and women's true interests. (see my earlier post, Chelsea, ObamaGrrrlz, etc.)
It really is, at root, what Laura Agustín D'Andrea says it is: an objection to sex that takes place outside of sanctioned relationships that don't involve money -- the family broadly understood. Hence, if I recall correctly, some folks here also object to casual sex, generally from the argument that they don't find it fulfilling: "I'm cold; you should put a sweater on." What D'Andrea means is that the relationships are sanctioned because they are or give the appearance of being about long-term relationships, commitment, loveyoubabybabyforeverandever even if, in reality, they are two week flings. The idea is that the intention to long-term relationships is there. (That's a paraphrase of what D'andrea said on Doug's radio program).
So, you may secure a *shrug*, a socially acceptable response in left circles, perhaps some libertarian handwaving "oh sure, decriminalize. it's the best we can do in class society." (not unlike Dennis' and Joanna's attitudes toward abortion: oh noes! we don't want the state involved; we just want the right to dispense our judgment. Nothing's a problem here: we're not the state, we have no power, we are poor, powerless souls with unpopular ideas. <-- this is, in part, what Wendy Brown objects to in identity politics: the positioning of the speaker as powerless while dispensing moral judgement. Which is why I pegged this as an example of identity politics, not something ostensibly outside it.
It still doesn't get at what _some_ people are asking for: the possibility that, even after the revo, people will _enjoy_ casual sex. That they will _want_, as part of their contribution to society and social needs (from each his according to his abilities....), to be a sex worker, like people will want to be attorneys or programmers or nurses or home health aides or urinal cake changers.*)
What I'd be really interested in, Tahir, is ... hmmm. I guess this: what would happen if Bill did say he supported decrim?
You've eliminated his conservatism, now what?
shag http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)