Is this Feminism? Murphy and more. Pioneering Sex Worker Advocacy on Connecticut

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB

hysperia wrote:

How do we know who has experience in the sex trade and who hasn't? Are we really going to demand that everyparticipant give that kind of information? How would that be "safe"? Why is it ok for people who say they've worked in the sex trade to attack someone by name, in the title of the thread, and no one who isn't a sex worker can object to that? What makes that "safe" for sex workers? What is "safe" anyway? Only one point of view? What about the sex workers who come here with a different opinion, as some have? How are they to be treated? Who is making the rules and what, exactly, are they? Is this Babble policy? Can this policy be disputed anywhere? If so, where and with whom?

No one is required to offer any kind of personal information, and it is impossible to determine who "really" has that experience unless an individual has no interest in anonymity and their identity is verifiable. This is an online forum, with the opportunities and obstacles all that entails. Its mandate isn't exclusive to sex trade workers, but it is to be a safe place that supports the POV of sex workers, however varied their experience may be.

It isn't perfect, it can't be, but we can try to make it a place of respect for diversity within the mandate.

jas

Re: Susan's comments:

Rabble.ca indeed has published contrary opinions on the issue.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminaliza...

 

susan davis

hysperia wrote:

How do we know who has experience in the sex trade and who hasn't? Are we really going to demand that everyparticipant give that kind of information? How would that be "safe"? Why is it ok for people who say they've worked in the sex trade to attack someone by name, in the title of the thread, and no one who isn't a sex worker can object to that? What makes that "safe" for sex workers? What is "safe" anyway? Only one point of view? What about the sex workers who come here with a different opinion, as some have? How are they to be treated? Who is making the rules and what, exactly, are they? Is this Babble policy? Can this policy be disputed anywhere? If so, where and with whom?

ok, let's say this was a discussion about  LGTB rights and those with no lived experience were posting a zero tolerance approach demanding that being LGTB be made illegal or as in the case of sex work that being LGTB is fine but being a partner to an LGTB person was made illegal....should those who are actually LGTB have their voices at the forefront? or shoudl be bow to the zealots who believe anything outside of straight marriage and traditional families is against god or wrong some how?

the experiences of sex workers or formerly prostituted persons who experienced violence in the sex industry have always been welcomed here. read back noone called them liars or delusional or tried to deminish their voices. in fact the opposite. we support all experiences being heard and don't pick and choose whose experiences are deemed valuable or important or credible.

people do not have to out themselves as a sex worker to post in this forum, as is clear in the number of non sex workers posting here. being safe means that a respectful discussion takes place and that no ones experiences are dismissed as they so often are by the abolitionist side as seen in the post decrying that we're living in self denial or are some how delusional and thus our assertions of being happy in the sex industry.

that was even suggested in this thread by london call girl, that we all were abused as children and have ptsd and so could not possibly know what's best for us. only those who admit they were abused have valid credible opinions and suggestions...

it strips us of our voice, it demeans us and our experiences...

susie

Meghan Murphy

"meghan your most recent article clearly links and equates sex work and rape...not sure what your question means...."

 

Please provide quotes that show this. Thanks.

 

"i have read alot of your writing and find it is always slanted towards your personal opinion rather than taking a real unbiased look at the facts..."

I do write opinion pieces that explore ideology and arguments and I make points based on fact and logic. Certainly when I write opinion peices they are 'biased' 'towards my opinion'. That doesn't make the arguments invalid. You just don't agree. Which is fine. But it isn't fine to say that I have said or argued things that I have not.

 

susan davis

double post sorry!

Meghan Murphy

CPage251 wrote:

"Hi Susan. Where do I reference Farley or, as you say "cit[e] melissa farely as the "bible" on sex work"? Also, where have I framed "all sex workers as rape victims"? I'm not sure what you're referencing? The problem with the OP is that it doesn't address anything I actually argue or believe."

 

Really..? I actually have direct quotes and screen caps from you in my blog article, in which we discuss Farley and her "solid" research. Also, your newest article compares rape and consensual sex work. I didn't think I needed to point out your own words for you. 

And you keep pointing out that I have 2 twitter accounts. Yes, one is my personal accoun and one is my work (aka porn) account. 

Um, no.... You have none of those things. You have a screen shot from a conversation on Facebook in which I refuse to engage you. There was no discussion of anything. This 'conversation' that was not, in fact, a conversation, but a thread that had nothing to do with sex work which you derailed, took place months ago (in November) and was what triggered this ongoing obsession and harassment. I have since continued to try to disengage by blocking you. Also, Facebook comments don't count as citation. You are the one obsessed with Melissa Farley's work. Not me. Please find another target.

To say that I "compare rape and consensual sex work" is a complete and utter misrepresentation of my argument.

contrarianna

hysperia wrote:

This forum has been designated a "safe space for sex workers"? Whereabouts was it designated and what does it mean? No discussion of the issues surrounding prostitution because it's not safe for sex workers? Who is policing that?

The subject area title reads:

Quote:
sex worker rights
A place for sex workers and their allies to discuss issues around, and advocacy of, sex workers' rights.

But some, including myself, mistakenly thought the heading meant something along the lines of another POV heading such as:

Quote:
Discuss all issues LGBTQ from an LGBTQ-positive perspective.

(That of course would not exclude discussing the dangers and threats experienced by LGBTQ people but it WOULD exclude those who would claim their lives and life choices are invalid. )

But you seem to be right, hespera, so maybe the area title needs to be rewritten as:

Quote:
The Pros and Cons of Sex Worker (or prostituted women) Advocacy
just so their are no more illusions.

hysperia hysperia's picture

But that is what London Call Girl thinks. And she has experience in the sex trade. So she can't speak?

hysperia hysperia's picture

I assume that things that people say that aren't true or that attack others ad hominem can be addressed, even if the people saying them have experience in the sex trade. I also assume that on matters of law and social policy, it isn't just sex workers who are affected. It's a social and legal matter. In that respect, I assume that I am entitled to a respectful opinion that might differ from people working in the sex trade, even if I don't have that experience. Right?

susan davis

jas wrote:

Re: Susan's comments:

Rabble.ca indeed has published contrary opinions on the issue.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminaliza...

 

yes, a year ago .....meghan's column is published far more often than that and hers is the dominant work being seen on rabble. joyce is an amazing jounalist and an ally to sex workers but this is not enough to balance the one sided perspective which is so dominant on rabble.

meghan, you in your first paragraph say how criminalizing rape has worked and so to should it work to criminalize sex work. it is infered that rape and sex work are the same or at least in the same category. that criminalizing rape had the desired affect and so criminalizing sex work should be hailed as the way to end the exploitation/rape of women/people working in the sex industry which is all exploitative in your opinion so....its infered meghan and i find it a little strange that that is your sole answer to this discussion.

c'mon, are you trying to say your work is not biased against a diversity of sex workers voices being at the forefront of this discussion? if so, why will you not let people challenge your opinion pieces in the comment sections of your work? why do you delete and belittle those who don't share your opinion?

and how about an answer about the harms this kind of biased writting and advocacy causes and the police violence unfolding on the prairies? any plans to write about the injustices workers are facing as a result of that silencing?

susie

XLondonCallGirl XLondonCallGirl's picture

If we are to talk about safety for women in prostitution, then l would like it to be considered at the most important level - not online, but in real life. Surely this should be what all sex worker activist groups are fighting for http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/22/merseyside-police-sex-work...

susan davis

hysperia wrote:

But that is what London Call Girl thinks. And she has experience in the sex trade. So she can't speak?

sure, she can share her experiences but perpetuating myths started by unethical data serves no one. she claims a number os statistics as fact which have been long debunked and proven to have no real basis in fact. it confuses the situation and people trying to form personla opinions on where canada should go in terms of sex work and the law.

if she states her opinion is 90% of sex workers were molested, fine. but states it as fact which it is not.

susie

hysperia hysperia's picture

I have to laugh at that one Susan. If you were actually tackling Meghan Murphy's arguments and engaging with them, seems to me that would be more than fine. That doesn't mean attacking the person who has them. If you think the work is biased, I think you have to show quite specifically how that is so rather than repeating it over and over again. Just for the record, if sex workers feel silenced, that is a surprise to me. I see their voices quite frequently. I see this post as an attempt to silence Murphy actually. She has a position, she argues it cogently and the next thing you know people are attacking her all over Twitter and here, without ever addressing the arguments. I read Murphy's work here at Rabble all the time and listen to her interviews. It's not as if she's obsessed with the issue of prostitution - she has written a few pieces. And, as you know, it's a highly topical issue, especially with the Bedford case coming up in June. I have opinions on the matter too and would like those opinions represented respectfully. I'm also quite interested in hearing those arguments disputed if its done respectfully - because that's what public debate is about and those debates are what help us all to make the decisions we must make to live together in a democracy.

 

susan davis

XLondonCallGirl wrote:

If we are to talk about safety for women in prostitution, then l would like it to be considered at the most important level - not online, but in real life. Surely this should be what all sex worker activist groups are fighting for http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/22/merseyside-police-sex-work...

i do london call girl, i have engaged 100's of sex workers over 10 years in advocacy never mind 26 years as a sex worker and never presumed to speak for my community without consulting them first. i also have done work with the english collective of prostitutes, heard of them? they do not share your opinion.

what proejct or ways have you engaged with your fellow sex workers in order to represent them? how many sex workers do engage with to form your opinion? how have you worked to ensure all voices of sex working people are represented in your assertions? or do you simply trust that becuase melissa farely is a PHD, she would never misrepresent anything to achieve her goal of abolition?

no disrespect and i understnad your experiences were not positive but rather violent and exploitative. that is important. but what about those of us who feel differently about how we can best address the harms faced by people working in the sex industry? shoudl we accept your theory that we are all so abused we don't know what is best for us and are living in denial? shoudl we repent and come over to such welcoming arms in the abolitionist side?

susie

Meghan Murphy

susan davis wrote:

jas wrote:

Re: Susan's comments:

Rabble.ca indeed has published contrary opinions on the issue.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminaliza...

 

 

meghan, you in your first paragraph say how criminalizing rape has worked and so to should it work to criminalize sex work. it is infered that rape and sex work are the same or at least in the same category. that criminalizing rape had the desired affect and so criminalizing sex work should be hailed as the way to end the exploitation/rape of women/people working in the sex industry which is all exploitative in your opinion so....its infered meghan and i find it a little strange that that is your sole answer to this discussion.

c'mon, are you trying to say your work is not biased against a diversity of sex workers voices being at the forefront of this discussion? if so, why will you not let people challenge your opinion pieces in the comment sections of your work? why do you delete and belittle those who don't share your opinion?

susie

Hi Susan,

Again, you've completely misrepresented my argument which was that criminalization is not necessarily a bad thing, as libertarians claim. I use examples like anti-smoking laws, laws against marital rape, and the abolition of slavery. I also argue that we could and should consider banning pornography as Iceland is considering doing based on feminist legislation rather than on a moral basis or on 'obscenity' laws. Your claims are simply not true and you have yet to provide a quote that backs up said claims.

What you said was that I "cit[e] melissa farely as the "bible" on sex work" and frame "all sex workers as rape victims". Where do I do either of these things?

If you read my comments section you will find a number of dissenting opinions. Please feel free to comment! I don't ever delete comments simply because they don't agree with my perspective. You can learn more about the kinds of comments I delete in my comment policy (abusive comments, derails, etc), but I'm afraid that, once again, you are being dishonest here.

susan davis

and now i'm a liar....sweet.....

whatever meghan, have at er. you have all the answer, what was the purpose of comapring rape laws and prostitution laws then? why not compare them to the other laws you cited?

so tired of this. you claim to want to engage but still continue on with total disregard for the safety of people affected. and i am glad i made you laugh hysteria, that makes me feel really good. i have posted links and argeud about this on rabble over and over. read my posting history if you need to understnad my argeuments. melissa farely is the subject of a complaint to the APA that specifically looks at the way she cherry pick sample groups and works to ensure her data has the desired outcome. its a matter of fact.

i am a laughable liar.

susie

Meghan Murphy

susan davis wrote:

and now i'm a liar....sweet.....

whatever meghan, have at er. you have all the answer, what was the purpose of comapring rape laws and prostitution laws then? why not compare them to the other laws you cited?

so tired of this. you claim to want to engage but still continue on with total disregard for the safety of people affected. and i am glad i made you laugh hysteria, that makes me feel really good.

i am a laughable liar.

susie

I'm not calling you a liar, I would just like you to back up the claims you make and please stop saying things that aren't true. If you make statements that are untrue I think it's fair to say you are misrepresenting me or being dishonest. If you are not being dishonest then you should be able to support the claims you are making. Otherwise, I'd appreciate an apology and or a retraction. Thank you.

hysperia hysperia's picture

Name's not hysteria. 

XLondonCallGirl XLondonCallGirl's picture

susan davis wrote:

hysperia wrote:

But that is what London Call Girl thinks. And she has experience in the sex trade. So she can't speak?

sure, she can share her experiences but perpetuating myths started by unethical data serves no one. she claims a number os statistics as fact which have been long debunked and proven to have no real basis in fact. it confuses the situation and people trying to form personla opinions on where canada should go in terms of sex work and the law.

if she states her opinion is 90% of sex workers were molested, fine. but states it as fact which it is not.

susie

 

From my personal experience of over a decade of knowing women in prostitution and that would be at least one hundred women, apart from a couple of women who I have corresponded with online and are currently in prostitution, every other woman has been abused in childhood - mostly sexual abuse, some physical abuse. Every single woman I have personally known in the sex trade has used drugs and/or alcohol to varying degrees, apart from a couple of women who I don't know personally but have corresponded with online and are currently in prostitution, though with respect I will refer to them as sex workers as that is the term they prefer. Apart from a couple of sex workers I have corresponded with online, I know no one personally who has been in prostitution and not been raped at least once by a client and most have been beaten too. In addition, those who had pimps, were raped and beaten by them too.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Susan, asking xlcg to detail how much advocacy she's done or not is Kind of moving the goal posts. First, you want people who have been involved in sex work to speak from their lived experience, but when xlcg does and it isn't in agreement with yours, you ask her to establish some sort of cred - so suddenly, the lived experience isn't enough, you have to have connected with hundreds and be a public advocate. I don't think that's entirely fair.

susan davis

what claims meghan? your writing is here for everyone to see. when did you engage with sex workers generally or ask anyone from my community to contribute their perspective? you are, as most abolitionists, solely focused on your goal of "ending prostitution" or in the new rhetoric" ending demand"....

your work is biased and slanted against the voices of sex workers across canada who are fighting for thier rights and lives. i challenge you to engage with us for real and to hear what we say then write about that. instead of simply blindly with total disregard for the impact, writing and promoting opinions as facts....

here's a link, perhaps this will refresh your memory;

http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/no-new-research-does-not-show-violence-decreases-under-nordic-model%E2%80%8F

so, how about that? the article clearly shows where you chose to ignore glaring increases in violence. why would you do that? i can only assume its to further your goal of abolition, abolition of my community....which is working by the way.....i have to wonder how many of your friends are dead as a result of all this? any answer to the increasing numbers of murders of sex workers under the "good intentions" of abolitionists?

i have said, i am not a journalist, i am not an acedemic. i am sex worker and social justice advocate who works WITH sex workers to form actions which will improve the safety and quality of life of my community. how many sex workers have you worked with meghan? and i mean actually working sex workers. not to diminish the experiences of exited and formerly prostituted persons but they will not be affected by any actions moving forward.....so how bout it? any answers for the laughable liar?

susie

Ghislaine

I never, ever, ever want my daughter to become or aspire to be a sex worker. That is partially what is informing my position. 

Thank you Meghan Murphy for the writing and research you have done on this issue (and on porn). I look at this via the lens of girls being sexualized at a younger and younger age and having all of the expectations of what they themselves and boys and men see in online porn placed on them. I do not want sex work to be out in the open or legal in the way that it is in Holland. I agree with legal changes to allow those who choose and legitimately want this for their living to be able to hire bodyguards legally, etc.

Other than that, I don't want it seen, heard, advertised.... 

I want girls and women to see themselves as whole people, not just sexual tools. I do not want my son paying sex workers and looking at women as bodies that he can buy. I don't want him to see an ad for this, and I don't want anyone telling 18 yr old women that this is just another career. It is not and I don't believe it is that easy to separate body and soul. 

 

MegB

I'm closing this thread. I'm not shutting down the debate, but rather requesting that we give it at least a 24 hour moratorium. Please think about your personal POV's and your personal and/or emotional investment in them, then come back to the discussion with, what we can hope, is a more open perspective.

I'm not asking that people change their position, but rather that we take a break and consider how we frame our arguments before we wade in again. Reconsider what it is to respectfully disagree.

 

Pages

Topic locked