Prositution chic.....well....why not?

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
susan davis
Prositution chic.....well....why not?

in response to meghan murphy's most recent post about "prostitution chic"

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2013/03/%E2%80%98prostitution-chic%E2%80%99-thing-now

i was contemplating what is was that offended me so much about her writing in the piece and realized i was upset that she was trying to push sex workers down...again.

why was she so incensed by the ad?

was it that sex workers were held up as chic? the fashion industry have in the past taken big risks in support LGTB rights as well as fighting for people with HIV/Aids and as such i was pleased to see a risk taken to hoist sex workers into a mainstream role as chic.

i am unclear what offended murphy so much...was it that sex workers could be envied? could be considered fashion pioneers? could be viewed as beautiful?

she states that "prostitution is not a costume you can take off"....infering we can tell who sex workers are, that they cannot hide their prositution side and must be obvious some how...as if we can never be anything but our job which is of course ridiculous...i am not simply an easily identified victim of my own self denial.....

it feels like the standard old stereo type of sex workers wearing thigh high boots wandering around engaging in sex acts where ever they go....being nothing more than a hole for penises to use....

is it so wrong to appreciate the style of sex workers or the impact they have on fashion? i love clothing and have long engaged in victorian corsette making and tailoring all kinds of beautiful outfits for myself and others...as do many canadian women.

why is placing sex workers as beautiful, fashionable and empowered so offensive?

i also received a link to the following in my mail today, its only a snipet as per rabble policy.

i guess i am not the only one who is tired of her constant barrage of hateful posts which are based on no lived experience. more and more sex workers are standing up to those who would promote myth as fact and who will take any opporutnity to keep us down, out of the mainstream community. who will make assumptions about our lives and even in the face of the truth cling to their beliefs no matter the cost....

sex workers pioneered this continent and others. reading their stories is empowering, seeing their photographs is empowering. they were strong, beautiful and fasionable...just like we are today.

or should we accept our role as defined by abolitionists? wear only last decades cast offs? not feel passion about fashion and its culture? not wear makeup?

perhaps she is just upset that abolitionist chic was not the subject of the ad. i mean god forbid our society was ever to revere sex workers in the same way other famous people are...i mean how dare we rise above our station?

imagine and beautiful, famous, fashionable, empowered sex worker...the world is ending!!!!some one do something before sex workers are being recruited from elementry schools!!!please won't someone think of the children!!!!

Ummmm, what? Ur logic is flawed: a resonse to meghan murphy

http://sexworkrants.tumblr.com/

Hooray!  This article by Meghan Murphy can be summed up by the following: Nordic Model, yay! or Another White Feminist Who Knows Best. Murphy is discussing an article that touts the Nordic model as the only model that actually works, because, a journalist, went on one cop ride to see what “really” happened. Murphy summarizes, writing,

    So, dude pays a fine and the woman is offered alternatives without pressure. OPPRESSION!

Well, since this woman has just now lost her income, that does sound awfully oppressive. But, high fives, feminists, you did good! What if she doesn’t want to leave the business? What proof is there that the client in question paid her prior to being stopped by police? Since the journalist only went on one ride, which presumably, was planned in advance, then surely the police can make it look all nicey-nice for the journalist.

Murphy continues her polemical, ideological pat-on-the-back by referring to sex workers as “prostituted women.” I’m not a prostituted woman. I am a sex worker. No one is selling me. But of course, Murphy, an outsider, has read all there is to read about prostitution and therefore knows all there is to know about it. Except, she’s never actually done sex work herself, to my knowledge. She’s just another white feminist trying to tell me she knows better than I do how sex work actually works.

She quotes Julie Bindel, a radical anti-sex work feminist who likes to play the same game she imagines my clients do, that is objectify sex workers, by referring to our work as “flesh for sale.” This kind of language is highly offensive! I’m a woman, a whole being, and the work I do, while including sex acts, encompasses a range of affection and intimacy, companionship and friendship, and is not reducible to such simplistic and sensationalist terms as “flesh for sale.” Just gross. Not to mention, even if my job was just about the sex, that would be totally fine! There is nothing wrong with sex. But of course, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Murphy cloaks her disdain for sex in the guise of saving women.

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I realize that there is a lot of appetite to criticize Murphy's stance on sex work legalization here, and I want to encourage that, but there are already two open threads focussing on her blog. I think we can keep the most recent criticism in the thread opened just before this one (which shares some content) here.

Closing.

Topic locked