Jenny’s Pennies

In the arts section of yesterday’s Dagens Nyheter, there is an article called “The glamorous prostitution” (Den glamorösa prostitutionen). It starts: “They say sex sells. And the luxurious and happy whore sells even better. Now the Swedish books are here. But why is everyone so happy?”

Well, after reading that intro, I just knew what was coming.
The article then talks about pseudonymous London call girl Belle de Jour and Tracy Quan’s “Diary of a Manhattan call girl”. Now, a former Swedish stripper, Caroline L Jensen, is telling her story in “Champagneflickan. En svensk strippa berättar” (The champagne girl. The story of a Swedish stripper).

The author is (predictably) critical of the subject. In the end, the not so objective article reads (my translation):

Publishers are thus putting out books that portray prostitution and stripping as exotic occupations - but without caring about what signals they are sending out. A lot of the themes addressed in the books (buying sex, exploitation, the “happy whore”, free choice and so on) are of course pure mine fields. Behind the tough girls in luxurious packaging lays a lot of unanswered questions. As a reader you have to be careful not to be tricked by the glamour and the shiny covers.

You know, I have nothing against critical examination of the sex industry (or the publishing industry). I have read neither of the books, but I can buy that they might have been published more for cheap thrills and money than for their actual literary qualities. But then, isn’t that true of a lot of books?

To me it seems as if the article writer, Matilde Sköld, doesn’t want voices like those of Belle de Jour or Tracy Quan and Caroline L Jensen to be heard. Should the books include a mandatory chapter about the downsides of the sex industry? Advisory stickers on the covers? Or should they not have been published at all, because they don’t fit Sköld’s understandings of how sex workers are supposed to behave and feel?

And since then does publishing houses have to care about what “signals they are sending out” by publishing one book or another? You know, there are a lot of books out there which in detail describes sadistic murders and torture. In which sick and twisted individuals are portrayed without much, if any, criticism. In which the bad guy is getting away. And people that have done pretty awful stuff have published memoirs and biographies. Should books like those also be questioned on what “signals they are sending out”?

Belle and Tracy and Caroline have the right to tell their stories and to own their experiences and feelings (just as those who have terrible experiences of being sex workers have the right to their feelings and experiences). If they say they are happy, who are you to question them?

What’s with the asshats and their flower references? (more flower themed stupidity in previous post)

I often wish I read more languages so I could take on all the world’s dumbfuckery. Today, Natalia Antonova has done a great job of translating and taking on a Russian misogynist called Dmitrii Artemyev who concludes that International Woman’s Day is Teh Evil because:

I have to admit: the natural qualities of woman - for example, the ability to give birth, or, even more so, the ability to be a mother, raise children, and so on - may, perhaps, deserve respect and even admiration, though not in the form of a holiday. But this isn’t what we are talking about anyway; we would then celebrate Mother’s Day, or something along the same lines. Oh no, we are talking about the feminine in its most basic form. We are, factually, admiring the qualities of the feminine soul and body of the lowest, most sinful caliber. Female breasts, genitals, the womb - this is what we worship when we worship “woman.”

… This becomes apparent in the symbolism of the holiday. Women are given flowers, and the givers know well that a flower is a plant’s genital organ, opening up to be fertilized. A flower is a symbol of tempting lust. This is actually why having little flowers on your balconies is a sin, an innocent-seeming bouquet is an honest symbol of orgiastic sin, of group sex, and any interest or delight one might take in flowers is therefore sinful.

If you can smell a rose, this means you won’t be too disgusted to smell the unmentionable body parts of a woman - because this, at its essence, is the same thing.

So, according to Artemyev’s church (he’s a self-described Orthodox Christian) the Garden of Eden was, what, paved? Covered in manly concrete?

My eyes have rolled so far back in my head I need to sleep now.

Decriminalization, ending demand, and choice: Feministe interviews the Sex Workers Project
- a very interesting post over at Feministe, where Sienna Baskin of the New York City based organization Sex Workers Project is interviewed. The interview deals with the societal response to prostitution, a question which is very much in the focus in the US right now due to the Spitzer scandal. It also discusses the “Swedish model” i.e. the criminalization of the buyer, not the seller.
Go read!

Via Isabella Lund, I find out that the Swedish government are conducting a hearing on prostitution and on trafficking for sexual purposes. A number of organizations have been called to participate, from Save the Children and the Red Cross to the Swedish Association for Victim Support and The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

Do you think something is missing? As usual, sex workers themselves are not invited to participate. Not a single sex worker organization, such as SANS, on the list. Renegade Evolution file stuff like this under “typical”, and so do I. Why do they think that sex workers, current and former, have no useful knowledge about the subject? Why aren’t sex workers allowed to take part in the conversation about themselves?

For crying out loud, even if you don’t agree with sex work/prostitution, can’t you at least listen to what the people who are actually in it have to say? How is that going to hurt you? Dear Swedish government, why do you think an organization like Män för jämställdhet (”Men for equality”) have more useful insight about the subject prostitution and trafficking than do an actual real life prostitute?

Well, to answer my own question, it is because what they might hear from people like Isabella Lund does not fit in their preconceived notions on what sex work/prostitution/porn is. And it is because it will not score them any political points from the people who set the agenda on this subject in Sweden.

I self-ID as a feminist (cue disclaimer about not being a hairy-legged man-hating ugly lesbian, and for the Swedish crowd, about not agreeing with Gudrun Schyman), and you know, a big thing in feminist discourse is the word choice. Now I’m going to borrow some rhetoric from belledame222 at Fetch Me My Axe who writes, with address to the anti-pornstitution (sic. they do call it that) radfem crowd:

Seriously, let me ask you this. I assume you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to reproduction? (If I’m wrong, ignore what follows). Okay. Putting aside the irony of “choice” being an acceptable feminist concept when it comes to reproductive rights but not when it comes to sexuality (for pay or otherwise) (or even personal adornment and modification, depending on who you ask, but that’s another argument, maybe)

…putting that aside, do you, you know, -like- abortion? I mean, are you like, “yay!abortion!” Are you gleefully advocating that women just go out and have abortions for shits and giggles? Do you claim that “choice” means the -correct- choice is always to get an abortion? Is the “abortion industry” a heartless sinister machine to which you’ve pledged your allegiance in exchange for a mess of pottage and your immortal soul?

Ridiculous, right? Well, funny thing, because this is pretty much how a lot of let’s say non-nuanced pro-lifers see the pro-choice folks.

What she’s getting at, of course, is that just as the anti-choicers see the pro-choice crowd as “yay! abortion”-shouting maniacs, the anti-pornstitution crowd also often come across like this. With the demonization of people not agreeing with them and the tendency to see everything in black and white: a sex worker is either a brainwashed victim in need of rescue, or a patriarchy-enabling sellout in cohorts with the enemy.

I can assure the Swedish government that if you would expand your list to include just one group who speaks for actual real life sex workers out there, you are absolutely not going hear them say: “Yay! Trafficking! Let’s have more 16 year old Moldavian girls who are kept drugged down and locked in apartments in Stockholm suburbs!”. Neither will they tell you “Yay! Selling sex is for everyone and should be a mandatory female experience”.
You know that.
So what are you so afraid of?

For the sake of my own sanity I really regret that I did it. But I browsed Söderbaum’s blog a bit more (see previous post for context). And found this gem that I just can’t keep from you. If you want to read it yourself the Swedish title is “Verka politiskt mot heteronormen är trams” (I’m not linking to him). And I am very tempted to create a new category for this, because the “stupidity”-category doesn’t really cut it. Here we go (translation mine):

If homosexuality would be completely normalized, it would inevitably lead to an even more explicit sexualization of society - all those “a bit too long” looks from a stranger are seen as a potential sexual invitation, which immediately makes us all sexual objects as soon as we are out among other human beings. Today we talk a lot about how terrible it is that girls are seen more as sexual objects than as persons. Yes, that is terrible - and imagine how it would be if that would happen to an entire population!

Oh noes! If we accept homosexuality then yucky fags might look at me as a sexual object!!! Sexual objectification happens to girls and that is bad, but it would be so much worse if it would happen to manly men like me! What if I catch teh gay from them?!?

Newsflash to Jakob E:son Söderbaum: gays might give you “a bit too long” looks today too. Hell, there’s even a close up picture of you on your blog, have you thought about what kind of activities that may inspire? And you know what: women can look to! (But of course in your universe no woman ever looks at other people with sexual interest unless they are married to them.)
Now, I have a practical idea for you: If you’re so scared of being oogled by someone of the same sex, you can just print out copies of some selected blog posts of yours and give out to those men you suspect of having an interest in you that goes further than discussing the wonderfulness of the Swedish monarch and other manly subjects, and they sure as hell will be running in the opposite direction!

Shit I feel snarky today! :)

Oh sweet Blind Io and all minor deities!
In today’s Dagens Nyheter, there is a letter to the editor signed Jakob E:son Söderbaum. Now for some reason DN doesn’t publish their readers’ letters on their website, but fortunately Jakob E:son Söderbaum has a blog (that I don’t want to link to, but if you read Swedish you can google his name and go on an adventure in a parallel universe). Jakob E:son Söderbaum is a “progress friendly conservative” (by “progress” he means returning to some unknown decade when we honored the king, kept our hands above the covers and our women in the kitchen), in his upper twenties or lower thirties. If you thought that Sweden was free of the “sex is gross, ewww icky icky icky”-crowd, think again.

Some background: a few days ago, Folkpartiet (the Liberal Party of Sweden) suggested repealing the law that makes it legal for parents to take their children out of certain lessons at school, such as sex ed or PE, due to religious or cultural reasons, and to force all children to take all classes. There has been some discussion on whether the Liberal Party’s idea is the best way to address the problem that some children aren’t allowed to learn about their bodies or to be seen in a bathing suit. I’m not sure how I feel about their proposal, but let’s leave that aside and focus on Jakob E:son Söderbaum.

He does not agree with the Liberal Party’s idea. No, he wants to excuse all children from sex ed. And he’s not even in with the abstinence only-crowd. He’s in the no mention of gross icky sex in school ever-crowd. Some of his arguments, put forth in the letter and in the ensuing discussion on his blog, are (with extra-craziness in bold, and my snarky responses in brackets):

- Sex ed teaches girls that they need to spread their legs for anyone, otherwise they are abnormal. (Because telling girls that they are not sluts or hoes if they like sex automatically means that you encourage them to do it anywhere with anyone. There can be no balance.)
- Sex should be taught by parents, only then can the serious nature of sexuality be properly conveyed to the rising generation. (And the parental version of sex ed should go “sex is gross and disgusting so you must save it for someone you love”.)
- Sex is for procreation only and sex ed teaches how to avoid procreation (Yes, let’s conveniently forget about reality: that the majority of adults will have sex a number of times without wanting to get pregnant. And that it could be a good thing to learn how to avoid STDs. And that not all people are heterosexual. But to base education on reality is such a bad idea.)
- Sex ed teachers are raping our children because talking to young girls about sex if you’re not their parent is akin to raping them. (He trivializes rape. What a surprise.)
- Sex ed teachers must be perverts, how else can they stand there talking about the subject day in and day out. (Yes, just like language teachers constantly mumble verb declinations and home ec teachers are unable to have a conversation that doesn’t revolve around pie crusts and cleaning products. Ohmigod, imagine what it must be like for OB/Gyns. They must be the most perverted people out there ever, staring at women’s icky parts all day and talking about stuff related to teh sex!!!!11!!!!eleven!)
- There’s too much sex in today’s society, it was better when it was a shameful secret. (So why are you discussing it? Doesn’t that add to the sexual fixation too?)
- Girls enjoying sex are almost whores. (And there he throws in some slut shaming to. Lovely.)
- Sexual pleasure is the lowest form of human feeling, and to acknowledge and seek sexual pleasure will lead you to become a sex addict who constantly think about and seek sex. (Oh, me thinks someone doth protest too much. Söderbaum says he’s in a “steady relationship”, but he doesn’t say he’s married, so he must be a virgin. For someone who’s not married, he seems awfully focused on sex. Doesn’t he know that subject is reserved for married people? Oh, I see, it’s only unmarried girls who aren’t allowed to think about sex. If you’re an unmarried conservative man - then it’s a-okay!)

Thank heavens that people like Söderbaum are a minority here and that he is sure to get some serious counter-arguments against him - it has already started on his blog. Now I need to go read some deviant and sex positive stuff before my head explodes.

Hoe-looking man writes too, and titles her piece “hardcore porn pussy anus lesbian sex dicks huge cock fuck ass pictures”, so that Söderbaum will find it when he goes on nightly internet adventures. LOL!

(Update: Here you can read more about the proposal from the liberal party, and reactions to it, in English)

Via Feministe, I learned that Monday March 3rd was International Sex Workers’ Rights Day. Sex work/prostitution is one issue where I had a somewhat change of heart, mainly after reading the book “Porr, Horor och Feminister” (Porn, whores and feminists) by Petra Östergren.

As Jill of Feministe said, sex work is one of those issues, much like bikini waxes and porn, where any discussion always seem to divert into ugly fighting. But:

That’s not a great reason to avoid talking about it, but it probably is a good reason for me to defer to those who know more about the subject than I do. So I’ll just point out that sex work is as diverse as any other type of labor, and there is no singular sex worker narrative — not all sex workers are exploited girls from developing nations, any more than all sex workers are high-paid call-girls living fabulous and fun urban lives.

A while ago I found Renegade Evolution, a fierce in-your-face sex worker who has a lot to say about the anti-porn/anti-sex work feminist side. This is long, but worth reading. I also direct you to this post, called “Sometimes it’s the little things“. She has a lot of good stuff actually.

If you read Swedish, there’s Isabella Lund. She hasn’t written about the International Sex Workers Rights Day, but it’s interesting nevertheless.

I’m quite busy today, so I use this post from Cara of the Curvature to explain why sex workers’ rights are an important issue (links go to the same place as in her original post):

So. Why sex workers’ rights? Well, it’s pretty simple. Even those sex workers who enjoy their jobs get a hell of a raw deal. All around the world, sex workers are: investigated and arrested for making a living, deported even when there is evidence of non-consent, left without any form of job security, gang-raped and abused by their bosses but left without recourse for fear that they themselves will be arrested, and arrested for mere suspicion of prostitution, including carrying condoms (which only discourages safer sex).

We know that bad things happen to sex workers, that they are very often raped, abused, robbed, kidnapped or even murdered. But that isn’t even the worst of it — sex workers have horrible crimes committed against them but fear arrest to much report, or do report and end up being mocked or further-victimized. Sex workers are raped by police officers. Sex workers are tortured and killed in cold blood, but their murderers may only be sentenced to 9 years in jail. Sex workers are murdered and then have their entire humanity reduced to their profession.

In the off chance that a case involving a crime against a sex worker actually makes it to court, we can expect that their profession will be trotted out and used against them at every possible chance. When there is little or no evidence that a woman is a sex worker, she’ll often be called one anyway (particularly if she’s a woman of color, trans* or low-income) — as an insult, as a way to call victims liars or suggest that they deserved the rape, or as a way to call victims liars and imply that they just might have deserved that attempted murder. In cases where the victim openly says that yes, she sells sex for a living, the gang rape she suffered at gunpoint by five men will be labeled “theft of services.” Not a suggestion that she’s lying — only a flat-out proclamation that a woman who works in the sex industry has given up any and all claims to personal bodily autonomy and the right to live safely and free of violence. Judges declare in courtrooms that sex workers cannot be raped, and then they are allowed to stay on the bench.

And in Canada, a man accused of murdering two prostitutes says:

“Think of it as stolen property,” Svekla told his sister of the body left in her truck in May 2006.
“If you’re caught with stolen property, it doesn’t mean you stole it.

Cara again:

Yup — a dead sex worker’s body is akin to stolen property. This is precisely what I’ve been getting at. The stigma against sex workers not only puts them in danger, forces them to live below the radar and makes reporting a crime next to impossible. The stigma against sex workers causes them to no longer be seen as human. Clearly, this guy is a murderer and a twisted fuck. I can’t say that the words that come out of his mouth are ones I would normally use to make a point about our society. But read the stories above, and then tell me that this is not only a more frank expression of those same attitudes. Because it is.

Sorry about not having anything original to say about this. I hope to compose my thoughts and offer something on the subject soon (with a discussion about the “Swedish model” included, of course), but for now, go read the links!

Added: There is nothing wrong with a little shameless self-promotion, so here you can read a report I did for Amnesty on a debate about Petra Östergren’s book (in Swedish).