Joan Smith versus Melissa Gira Grant

[Empirical]

A debate in today's Graun. Melissa was apparently given short notice and a 400-word limit.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-prostitution

[Lara Mills]

To say that she had been given short notice and a limit, she puts her point across far better than Joan.

[Empirical]

To say that she had been given short notice and a limit, she puts her point across far better than Joan.

Joan Smith is usually well-enough informed, and her articles reflect this. But here, she seems to have plucked out a few tired old memes from the TORLers, from Ruhama and other antis, swallowed them whole and regurgitated them. That is, she really doesn't know much about sex work and is making an instant judgement.

[Lara Mills]

Joan Smith is usually well-enough informed, and her articles reflect this. But here, she seems to have plucked out a few tired old memes from the TORLers, from Ruhama and other antis, swallowed them whole and regurgitated them. That is, she really doesn't know much about sex work and is making an instant judgement.

That's what I thought. It was the same tired argument we've seen many times, without anything to back it up. Melissa, on the other hand, kept making references to information that supported her argument.

[Davidontour]

So easy to blast holes in Joan Smith's arguments:

''Selling women is hugely profitable.'' Sigh. I'll explain this again. No-one is being sold. No-one can take a sex worker home and keep them. What is being sold are sexual services in a pre-agreed timeframe. The correct wording should be: ''selling sexual services can be hugely profitable.''

''punters who abuse women'' Any context for this? Is she referring to the whimsical notion that those purchasing sexual services from someone who chooses to give them is somehow guilty of abuse? Or is she referring to the small minority of men who do indeed abuse sex workers and should therefore be arrested and tried for assault as in any other situation?

''The imbalance at the heart of prostitution makes a mockery of modern notions of gender equality.'' No it doesn't. First of all, not all sex buyers are men and secondly if a woman dictates time, place, price and activity and has a considerably higher income than someone stacking shelves or cleaning houses, she is therefore better off financially and more in charge than most.

''encouraging boys to grow up with the idea that women occupy a subordinate role.'' Women certainly occupy a subordinate role in institutions such as the Catholic church and Islam, not to mention the tsunami of largely mysoginist online porn. Boys are much more likely to be influenced by these than by the relatively small and largely hidden subject of sex work.

'' if the trade is just about sex, it is hard to explain why studies consistently show such high levels of physical and verbal abuse.''
Do they? More physical and verbal abuse than say hospital workers, police women and taxi drivers? And even if correct, is it not societal and governmental sanctioned stigma against sex workers that allows the ignorant to think they can justify and get away with such behaviour?

''I suspect there is an inverse relationship between a vocal minority of women who wax lyrical about the joys of sex work, and the silent majority who hate every minute of it.''
You suspect? Well case closed then. Who needs proof when you have suspicion?

''Laws are meant to protect vulnerable people'' Yes they certainly are, but they're not meant to persecute the non-vulnerable majority as well.

As Empirical says, it's a bunch of tired old cliches. She's not even trying.

[Empirical]

So easy to blast holes in Joan Smith's arguments:
...''I suspect there is an inverse relationship between a vocal minority of women who wax lyrical about the joys of sex work, and the silent majority who hate every minute of it.''...

Joan may well suspect this, but supports this with no data. She might well not like the idea of sex work, but to transfer her beliefs and ideas to others who ought to share them is to deny their agency. Such a denial seems all to common amongst do-gooders and the morally superior.

I wonder; would Lara run poll on this?

[Paul Carr]

Women certainly occupy a subordinate role in institutions such as the Catholic church and Islam, not to mention the tsunami of largely mysoginist online porn.

Whoa!! You mean most online porn is misogynistic? What's your evidence for that? What do you mean? You mean the production of this porn is misogynistic? You mean the women who star in porn are subject to real time misogyny? Are you saying that they are subject to abuse from male directors, cameramen or photographers? Or perhaps you mean the way a user of porn uses porn?

Well, I use porn a lot and I can tell you that my using of porn does not in any way make me more misogynistic, the opposite in fact.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that women in porn are any more subject to abuse than women in prostitution.

[Davidontour]

Whoa!! You mean most online porn is misogynistic? What's your evidence for that? What do you mean? You mean the production of this porn is misogynistic? You mean the women who star in porn are subject to real time misogyny? Are you saying that they are subject to abuse from male directors, cameramen or photographers? Or perhaps you mean the way a user of porn uses porn?

Well, I use porn a lot and I can tell you that my using of porn does not in any way make me more misogynistic, the opposite in fact.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that women in porn are any more subject to abuse than women in prostitution.

I rarely use porn as I find it generally mechanical and depressing. For me, it's a voyeuristic experience. By contrast, visiting an escort is interactive and I view it as a rounded experience with sex only being one aspect.

One of my main concerns regarding online porn is it's easy availability, particularly to minors. Few if any sex workers would consider granting services to under 18s, yet I have personal knowledge of school kids (mainly boys) accessing hard core porn literally in the classroom. Viewing this type of material at such a young age is likely to have a negative effect and this has been borne out by studies and real life cases of teenage boys attitudes and the acts they often expect their partners to perform.

While the actual making of porn may not in many cases be misogynistic, I would contend that the impression given to the viewer very often is. Online porn can range from gentle lovemaking to sickening brutality. Most extreme sexual acts are not available within prostitution, not should they be. By contrast, a few clicks can take the viewer to the absolute heights of misogyny.

While not all online porn is misogynist, the diversity and availability of it most certainly allows a vast scope, infinitely more than anything possible in escorting.

As things stand, escorts have considerable power over their clients. They can dictate the time, place, duration and activities and may even refuse service altogether at their own discretion. I see porn as an entirely different entity. It is ever present, available to all and subject to extremes. I wouldn't advocate banning it, but I would certainly restrict it to adult viewing. My contention would be that the availability of porn to children should be an infinitely more pressing issue for the antis than a few hundred adult sex workers engaged in consensual activity.

[Paul Carr]

I rarely use porn as I find it generally mechanical and depressing. For me, it's a voyeuristic experience. By contrast, visiting an escort is interactive and I view it as a rounded experience with sex only being one aspect.

One of my main concerns regarding online porn is it's easy availability, particularly to minors. Few if any sex workers would consider granting services to under 18s, yet I have personal knowledge of school kids (mainly boys) accessing hard core porn literally in the classroom. Viewing this type of material at such a young age is likely to have a negative effect and this has been borne out by studies and real life cases of teenage boys attitudes and the acts they often expect their partners to perform.

Well, I'd be interested to know what those studies are. The President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography set up by Lyndon Johnson to study pornography found that there was "no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youths or adults." and that there was no "evidence that exposure to explicit sexual materials adversely affects character or moral attitudes regarding sex and sexual conduct." Nixon binned it which only goes to show it was an independent report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...nd_Pornography

[Davidontour]

Well, I'd be interested to know what those studies are. The President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography set up by Lyndon Johnson to study pornography found that there was "no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youths or adults." and that there was no "evidence that exposure to explicit sexual materials adversely affects character or moral attitudes regarding sex and sexual conduct." Nixon binned it which only goes to show it was an independent report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...nd_Pornography

I'm certainly no statistical expert on the subject but a quick google revealed this study overview from 2012:

http://yourbrainonporn.com/impact-in...esearch-2012-0

A few highlights:

''These data suggest that adolescents are being exposed to sexually explicit
material and engaging in a variety of sexual behaviors; some of which
are considered risky and problematic. Braun-Courville and Rojas’ (2009)
study of 433 adolescents indicated that those who use sexually explicit material
are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors such as anal sex,
sex with multiple partners, and using drugs or alcohol during sex. This study
was supported by Brown, Keller, and Stern (2009) who indicated that adolescents
who witness high risk sexual practices in sexually explicit material in
the absence of education on the potential negative consequences, are more
likely to engage in some form of high-risk sexual behavior themselves.''

''Collectively, these studies suggest that youth who
consume pornography may develop unrealistic sexual values and beliefs.''

''The literature does indicate some correlation between adolescents’ use
of pornography and self-concept. Girls report feeling physically inferior to
the women they view in pornographic material, while boys fear they may
not be as virile or able to perform as the men in these media. Adolescents
also report that their use of pornography decreased as their self-confidence
and social development increase. Additionally, research suggests that adolescents
who use pornography, especially that found on the Internet, have
lower degrees of social integration, increases in conduct problems, higher
levels of delinquent behavior, higher incidence of depressive symptoms, and
decreased emotional bonding with caregivers.''

It's a subject where relatively little research appears to have been carried out, but allowing unrestricted access to all levels of porn by all ages is a social experiment ripe for hysteria from the antis. I find it interesting that said hysteria appears lacking in comparison to the current hysteria over sex work.