 |
| Pixabay - CC0 Public Domain |
Background – in Germany,
as in other countries, attitudes towards prostitution split the feminist
movement (such as it is) and draws a clear line between opposing camps.
Acceptance of the status quo, negotiation of terms within the current societies
and male hegemony and individual empowerment to do just that? Or coherent
political and ideological criticism of male hegemony and the status quo? A
marketing of oppression, when it comes to sexually exploitative practices, or
an ending of these practices? “Sex work” as an aspect of female (and female*)
sexual liberation? Or a form of oppression? After being presented with the
usual marketing strategies put forward by the sex industry, this time regurgitated by a group of people who call themselves “Feminismus im Pott”, Abolition 2014 were relieved
to see feminists take this up and publish a reply. Solid myth busting, and we
hope useful to our sisters and fellow abolitionists around the world.
The Störenfriedas, the “Disturberesses of the
Peace“, people say, are always so much against everything. That is true. We are
against a lot of things. We are here, because we loudly and clearly want to
give voice to an opposing view, because we've had it with feminism becoming a
lifestyle, with women no longer demanding nothing less than freedom for
themselves, even when that means attacking ancient privilege and being downright
inconvenient. A feminism that is convenient, pleasant, that is applauded by the
centre of a society that neither recognises nor reflects upon its patriarchal
precepts is no feminism, but this contradiction escapes most, and not by
coincidence. Engage in “inclusive“ feminism, and you'll be used as a fig leaf, with
publicity. Call out bullshit, and you'll be attacked. The first category is
exemplified by the “Positioning on Sex Work“ by the feminist collective
Feminismus im Pott. (1)
For quite some time I hadn't wanted to read it,
because in the end it is only a repetition of the prostitution-bullshit-bingo we
all know ad nauseam, but then I read it anyway. Doing so, I didn't know whether
to laugh or to cry. Laugh, because such a contradictory stance steeped in
lobby-speak clearly unmasks what this is
about (most certainly not the women, who anyway may only be named with loads of
asteriks and other decorations (2) - “we are not all male“), or cry, because it
shows that all the feminist struggles, all the courageous women across the
world battling against a devastating and deeply misogynist system of exploitation
and progressing there are bitterly needed and yet are being thrown back again
and again within feminism.
Why? Why do we succeed in convincing hardcore
brothel users that it is a sign of corrupted humanity to buy a 20 year old
Romanian woman in a brothel and to rape her for money, and yet fail with those
who like us allegedly join the fight to make life better for women?
Internalized self-loathing? The ignorance of the privileged? An absolute lack
of empathy? Or simply the result of brain-washing?
Our position as women* speakers is
characterized by none* of our team engaging in sex work or defining herself as
such*. Our position is that of a supporter, of an ally*,
Feminismus im Pott writes. I wonder: Have you
ever spoken to women who are in prostitution or who have exited? Have you ever
looked inside a brothel? The Ruhr area is full of those. And if this is too high
a dosage of reality for you, it suffices to take few peeks into the local
punters' forum, the Ruhr-Freierforum, and in order to avoid overtasking you, I
have simply selected a few comments there from recent weeks:
One of the entries is about a girl named
Belana. The punters are not sure if she is really of age, but they are happy
that she is “so gloriously tight“. There is great worry that she may soon cease
to offer her “fair“ services of various positions for € 30.00 as she begins to
know the language better. But witty and smart as punters tend to be, they have
a solution:
“Hello Lattman ( = boner man). In
order to prevent that, we just have to keep ”stuffing her mouth“. She has
already been acquainted with the right cork …. and she didn't get to make a
sound with it!!!!! Regards, Strichscout ( = 'working' area scout)“
Lattmann and Strichscout write diligently,
there's no trace of spelling or grammar, but according to their statements they
daily buy sex and then grade the women. Although “women“ is the wrong term in
their context. For these two men who are typical punters, women are not human
beings whose sensitivity to pain needs to be taken into account:
“Irony on …. doesn't the length of
the nipple depend on the pulling force of your fingers in combination with your
ability to ignore/ not hear the lass's screams? Irony off …“
“Feminismus im Pott“ calls prostitution work
and thus uses the ideologically loaded term “sex work“ that was originallycoined by the US lobbying organization NSWP in order to decriminalise the
brothel keepers and the pimps and to have their actions viewed as normal
activities. To again spell it out: This term has never meant the women, but the
exploitative jobs around them. And this leads us right to the core of the
entire häppy-sexwörk-machinery: Who
succeeds in making invisible what women in prostitution endure can succeed in
turning paid rape into a service, pimps into managers, brothel keepers and
traffickers into businessmen and punters into mere clients. This is how the
euphemizing of prostitution works which “Feminismus im Pott“ busily contributes
to.
Prostitution is not a job, even if some like to
pretend it is, with a fatalistic nod to global capitalism. Next, cleaners and
geriatric nurses are cited, who also do unpleasant jobs nobody wants, and each
and all of us who are in paid labour are said to be somehow prostituting
ourselves. First the cynicism here is overwhelming in saying: “Capitalism owns
it all anyway, our labour, our consumption, our time, our property, so we can
also easily hand over our sexuality“, and to say this from the privileged
position of well-educated, probably basically white women, who have never been
brought into a situation where they had to sell their bodies to 20 men a day.
Where then shall we draw a line? Selling our organs? Children?
Viewed like this everything about us is some
commodity, our entire lives are perfectly commodified and the one and only way
of dealing with capitalism is to wholly submit to it. Yet, and in addition, we
are not, in fact, all equal before capitalism, capitalism needs a separation of
the sexes and a subjugation of women in order to function. Women do the unpaid
housework and care work, women sell their bodies, and this is then glorified as
an “opportunity“ and as “self-determination“ by cynical German feminists. Not
to see this and still call yourself a feminist is so absurd that it begs the
question why some call it feminism, even. We know that most of the women
neither want to work in prostitution nor to remain in it, but that our society
hardly leaves them another option. This “no other option“ is then generously
declared to be the pinnacle of a post-modern dealing with the capitalist world
order. It doesn't get more contemptuous of humankind, nor more devoid of
solidarity.
It does make a huge difference whether someone
receives their earnings via manual labour or via their own sexuality. Sexuality
is a part of our personality, our identity. It is about the most intimate thing
we have. How can this be sold? Or how can it be assumed that what is offered is
a “sexual service“ that has nothing to do with ones's own sexuality? Scientistsand trauma experts have proven conclusively that women in prostitution are
constrained into permanent dissociation, into permanently splitting off their
thoughts and feelings, away from their bodies in order to be able to bear
strangers using their sexuality, a procedure that has severe psychological
consequences and can often only be endured through the use of alcohol or drugs.
Since the vast majority of the women in prostitution have already undergone
sexual violence in their childhood and youth, they know the mechanisms of
dissociation and their trauma deepens.
Which job on earth, shitty as it may be,
demands a splitting off of thoughts and feelings in order to bear it? In which
job do I have to fear that a client may use my own scarf to strangle me? Regard
beatings and physical pain as part of the equation? Allow being degraded and
risk permanent sexually transmitted diseases?
Prostitution is legal in Germany. And yet none
of the women have health insurance, none of them pay into the pension system,
none of them receive unemployment benefits. The woman herself neither profits
from minimum pay nor from any legal provisions for her safety, she is
surrendered to the punters' whims and to the traffickers. She cannot call in
sick, she cannot declare her vacation. All of these points are clear evidence
that prostitution is not a job, but a business in misery, and first and
foremost capitalizing on women's misery.
And this is feminism's rub: Without partriachal oppression prostitution
would be unthinkable. Its origins stem from slavery and the first slaves were
women. It is not the world's oldest occupation, but one form of the world'soldest oppressions. And feminists manage to stand up and proclaim that
prostitution as sex work is great? Prostitution is unthinkable without the
dehumanization of women, without degrading them to purchaseable objects whose
feelings, desires and rights count for nothing, and this is why prostitution
regards us all. Not only because it is a matter of humanity to stand in
solidarity with those who are being exploited in this way, but also because a
society that views some women as venal, as purchaseable, views all of us as
such and as of little value.
The punters who buy women each day by the
hundreds of thousands and who then merrily write reports dripping with violence
and hate, are our colleagues, our fathers, brothers, friends, partners and
husbands. It is inconceivable that a feminist site publishes a declaration of
bankruptcy and then calls that feminism.
If prostitution is such a great, as sexually
liberating, activity, why is it only being engaged in by very young, very poor,
very uneducated and above all non-German women? Why don't all those cynical
pro-sex work “experts“ place themselves in the brothels and experience what
they propagate on their own bodies? They could meet up with the punters there,
whose rights they so diligently defend:
Hello,
I've got a possibly unusual question but am hoping for an answer. I'm looking for a woman in street prostitution who can be handled somewhat roughly and who can take a slap or one across the face. All that not too wild, (well, no real SM), but not the normal sex you get there as a standard. I know to find ladies and clubs on the internet., who offer this. But I want one used to working in a car or in open nature. Just sounds exciting to me. Thanks already for your help!
I've got a possibly unusual question but am hoping for an answer. I'm looking for a woman in street prostitution who can be handled somewhat roughly and who can take a slap or one across the face. All that not too wild, (well, no real SM), but not the normal sex you get there as a standard. I know to find ladies and clubs on the internet., who offer this. But I want one used to working in a car or in open nature. Just sounds exciting to me. Thanks already for your help!
And of course there's a tip for him, fast:
Hey nk 1206 Personally I know of
none out there, but I bet if you just ask around and put some extra dough with
it you'll find something. I've always found the kind of stuff I wanted.
And believe me – normal sex is just boring :-D
And believe me – normal sex is just boring :-D
I'm more into other stuff and I've
always got it out there, right, a slap on the bum is not the same as one across
the face as with that you take the person's rights. That is Degrading and I
almost doubt if you find this. Little hint: try it with the junky fraction
[i.e. drug addicted women in prostitution] :-)
If feminism works towards the acceptance of
such attitudes in society then that feminism is kicking the bucket. It is a
feminism that prepares women for accommodating to given conditions, to resign
themselves to their own oppression and exploitation and that of their fellow
women, a feminism that euphemizes terms in order to make them convenient to the
mainstream and in order to render the misery, the suffering and the violence
invisible. It is a feminism pressed into the service of the oppressors. There's
nothing new to this, nothing revolutionary and it's got nothing to do with
feminism either, but a lot with the capitulation of one's own reason and one's
own heart before other people's vested interests in money and in power.
A final remark: To call the opponents of
prostitution “neo-abolitionists“, a term resounding with “neo-fascism“ or
“neo-nazi“ shows how far one is ready to proceed in the name of these
interests. Just to be perfectly clear about this: This is not about
self-determination or freedom. This is about the right of a few to sell other
human beings and their most intimate core and to profit from the sale, it is about
profit from the dehumanization of women. Is that still feminism or can that be
thrown out?
---------------------------------------------------
(1) Feminismus im Pott: A group
writing on the internet on feminist issues based in the “Ruhrpott“ area in Germany, a formerly
highly industrialized area with its own working class pride. Pott means “pot“ as in both saucepan and melting
pot, and begs for the pun used when it is called Feminismus im Eimer – Feminism
in the bucket, meaning “trashed”. (That is the politer version, Feminismus im
A**** is rougher, and that word begins with an “a” in English, too.)
(2) asterisk, * in German usage of men*, women*
or any noun that refers to a human being: The asterisk, which some universities
have made mandatory, is to denote that “woman“ is a concept rather than a lived
reality or position in society, and thus open to debate in its perception. That
includes debating the perception of the conditions of women's lived realities
(rather than the realities), and is meant to include all those who are or may
be perceived as “women“ as well as all those who view themselves as such and
wish to be included in the category. In other words, problems are a matter of
perception rather than of conditions or power structures, and “woman” is a
matter of identification rather than a specific position in a gendered society.
In short: The terms become so open to interpretation that they are virtually
meaningless and that is usually the intention.
