Instead of asking: “Is sex work oppressive to women?” I ask: “What makes sex work more and less oppressive to women?”

Right on! I think I may rephrase some of the questions I pose to my students in light of this. Putting it this way forces them to read a practice in context, AND forces them to see how different contexts produce different results.

Typical. Don't do X to women because it's hurtful to their owners. Christians use the same line of "reasoning" in abstinence-only sex ed: boys should be abstinent until marriage because those girls/women are another men's future wives. Premarital sex is harmful because it ruins women for their future, hypothetical owners. I'm not even kidding.

for me, this has more to do with denial of sexuality, especially when it comes to parents' relationships with their kids and healthy conversations about sex. message= "don't look at porn or strippers because you have a daughter, too, and you wouldn't want HER to be sexual, right?".... the ways that many religions tend to denounce sexuality have begun to irk me in a major way.

Pardon my ethical rather than sociological questions - but I believe this video has a point. We must remember that all strippers, prostitutes, or other people in the 'sex industry' are people. Not just pieces of flesh to be used for pleasing our desires. Sexuality is a crucial piece of our humanity; bringing economics into it does cheapen it and only serves to further the objectification of women.

marylin, that's a common point made by a lot of people with reference to the sex industry. The assumption behind it is that sex work is somehow "different" from any other exchange of a service for money in society. Do professional sports "cheapen" athletics? Does paying a taxi driver "cheapen" driving?

What is different about these things, and why do we so often assume that a woman is "selling herself" rather than simply selling her services, when a man is hardly even labeled in the same way? I think part of the answer is that a woman's worth and self is seen as being very dependent on her sexuality -- and to me, that point of view contributes more to objectification than the idea of sex work itself.

Matt K, you make a good point, although I still agree with marylin. The problem is that, although sex work is not INHERENTLY different from any other exchange of a service, many people view it this way. One the one hand, people might not think of a porn star as a person; to be fair, many people dehumanize taxi drivers as well. On the flipside, people engaged in professional sports or music (especially men), for example, are revered as people, and their personal lives and personalities become very interesting to their fans.

So although I don't agree with the message of the video that "you shouldn't look at porn because it's somebody else's daughter", I do appreciate the general message, which is "porn stars/prostitutes are people too, and deserve to be treated with respect." Keep in mind, this ad might be enlightening to overly zealous religious bigots, too, who view all sex workers as "scum". So ultimately, I think it was a very respectful and heartfelt attempt for this group to get their message across.

I really don't think they meant it as an 'ownership' thing...just from my perspective, it's not "don't watch strippers because it would shame their parents", it's "don't watch strippers because you wouldn't want your daughter to be reduced to her physical parts."

Like the lines: " 'Cause when I see only flesh / you're looking at her heart / there is so much more to her than meets the eye". That doesn't sound like parent-shaming to me.

And just to clarify, I have no problem with sex work. I think it's just as valid as any other kind of work. But due to the society we're in, it does come with psychological and ethical baggage - again, not because there's anything inherently wrong with it, but rather because many sex workers go into the industry because of difficult circumstances. Although I'm sure there are exceptions, not many little girls grow up thinking, "I want to be a prostitute!" Although the same could be said about being a taxi driver, janitor, etc. - all these "low status" professions deserve extra consideration.

I think the popular view of those against sex work has changed to a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of view, where sex workers are seen as lacking agency, rather than as vile temptresses. So, I'm not sure that many people will be swayed from their thinking by this video in the way you posit, because I just don't think many people think that way to begin with. Of course, I'm not entirely sure.

Of course the ownership angle people are positing isn't going to be flat-out stated by any but the most extreme voices, but that doesn't mean it isn't present to some degree in these kinds of messages.

I don't know that it's specifically parent-shaming, but it is very problematic. It's really pushing the ideas that sex work is a monolithic thing which is always harmful. The repeated images of children are kind of strange, as is the father/daughter imagery at the end, kind of reminds me of purity balls and other trappings of the fetishization of virginity.

In addition to all the things about it that people have already mentioned as problematic (monolithic view of sex work, emphasis on female purity, denying sexuality), it is also interesting to me that a video criticizing what it seems to view as the objectification as women shows a young child putting on lipstick. Here is a clear example of society giving a message about appearance and femininity, about the importance of being pretty, yet the group is shocked that girls grow up to be seen as just a piece of pretty "flesh"?
I do not oppose sex work in any way, and think that the relationship women have with their bodies is complicated. Very little (for example, sex work and choices about personal appearance) can be classified as simply empowering or degrading, but, from a group claiming to want girls to be "healthy" and pure, a four year old putting on make up seems odd.

I'm afraid I could only walk the first minute and a half or so of the video, because the music was so inexpressibly awful, so please forgive me if something different happened later on, but from the part that I watched the imagery seemed to be trying to create the association that pornography = child pornography. Maybe it is just that innocence aspect mentioned above and I am overreacting to it, but it seemed really prominent to me.

Original Will - I had the same thought! I couldn't stand the music. Regardless, I think the social context in which women choose to enter the sex industry is more important to look at than simply asking men to desexualize women because they're "somebody's daughter." The assumption that women are ruined or degraded by sex outside marriage is insulting to women as adult human beings who can make informed decisions.

Marylin, I think that's an important point: YES sex workers are human beings who deserve to be treated as such, but I think your negativity toward the sex industry as a whole comes, at least in part, from the idea that women are forced (by circumstance, etc) into that line of work. This is not always the case.

I kind of have to wonder about the flipside of this ad. If every female sex worker is "somebody's daughter," what does that mean for the men in the sex industry? Are they not anyone's "sons"? Are they not deserving of help when THEY are coerced into the sex trade? (Think the Broke Straight Boys genre of pornography.)

This seems to me to be a case where the "what about teh menz?!?" response may actually have some merit.

I'm as bleeding heart as they come, but I find it curious, if not hypocritical, that this site highlights sexual exploitation and gender inequality in advertisements, music videos, and various other forms of media, and then completely glosses over the issue in regards to the sex industry.

Yes, the sex industry is (relatively) safer and more economically viable for women now than it was in the 70s-80s, that's great, but "genitalia as currency" is something I can never be 100% comfortable.

These last two posts have really made me think. I suspect there is a disconnect between generations going on.

I think the two key messages those of us from earlier waves of feminism were trying to get out were (1) Women should have the same career opportunities as men and (2) Women's bodies belong to themselves -- not to men.

As women's career opportunities opened up and women began to be treated with more respect in the work world, the younger generation is reworking some of the assumptions behind that second message. What I am hearing in the comments is that the act of posing or undressing or offering sex for men's pleasure does not mean that women lose their ownership or control over their own bodies. It's more like a licensing scheme, and the internal message is, "I don't exist for your pleasure. I choose to sell you the opportunity to use my existence for your pleasure."

It's a new way of viewing the sex industry for me. Still makes me uncomfortable, but it's real food for thought. Thank you all for the education!

Well said, 88.

The analogy between porn and driving a taxi or being an athlete is not a good one- people watch each other drive all the time, or play sports. Sex, not so much; to ingore that differential element is disingenuous.

“I don’t exist for your pleasure. I choose to sell you the opportunity to use my existence for your pleasure.”

I think this is an accurate reflection of the modern argument.

It holds just as much water as "I choose to give up all my earning power and stay home and raise the children, even though I could keep a job if I wanted to. I am 'opting out' of my own accord."

Both sound like excellent examples of rationalization to these jaded old ears.

I think that this plays into the stereotype that, if porn consumers thought of the objects of their desire as being more than objects- as people with hopes, dreams, families, etc. then they stop being sexy. Women with agency of any kind (as opposed to just being ultra-realistic blow-up dolls) aren't good as masturbatory fodder.

Also, maybe I'm unique in the sense that I didn't see the dad reading with his daughter at the end as creepy. I thought that it was playing into the notion that most/many sex workers have daddy issues (absent father, seeing Daddy go to the strip club all the time so trying for his attention by becoming a stripper, etc.) so spending time with your daughter will prevent her from selling her body.

I don't know how much of those stereotypes are true, but I don't see it as "someone owns this girl, so you shouldn't look at her". If that was true, then the same message goes for looking at models, or using sexual images to sell things.

Why is it okay for women to sell their bodies if it's a service industry, but it's not okay for women to use their bodies to sell goods or services? Why is it morally wrong if the girl is not included, but it is morally right if she is? I don't want to be a troll, but please explain to me this apparent double-standard. I've asked other people about this, and was proclaimed to be a troll, which I am not, I assure you.

How far would "she is somebody's daughter" carry? Can I use that argument in Gay Marriage/ Gays in the Military issue? Can i use that argument in an Universal Healthcare issue?

p.s.

I agree with Original Will. Songs like that give country music a bad name.

It's strange to me that some people see no difference in driving a taxi and giving strangers sexual access to your body.

Much research I have read finds that 85-95% of prostitutes would like to leave the business immediately. And that prostituted women use alcohol and drugs to help with the disassociation they must do to mentally survive. And that most prostituted women have been raped and/or assaulted, and that many suffer from PTSD.

But, the minority of women that are prostituted by choice can control the discourse, because they are the ones that have the resources to blog, go to conventions, etc. There doesn't seem to be any recognition or care for the majority that are not there by choice.

It's a cruelly understandable betrayal - the rewards are great for the pimps, recruiters, and prostituted women that claim prostitution is 'empowering' or 'just another job.' It is also probably quite dangerous for someone that is still in the business to speak out against it.

Does a woman somehow stop being "somebody's daughter" and thus acceptable as sexually desirable if she is your wife?

I'm really confused as to how the idea that women in pornography have fathers can be used as a deterent to seeing them in a sexual light.

I mean, if we inherently considered all women who were daughters as sexually "off limits" then the entirety of the female population would be sexually unavailable.

pg, could you cite sources for those numbers on people wanting to leave the sex industry?

Nobody is trying to say that everyone is in the sex industry by choice, I am just trying to raise questions and challenge some assumptions. What exactly is being sold? Is it "access to a body" or a service? I'd say often, it is the latter.

And the lack of concerns about men do reveal a gendered issue here, as vegkitty mentioned earlier. We are all very concerned about women "selling themselves" when they are really selling a sexual service. Why do we reduce a woman's self to her sexuality? It's a symptom of a wider patriarchal society, I think, and it means that men in sex work are either ignored or held to maintain their agency.

I also agree with Inky -- we should really look at what this ad is trying to tell us. Does it mean it's only okay to have sex with another man's daughter if you're married? Engaged? In a long-term relationship? This is where the ownership message is coming through to me, and maybe some others -- it's only okay to have sex with another man's daughter once he's "transferred ownership" to you through marriage or what have you.

"Giving away the bride."

Ummm, with radical feminists (and radical profeminists), we are very concerned about what happens to boys in men in prostitution/pornography. Examples include Andrea Dworkin (eg Woman Hating, Pornography, she also discusses rape of men in prisons, domestic violence in gay relationships), Catharine MacKinnon (she believes that the 1 in 6 estimate for boys being sexually abused is too low), Sheila Jeffreys (she believes it's harder for men and boys to disclose abuse and talk about than for women because they lack support networks that women sometimes have, men in pornography/prostitution), Chris Kendall (use of men in pornography/prostitution, suicide among queer youth, the eroticisation of sadomasochism, racism, and misogyny in queer culture), Jane Caputi (men victimised by sadistic serial killers, gay bashing), Julian Real and Paul (two radical profeminist men who have experienced sexual abuse), Rus Funk (use of men in pornography, and has written of being gang raped). It's from radical feminists that we get the idea that the sexual abuse of males is a political issue needing feminist attention.

The "somebody's daughter" is to mean that you wouldn't like for your daughter to be treated by men the way women in pornography are treated.

I think it is vital for men, in order to understand prostitution/pornography, to picture themselves used like the women (and "bottom" men) are used in pornography. Think of themselves in her shoes, not the pimp/john/pornophile's shoes.

re: sources for the 85-95% stat, see a study by the UN's ILO on the "sex trade"--96% of their interviewees wanted to escape, also

Farley, Melissa, ed. Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress.

Jeffreys, Sheila. The Idea of Prostitution and The Industrial Vagina

MacKinnon, Catharine A., and Andrea Dworkin, eds. In Harm’s Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings.

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html

Stark, Christine and Rebecca Whisnant, eds. Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography

www.catwinternational.org

and here's an essay i wrote last year on pornography: http://demonista.livejournal.com/97248.html (i analyzed it as a system of prostitution)

also, from the first book, I highly recommend Lisa Kramer's article on the "emotional experiences of performing prostitution." truly brilliant information is uncovered.

Matt K, while I appreciate some of your points, I have to say that this logic of 'selling a service' is B.S. Sex work is NOT analogous to driving a taxi or any other kind of work, because sex is not something that has an analogy-- nothing else affects us physically, psychologically, and emotionally the way that sex does.

As pg said in so many words, the belief that sex work is a choice is largely a function of privilege; it is only a choice for a minority of sex workers, who are largely middle-class white women. If you want the research, you're more than welcome to look it up yourself.

I do find this site's lack of critique of sex work disturbing, though I agree with the analysis of this video.

One thing that bothers me is the part that intersperses video of teens in dance recitals, as if to say "Look, these girls have actual talents, isn't it sad that they've been reduced to dancing naked." As though pole dancing takes less talent than ballet! It's just fine for them to get up onstage and be stared at for the beautiful movements their bodies make as long as their boobs are covered up. But take off the leotard and it's a sad waste of talent, and you're a bad person for enjoying it.

I also notice that some of the arguments on here are lumping prostitution, pornography, and stripping into one big "sex worker" pile - which is okay for some arguments but doesn't work as well for others. For example, I'm guessing the percentage of prostitutes that are not doing it by choice is different from the percentage of strippers, given that prostitution is not only illegal in most of the country but inherently riskier because of both the potential fluid exchange and the "being alone with a stranger in a private place" aspect. I would guess that most women are far less likely to go into such a risky profession unless they feel compelled to for one reason or another, as opposed to women who see stripping as a convenient way to pay for college, or to have a dance career when "mainstream" dancing didn't work out. Pornography is probably somewhere in between, but it definitely seems to be on the riskier side. This video, however, is definitely primarily about stripping, then pornography - it doesn't really seem to address prostitution.

I just found this fitting news article today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2319863.stm

I remember a very effective moment in a workshop on sexual assault, asking participants to consider in sexual situations: "Would I want someone to treat my sister/brother/son/daughter like this?" I found it a useful way to look at the murky world of sexual ethics, because I think we're better at considering the wellbeing of people we're intimate with in nonsexual ways. But then, most of us have trouble thinking of our family members as sexual people.

EGhead: "As pg said in so many words, the belief that sex work is a choice is largely a function of privilege; it is only a choice for a minority of sex workers, who are largely middle-class white women. If you want the research, you’re more than welcome to look it up yourself.

I do find this site’s lack of critique of sex work disturbing, though I agree with the analysis of this video."

I'm with you and pg, and I am also really surprised at the lack of critique of sex work given the types of analysis y'all are constantly doing on sex-vertisements.
It's definitely upsetting to hear this "choice" argument all of the time because most "choice" strippers, prostitutes, and other types of sex workers, as EG pointed out, are white and privileged, where as the overwhelming majority of sex workers are not either of these, their perspective, when we actually get to hear it (seldomly) is quite different!

The conservative Christians should have thought about "somebody's son" before they decided to go gun ho into full support of the war in the middle East.

When taking into account the dangers of sex work for those without choices, one finds a stigmatized social view, political underhandedness and the patriarchy at the heart of women's abuses. See countries with legal sex work for a snapshot of relatively safe, healthy and pimp-free jobs.

I think the ad is actually trying to convey a fear of the dangers of current American sex work to women, our daughters, and that without demand, women would not suffer those horrible conditions. Which is fair enough. Not necessarily the correct method of fixing the perceived problem, but would technically work.

The video is not about sex work from the sex-worker's perspective, so there is no relevance to the comments arguing for or against the agency of sex workers.

The video is targeted to men who want sex without considering the needs of the woman, to change their viewpoint. It is looking at sex work from a particular client's perspective. It is telling the male client to consider the woman as a person, showing how she is someone's daughter, not a piece of flesh. The video is denigrating the objectification of women.

Arguments about the agency of sex workers may lead into the realm of whether they are object or subjects, but this video is simply covering a different issue: asking men not to look at sex workers as objects.

When you know that most women in prostitution have survived childhood sexual abuse, most commonly perpetrated by their fathers, this video becomes disgusting. Even more so when you know about the number who were pimped for the first time by their fathers.