Stan Goff's "The Porn Debate": Sex workers reply

Compiled, and with additional commentary, by Alexis Hazell

I recently came across Stan Goff's article entitled "The Porn Debate". I was immediately outraged, and sent an email to the IUSW (International Union of Sex Workers) e-list which contained a link to the article. There were many responses by the sex workers on the list - and none of them were positive. I asked all those who commented for permission to reproduce their comments in a 'response' compilation; and so I thus quote here those responses where such permission was given:

• My first comment about Stan's rant is I am SOOO tired of men telling me as a woman what feminism is all about. Seems like the most patronizing and patriarchal move one could make. How about he shuts up and goes back to what he knows - the adverse effects of war on men.

  My second observation is that so much of radical "feminist" politics is simply a cover for socialism. Hey I know some of us think socialism is a good idea. I don't. I prefer capitalism. But I do respect those who want a socialist society and defend their right to speak freely about it. However, I would appreciate more honest dialog on this matter from the radical "feminists." I put that word in quotes for a reason. I have been in the feminist movement for a little less than three decades now. And I actually remember a time when the socialist feminists were only a part of the movement - they did not purport to speak for all feminists. It is with dismay that I have seen them take over the feminist movement and silence and denigrate any other type of feminist as not truly feminist.

  I think it would be more constructive if we could envision diversity. Some feminists lean toward socialism and some are more capitalistic. This difference alone could influence our take on the sex industry. But not necessarily.

  And some of us who have devoted our life to fighting for the rights of sex workers don't necessarily find all branches of the sex industry acceptable as feminists. I for one am outraged and offended by most mainstream porn. As a feminist I cannot stand to see how most sex and most women are portrayed in male dominated media - whether it is an advertisement, movie, porn video or a beer commercial.

  And I have had nothing but positive experiences in making porn myself. I have loved every minute of it. But I chose to do only porn which resonated with my values.

  And that's where my politics of choice come in. Just because some women are being murdered by their husbands, I do NOT believe we should outlaw marriage. By the same token, outlawing sex work because some (maybe even most) women are being degraded or otherwise abused in sex work is ridiculous. That's like passing laws against clothing because a lot of clothing is produced in sweat shops.

  We have to be able to face these problems head on AND insist on solutions which do NOT limit the rights of the individual. If that is a capitalist take on life, then so be it. But I know more than a few colleagues who value both a more socialist society AND the rights of the individual. So again, diversity requires freedom of choice.

  Our strength will come in being able to embrace the concerns of our detractors. So yes, women are abused and women are raped and women are trafficked. And ditto for children. I do not believe that it is with the frequency that our opposition claims. I think a lot of women who love the sex industry are afraid to admit it if they are in jail or captured by those who would "rescue" them.

  If we can remove the shroud of shame, I believe we will uncover many more "happy hookers," etc. But that is merely speculation at this point. So even if the abolitionists (some of us prefer that term to "feminists") are correct that the majority of sex workers don't want to do sex work, this does not support their "solution" to the problem.

  Diversity only thrives with freedom. And freedom WILL offer solutions.

  Since my background as a feminist is primarily with domestic violence, I find it frustrating that most mainstream feminists have so much difficulty applying the same principles and solutions which we were forging for domestic violence in the early '80's to sex work now. Of course the labor rights model is also immensely valuable. But not always one which radical "feminists" are swayed by since it can be perceived as a part of capitalism. However the domestic violence models have a wide acceptance in the feminist community. I believe we need to push this analogy when we take on the radical "feminist" agenda in our debates and other public forums. I think it will be more effective in communicating the importance of every woman's individual and empowered choice. We can't solve all the inequities which occur along race, class and country of origin in one fell swoop. But we can begin to make improvements if we have the freedom of choice.

  Of course I am ONLY addressing the issues which the radical "feminists" address - NOT the fact that sex workers come in ALL genders and sex worker rights is necessarily a larger issue than that of feminism.

  The larger issue is that of human rights, civil rights and labor rights. Unfortunately, the "feminist" agenda is dominating the legal landscape so I believe we need to meet their claims head on.

  In other words, we have to address the public's hysteria over "the women and the children" or we will never get the laws to change. IMHO

  [From Veronica Monet, who specifically asked that her response not be anonymised. ]

• The main problem with Marxism, in so far as our profession is concerned, is that it takes the stance that if there was no poverty or sexism that prostitution wouldn't exist which is not true. Even if there was equality on the job for women, and poverty didn't exist, I'd still be out here doing what I'm doing. So, these intellectuals just keep getting stuck on the question of why, why prostitution exists... 'If we could only decided on the cause, we could eliminate it' At least this is the> way some of the local US Prostitutes Collective is telling it here in San Francisco They keep harping on reallocations of the monies used for arresting us to 'services for women'. This is the point at which the some prostitution rights people are in bed with the right wing that would be the exterminators and suppressors of prostitution. These activists are usually not working in the business interestingly enough. Nothing like those who are trying to make social change on our behalf without our participation... Just another heroic act without our permission. This is why I'm in bed with Organized Labor. Organized Labor doesn't care why, it only cares that we stand up for our own rights and what they can do to help. They are fully aware of the damage patriarchal acts because workers, a kind of daddyism and dependency that somebody else is going to come in and save you from the bad laws and the bad people who are oppressing you.

• My problem with this article is that it would put a lie between two truths as it were, it didn't say anything that hadn't already been said, and Goff was not only not advancing any useful strategies, he was being quite destructive. My comments concentrate on the prostitution part of the issue.

  It's easy to trot out individual women's experiences to either prove or disprove a point. The reason this is so is because women have had a broad range of experiences within the industry, between countries, between states, between city and country, between brothel, escort and street-work, and even between businesses and through time. Which is not to say there aren't broad issues and problems. But no one person, or indeed organisation are representative of the whole of prostitution, sex work, or whatever one calls it. I can only speak about women in brothels. Time and energy would be better spent developing innovative strategies to represent the complex voices of sex workers, who are the most invisible group in society.

  "Presumably, the unions could sign contracts with the pimps to limit the 'break-in-by-gang-rape' periods." This is probably the comment I took most umbrage at. One thing I have consistently heard from women in prostitution is their admiration and respect for other women in the industry. No-one knows their situation better than these women. They live it everyday. They are the ones developing survival strategies, and sometimes even flourishing. They know what exploitation is. They bloody-well know what gang-rape is (as do many women outside of prostitution and pornography). Such a comment is nothing but patronising. And, as a supposed Marxist, Goff should know that disadvantaged groups organising themselves is essential for their empowerment. The dismissive attitude, and quite frankly, arrogance behind this comment is breathtaking. So what should we do Stan, go and hang ourselves cause we're doomed?

  I would think that someone who has spent a large section of their life doing less-than-progressive work would be a lot more humble once they have seen the light. If Goff cannot put himself in women's shoes he should listen and trust what all those women are saying about their experiences. The one thing that is impossible to explain is the experience of whore-stigma. Even I thought I understood it until I started facing the reality of it, that it happens not matter what you feel about the job. What these 'rescuers' don't understand is that all their fist-waving statements DO NOT reassure women in prostitution that they will be accepted and understood. I think Goff should stop yelling and start listening. Actually, I'd like to say "Get over yourself, mate". I mean, really.

  From my understanding of reading Sprinkle, Queen and Hartley etc, they are addressing a particular aspect of patriarchy, which is its effect on sexuality. This is an area that has needed work precisely *because* patriarchy is about the control of sexuality, in particular women's sexuality. Silencing this discussion does not challenge assumptions about women's sexuality that shores up the very patriarchy Goff claims to critique. It's not the whole of the issue and I don't believe that these women would say that it is.

  I've read things on both sides that have validity, for me at least. I know I'm not the only prostitute with a complex understanding of her situation. I reckon I've listened to women talk in brothels for about 1600 hours. And I've only worked for a short time. Imagine the experience and understanding amongst women in the industry world-wide. I also know there are people outside of the industry who realise this, but they are few in number and like bisexuals, are accused by either side of being in the other camp!

  Articles like Goff's are destructive because they create entrenchment on the other side of the debate: activists with a sex-work or sex-positive view of prostitution feel under attack and and respond accordingly. I personally have experienced this. This divide in feminism is becoming more and more destructive, and could well be fatal for the movement. There absolutely is common ground, and we desparately need to find it, but articles like Goff's do nothing to achieve it.

Clearly, Stan Goff is not as much on the side of sex workers as he might like to think. In a comment to the Pleasure Activism Australia email list about the article, author of Yes Means Yes, Kath Albury, noted that:

Many men (and some women) on the left are *extremely* conservative in their attitudes to porn & sex work, and very rude & contemptuous of those who oppose them (including the sex-workers they claim to advocate for). I sometimes wonder if this is some kind of public playing out of their own anger/shame/ambivalence around sexuality? I mean, you never hear them say a single word about pleasure - and even sex in relationships is talked about as if it's (at best) some kind of useful, if troublesome, 'intimacy' glue to stick child-rearing monogamists together.

But apart from the above comments, there are several other problems with his article:

• Goff writes that Sun's

  "claims are based on extensive research, not the anecdotal interviews with industry spokespersons suggested to Chyng Sun by Nina Hartley."

  Hartley did no such thing. In her CounterPunch article, Hartley writes:

  "Professor Sun's reportage dwells at length on the most distasteful aspects of what she saw and heard, but makes no mention of any attempt to establish direct communication with any of the women who work in the adult video industry."

  So what Hartley is saying is not that Sun should have gone to PR people for the adult video industry, but to the women who work in the adult industry. Goff's twisting of Hartley's words is outrageous and unethical. And quite ironic, given how Goff goes on about people setting up 'straw men' to argue against.

• Goff's personal attacks on Nina Hartley, Carol Queen and Annie Sprinkle are another indicator of Goff's unwillingness to engage in civilised debate (which does not, I would suggest, involve ad hominem attacks). Nina Hartley's husband, Ernest Greene, has written a response to Goff's piece which addresses this issue.

• Goff writes that:

  "Their 'choices' always trump the reality of those trapped in prostitution and pornography, and their solution is not to attack the industry, but to call those enslaved within it 'sex workers,' and claim that what they need are unions. Presumably, the unions could sign contracts with the pimps to limit the 'break-in-by-gang-rape' periods."

  Trivialisation of the attempts by sex workers to organise collectively to better their conditions is hardly progressive. Goff needs to speak to the people who call themselves sex workers and who are involved in sex worker collectives like the IUSW, COYOTE, PONY, or the Bay Area Sex Worker Advocacy Network. He should also consider the increasingly successful organisation of sex workers in Asia, demonstrated in articles such as "Pakistani sex workers visit India", "Sex workers fight for Mumbai bar girls", "India sex workers demand rights" and "Korea: Sex workers' union?". It's quite disturbing how Goff can so easily dismiss the power of collective organising, and so easily dismiss the efforts of women who are trying to help themselves.

• Goff claims that "radical feminists' . . . analysis of gender as a system of power is the most advanced". Says who? Can Goff substantiate such a claim? On the basis of what criteria can such a claim be evaluated?

• Goff also claims that "The overwhelming majority of pornography consumers are men." Uh huh. But where is the data to back this claim up? Oh, that's right, Goff doesn't feel any need to substantiate his claims, so he doesn't provide any. He probably doesn't want to hear about things such as the following:

  "A Nielsen NetRatings survey found that one of three visitors to a pornographic web site monitored for a month were women, erotic magazine Cupido reports." [ http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article700540.ece ]

  "Ladies who like it" [ http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_2003/mercury-030908.html ]

In summary, i feel that Goff's piece contributes nothing to the 'debate' except to fan the flames of dichotomisation around this issue: a dichotomisation in which sex work and porn is either pretty much all Good, or pretty much all Evil. The reality is, of course, much more complex.

--

[ If you'd like to comment on this article, join one of Pleasure Activism Australia's online discussion groups. ]