Repost in observance of Int’l Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers
Duly noted: the AJC will print “drinking game material for bloggers” tripe like this in their Opinion section, but they won’t print that fresh! new! (gag) content they claim to crave so badly. Anyway, I thought today would be an appropriate day to repost the op-ed I wrote several months ago. Here it is:
Shaming tactics not effective against prostitution
Currently, the Atlanta Police Department’s Web site includes mug shots of women convicted of prostitution and escorting without a permit (“City adviser: ‘Johns’ get too little scrutiny,” Metro, May 21). This tactic is dangerous and ignorant.
Sex workers are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, especially rape and sexual assault. The concept of shame perpetuates the widespread view of sex workers as disposable. Further, the illegality of their profession prevents sex workers from reporting violence perpetrated against them.
How does posting their mug shots benefit women arrested for prostitution? Even if we assume that a woman may be successfully “shamed” out of sex work by having her photo posted, she is still an open target for potential harm by anyone who sees her photo, since the mug shots remain on the Web site for 3 to 6 months.
The current debate, however, does not address the dangers of women’s mug shots being publicly displayed, nor does it advocate for the photos’ removal. Instead, the conversation is centered on the question of why there aren’t any photos of johns on the Web site.
Some cities have adapted a tactic of “shaming” johns by posting their photos online, on television, or on billboards. Stephanie Davis, the mayor’s policy adviser on women’s issues, believes this would be a good solution in Atlanta. But will it work?
In 2005, Oakland, California launched a campaign called Operation Shame, with the same goal as that which Davis suggests for Atlanta. The Oakland campaign displayed johns’ photos on 10 by 22 feet billboards.
After eight months, the billboards disappeared amid protests from constitutional rights activists. The prostitution rate in Oakland did not fluctuate.
Proponents of “end demand” programs claim that these campaigns reduce prostitution without harm to sex workers, deterring men from purchasing sexual services. According to Norma Hotaling of SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation), the developer of San Francisco’s John School program, 98% of men going through the program were “rehabilitated.” However, a 2002 study published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology found that such programs have little or no long-term deterrent effect.
In many cases, these programs exemplify misplaced good intentions fraught with paternalism. In the late 1990s, Vancouver stopped arresting street prostitutes and began focusing on johns. The rationale behind the change was that the johns were predators, and the prostitutes were victims. But Andrew Sorfleet, a sex worker and founder of SWAV (Sex Workers’ Alliance of Vancouver), disagrees. He points out that the real predators are men who pretend to be clients in order to rape, beat, or rob sex workers, and adds that the campaign was motivated by “the misconception that sex workers need to be ‘rescued’ – with or without our consent.”
Besides, the idea that shame will discourage a non-desirable behavior isn’t realistic. This is the fundamental flaw behind Davis’s proposal. She believes that posting johns’ photos online “would contribute to the shame that any man who buys sex should feel.”
Adults paying for sexual services from other adults should not be a crime. As the Oakland example shows, shaming does not deter people from paying for or accepting payment for sex. It just makes people stealthier and drives activity further underground, thereby elevating the risk to all involved.
The double standard is at work here – the concept that women who sell sexual services are worthy of public contempt, but the men who pay for those services are not. Davis seeks to address this inequity, but her motivations are based on an assumption that any participation in the sex industry – whether as client or service provider – is contemptible.
In all of this, though, there is one very important set of voices that is missing: the voices of actual sex workers. Policy advisers, APD officials, and op-ed writers can talk ad infinitum about what should or shouldn’t happen. But the people we most need to hear from are the ones whom these policies actually affect on a day to day basis.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
The St. Paul PD does the same thing, which I learned when I googled “St. Paul Police Department.” The second website on the list is prostitution arrest photos. Not conviction, just arrest. Lovely. Personally, I really enjoy the thought of a second grader learning about how police are your friends in school and googling the SPPD. Mommy, what’s pros-ti-tu-tion?
They do have photos of the johns on the SPPD website, but who the fuck cares? No other “crime” is stigmatized in this way.
Also, as some of my lovely visitors pointed out during their meeting with a vice/trafficking detective from the SPPD (who hates the website FWIW), the site is just free advertising for the sex workers. The detective agreed and said that one of the women had actually asked if he could include her phone number along with her picture.
People are dumb. Government agencies are vacuous.
Thank you for the evening’s program.
Man, do I disagree. I agree regarding stigmatizing individual prostitutes, because I’d like to see them have the freedom to be prostitutes or move into other lines of work, and that isn’t likely if they’re stamped forever with their past criminal transgressions. And I most definitely do not want them being preyed upon. But I like having johns humiliated, and that’s mainly because johns are the cause of 90% of the negative experiences I’ve had in living in close proximity to an active, illegal, street prostitution scheme.
Furthermore, I’m weary of arguments which seem to suggest that our only option is benign neglect, or looking the other way as the illicit drug and sex trade endangers our safety and property. That isn’t an acceptable alternative for me, or for my neighborhood.
You might like having johns humiliated, but the fact is, those tactics don’t work, and can in fact put sex workers at greater risk of violence. More importantly, if you ask them, a substantial majority of sex workers will tell you that they do not want their clients criminalized, as that is potentially taking away their ability to earn a living.
Ultimately, for me, what’s most important is what sex workers want and need, not what will make me personally comfortable. I see nowhere that benign neglect or “looking the other way” have been offered as solutions – quite the opposite, in fact.
So what’s been suggested? I don’t see any suggestion of alternate schemes above — merely the contention that several separate tactics don’t work. What works? What keeps johns from harassing me and making my neighborhood unsafe?
Well my op-ed, specifically, was aimed at addressing the particular tactic proposed by Stephanie Davis, of posting johns’ photos online. Unfortunately I had to keep it to about 700 words, so I couldn’t say everything I wanted, much less explore all the different angles. (Not that they published it anyway, the jerks.)
LOTS of things have been proposed! Many solutions were discussed last night at Charis. All the ideas and potential solutions revolve around two fundamental concepts: decriminalization and destigmatization. As long as sex workers’ profession is criminalized, violence will be perpetrated against them and around them. The criminalization of the profession does favors to no one, and helps no one. Criminalization is what drives street workers to “certain” areas of town; and lack of other opportunities, which is related to the way our economy is structured but also to the criminalization of the profession, is why they’re working on the street in the first place!
For some good reference material and background information about the sex workers rights movement, check out this page.
As long as sex workers’ profession is criminalized, violence will be perpetrated against them and around them. The criminalization of the profession does favors to no one, and helps no one.
If I may please. I agree sex work should be decriminalized. Individual choice/responsibility and all that. But while that may reduce violence I’m not sure that, as you say, criminalization is the cause of the violence. But decriminalization may help the worker feel more free in reporting the crime. Is that what you meant?
(That’s one of the more compelling arguments for immigration amnesty.)
[...] true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of [...]