Politics

Home Politics

“There Can’t Be Numbers:” An Interview With Laura Agustín, Part 1

Upon the publication of her book, Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labor Markets and the Rescue Industryanthropologist Laura Agustín became a hero to many sex worker activists. Her research cuts through the usual moral hysteria and emotionality invoked by the idea of trafficking to radically revise discussions about migration and sexual labor. Both her blog (linked above) and her book contain rational assessments of an unfair world in which people exercise choice even when they have limited options; where citizens of developing countries, like citizens of developed countries, have an urge to see more of the world; and where a single story cannot usefully articulate the experience of multiple, diverse human beings. When it comes to her approach, she explains, “I am disposed to accept what people tell me, and believe in their ability to interpret their own lives.” She kindly agreed to answer some questions for us about the current state of trafficking laws, what she calls the Rescue Industry, and public (mis)conceptions.

How did you first become interested in the sex industry?

My interest was in the experiences of friends and colleagues in Latin America who wanted to work in Europe. Travelling outside the formal economy meant having very limited choices, and, for women, selling sex and working as live-in maids were practically the only choices. People I knew conversed in a normal way about how to get to Europe and which of the jobs seemed better for them personally. I saw how certain outsiders were focussing on something they called prostitution, but I didn’t understand their anxiety about it. My original question wasn’t about migrants at all but about these people, who wanted to stop others from travelling and stop them from taking jobs they were willing to accept – all in the name of saving them. During my studies I decided that thinking in terms of commercial sex and the sex industry were one way to resist this Rescue ideology. 

Quote of the Week

I hear a lot of supporters of the Swedish model say that the legislation does not target sex workers because we are not the ones who are criminalised by the laws. To me, this buys into a long history of treating sex workers like we exist independently of community, clients, family and other human beings. […] The main reason this is relevant to the Swedish model is that while the legislation does not specifically criminalise the sex worker, it criminalises everyone around the sex worker.

Most disturbingly, the strict pimping laws apply to people who live with sex workers (the good old ‘living off the earnings’ schtick) which may include partners and even sex workers’ children. There have been cases in Sweden already where sex workers have had their children charged with pimping because they were living with them and not paying rent. Anti sex work feminists, this is your legislation that you claim does not harm us. This is the danger of treating sex workers like we are not part of our communities and families. It is not feminist to support legislation that punishes women by targeting their children.

Hexy on Feministe explaining why the oft-championed “Swedish model” of criminalization still penalizes and endagers sex workers.

Going Negative In The Champagne Room Fails

Remember the worst, most offensive political ad ever made? We talked about it last month, and it seems to have helped catapult Janice Hahn right into office. Alexandra Petri’s take on why that might have been suggests (quite sensibly) that most of the eyeballs on web ads belong to young liberals:

Hey, Here’s Some Good News

 

Stop destroying the Constitution and America and the flag and the United States covered in a flag, prostitute-haters!

The US Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional to require that international AIDS outreach organizations denounce prostitution in order to receive federal funds. Predictably, the government conflated sex work with sex trafficking in its demands that organizations sign an anti-prostitution pledge. (Hence its name; it’s not called an “anti-trafficking pledge.”)

The reasoning for the ruling was as follows:

Compelling speech as a condition of receiving a government benefit cannot be squared with the First Amendment.

Right on. Thanks, Second Circuit! (Except for you, Justice Straub, for encouraging that the Supreme Court take this on so the ruling can be overturned.)

More information about PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief)  and the anti prostitution pledge can be found here. And an early account of how the case unfolded can be found here.

Kat Takes a Stroll Through @aplusk’s Twitter Feed

Dude, where's my facts?

I’ve been trying to make sense of Ashton Kutcher’s recent twitter feed. After the Village Voice article came out on Friday, he just started firing off tweets that sounded a lot like how an upset tween would respond if #killjustinbieber was trending, and not so much like the CEO of a nonprofit. I’ve been doing a lot of head shaking and sighing after reading statements like, “The cry of a company waking up to it’s [sic] failure will never be as loud as the tears shed by girls trafficked on its platform.” Where to start? Isn’t this a little bit… really gross and unnecessary? He may as well tweet about the blood of 100,000 to 300,000 hymens.

How about, “No response @villagevoice? Oh I forgot U work business hours. Maybe that’s Y you sell girls on ur platform. they tend 2work the night shift”? First of all, I think I have to give up using sic now. Next, he does realize that “sex slaves” don’t have set hours, right? I know that he’s not getting his information from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit because even they have plots involving boys, and they also never mention anything about shifts. I’m guessing that most sex slaves are more on call than anything.