Jump to content

nada's Blog

  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Sex Workers Takes Over At Festival Of Dangerous Ideas



Jules Kim, Migration Project Manager at Scarlet Alliance along with Zahra Stardust (Porn Star) and Cameron (Male Sex Worker Representative) at Scarlet takes over Festival Of Dangerous Ideas . Jules combat anti-sex work abolitionist rhetoric of Kajsa Ekis Ekma to criminalize clients.

Kajsa is also speaking at Spinfex press(responsible for publication of Shiela J's works) with none other than Caroline Norma(sex work abolitionist) of RMIT later in Melbourne. Kajsa reminds me of Sarah Newlin in True Blood!





Recommended Comments

The moderator was visibly annoyed the whole way through by the last minute inclusion but serves them right for not including a WL in the panel to start with. Some things said by the others made want to bang my head against the wall; at times it felt that was exactly what I was doing. Anyway, thanks Nada.

Link to comment

It is like banging head against the wall! Unfortunately, this is how many people think. - It's important to let the public know that actual sex workers feel criminalization of clients or blanket statement that sex workers are all victims  -  harmful to the community . We have a wonderful thing happening in NSW re:decriminalization, so we must maintain it and hopefully spread it. 

Link to comment

This reminds me of an episode of Yes, Minister where Sir Humphrey Appleby was sitting at the head of a table surrounded by middle-aged, male, Permanent Secretaries discussing equal employment opportunities for women. They all agreed it was a good idea in principle, but not appropriate in their individual departments. Sir Humphrey finish with the statement "Well, I think we have a fair cross-section of the community here..."

Link to comment

Thanks for this, Nada. I have missed your intelligent posts of late.


What I found interesting was that the one question that was totally shut down by the moderator was about what migrant sex workers actually wanted. Surely, that was the most important question to be answered, especially as the whole debate seemed to be about trafficing of sex workers from underdeveloped countries. Also, having a panel to discuss this without inviting someone from the industry was like having a discussion on law reform without inviting someone from the legal profession. Jukes did well given the little she was allowed to say.

Link to comment

The way abolitionist do :


1.conflate trafficking/violence with all sex work. 

2.gather few ex sex workers willing to take the money and/or really feel victimized by the industry (usually after living in mansions, getting through uni, raising kids) to rally to abolish the industry. and to put one view as the majority of sex workers

3.refuse to admit that there are more nuanced and varied experiences of sex work 

4.silence sex work orgs that also include people who were in trafficking like condition and experience violence by insisting that sex workers have capital incentive ( as if abolitionists don't) and that sex workers are all happy hookers- though NO ONE in sex work org is saying this. 

5. refuse all policy or safest laws that sex workers demand by claiming that it silences the "victims"(victims that wants to abolish the industry at all cost)

6. spread false info and stats ALL done with aid of Christian fundamentalists and other rad fem academics

7. fuels and exploits neo colonial sentiment of middle class privileged western folks who wish to see people with less privilege as someone they want to "save/rescue/rehabilitate" so they can maybe be like them or at least be saved by them - instead of giving power to advocate for self. 

8.convince sex workers with internalized stigma that the only way to make any situation better is to be helped by these orgs and others with more privilege rather than believing in yourself and other sex workers that we hold the answer and that we should be the driving force in our own industry about what happens and what is needed.

Link to comment

I noticed that they were insistent on conflating the sex work and trafficking, even using the line that if there was no prostitution, there would be no trafficking. I understand there are problems in other industries too such as factory work, but that does not seem to disuade them from their rant. Even if all trafficking was associated with sex work, it does not follow that all sex work is trafficking. If there were no cars, there would be no speeding, but it does not follow that all car drivers speed.


Another point I noticed was from Kajsa Ekis Ekma that if sex workers enjoyed what they were doing, they would do it for free. The logical extension of that is that is not possible for anyone to get paid to do a job they enjoy because the requirement to be paid negates the possibility that a person can enjoy what they do. There is no logical reason to make sex an exception.


Finally, the notion that the consequences of outing a sex worker are more severe than the outing of a punter is nonsense. Of course there are situations where this will be the case, but there will be situations where it is not. Every case is different, and it would be foolish to even try to generalise.

Link to comment

Kajsa's main point is that sex work needs to be abolished because sex work is not compatible with society free of patriarchy. 


Which she believes her ideology gives her the right to harm other marginalized people in the process of trying to eliminate sex work and that her point should prevail over every other points and issues other people are facing. 


There will be sex work in society free of patriarchy just as there are male sex workers . 


People's reason for consenting to sex is non-negotiable. To have or not to have sex. Her naive romantic idea about how one should only engage when one is genuinely horny and that she is authority on what that level of horniness -  is stupid to say the least. People can induce orgasm when they didn't previously "feel " like it or force a fart out if they wish when they don't feel like it. If the workers "enjoys" sex or enjoys watching other people being sexually fulfilled, than workers have the right to - what I DO know is that last time I checked, "enjoyment" wasn't what defined most jobs - so why are sex workers being targeted and interrogated about if workers ENJOY it or not. Like any other work, I am sure some people really enjoy it and others don't ... it should NOT be a reason to try abolishing an industry. 


She basically doesn't want to deal with all real issues facing women - doesn't want to work on equality for women, fair job placement, making IT/Media industry more comfortable place of work for women , deal with issues of single parenting , capitalism, et.c... without addressing them, she just wants to abolish the industry. It's sick.

Link to comment

I agree. She is as far from empowering women or supporting a woman's right to choose the path of her life as it is possible to be. She supports your right to choose as long as you choose her way.


If you enjoy your job AND get paid for it, you have reached the same goal that everyone strives for.

Link to comment
  • Create New...