Would you accept it, truthfully and supportively, if your mother, daughter or sister chose to go into prostitution?

World's oldest profession? So it has been said. Sleeping with someone is a misnomer because people do not lie down together to sleep. Please. Let's cut through the anthropocentric symbolism. Everyone pays for sex, one way or another. And anyone who denies this is a fool. It is all a matter of perspective.

Why wouldn't I support them Jennie? If you didn't you would be a gigantic asshole.
You don't get to choose what your mother, sister, or daughter do.
But you can be a part of making sure they can do what they decide to do safely.
That they won't be harassed by cops.
That they'll be able to access the health and support services they need.
That they can report abuse and exploitation to the police without being treated like dirt; so that they can report the crimes against sex workers that would otherwise go unreported.
Also why are you only asking about female family members?
What about fathers, brothers, and sons?
Is it because you think men are capable of making their own decisions but women aren't?
And what about all the other things people may not want their mothers, sisters, or daughters to do?
What about washing toilets for minimum wage?
What about BDSM?
What if your daughter realized that she enjoyed being fucked in the ass?
Or having her face fucked until she gagged?
Would you support that?
If not does that mean it should be illigal?
So to answer your question; yes, I would support them absolutely.
My only reservations about sex work is because of the stigma against it.
I'd be worried that they would be targeted for abuse by intolerant and judgmental people.
The kind of people who hide their misogyny and sex negativity behind feminism.
But the answer to that is to promote sex worker's and indeed women's rights;
Not the criminalization of sex work.

Some thoughts on today's program ?
I think the points that Ken was making (and I'm not sure to what degree they are his actual positions on the issue) sum up a certain strain of Second Wave feminist argument against the sex industry that relies on the idea of "inherent disgust" and "moral intuition" and has more than a slight degree of subjectivity to it. Why is it that sex in a commercial rather than relational context is "cheapened", "degrading", etc? It seems to me that the anti-sex industry argument can't ever really get beyond its own intuitional sexual morality ? the view that since one could not imagine oneself doing such work and being anything other than disgusted and traumatized, it must be harmful for all people, or at least all women. That's a very subjective view that one needs quite a bit of additional justification to universalize.
Indeed, most of what I see said about the "telos" of sex are mere pronouncements. Statements of "ought" based in subjective moral judgements rather than remotely objective moral arguments. The claim that sex is "for" the advancement of loving "mutual" relationships and therefore sex work should be outlawed is as much of a kneejerk moral judgement as the idea that the "telos" of sex is ultimately to bond man and wife and produce children, and in turn using that as a basis to argue against rights for gay people. (And, BTW, I've heard San Francisco's new Archbishop make a variation on that argument within the last month as justification for the Church's active support of Prop 8.)
The argument that the sex industry is upheld by "disgusting males" is similarly weak. Again, so what? This seems to be a cheap appeal to the idea that female sexuality is somehow higher and more noble than male sexuality, and is a foolish basis for real social policy. (And as a "disgusting male" myself, if I was feeling less diplomatic, I'd go on at length of how contemptible I find such judgements.)
More to the point, while I agree that men are indeed by and large the buyers in the sex industry, I think the real implication of the fact that male sex workers exist in non-trivial numbers was not really explored during the discussion. I think it clearly undermines the "patriarchy" argument about prostitution - the idea that men objectify and consign women to the sex industry because men have power over women. The thing is, male sex workers exist in proportion to the gay and bisexual male population. Where is the "patriarchy" and gender power asymmetry there? Where is the asymmetry between straight and gay? Certainly other power differences of race, age, income, etc may still exist, but there are too many mature white male sex workers to reduce male sex work to a simple power differential. So if sex work and "objectification" can indeed exist even among relative social equals, what happens to the "inequality" argument? And is it such a stretch to hold that in many cases, women likewise can engage in sex work from a relatively egalitarian place with men?
On the other hand, one point that Tracy Quan didn't go into enough depth about, perhaps due to time limitations, was how to help those who are coerced, trapped, or otherwise less than willing in the sex industry. It certainly gave room for a questioner from the audience to play the "What about the sex slaves?" argument quite self-righteously. She had a point, however, that are many in the sex industry who are without a voice and relatively powerless. The weakness in the questioners argument, however, is that it seemed very hostile to the idea that those people be offered solutions that give them a voice, and instead seemed to prefer that they be consigned to the role of victims to be rescued. (Something that puts this kind of anti-prostitution activism in much the same category as anti-abortion or animal rights activism, with its similar emphasis on saving those helpless victims without agency from terrible atrocities.)
I think there are many ways that the pure victimization point of view fails actual victims (witness the rhetoric from some feminists that sex workers are all "brainwashed"), and there's really much more that a rights- and empowerment-based activism has to offer even the most downtrodden, but too often, sex worker rights activists don't address that area because they are forced to spend so much time defending the voluntary nature of much of sex work against naysayers.
(OK, that was more than a few thoughts.)

Seems the morality theme is continuing. I suspect someone is working on a book---but, that is only a suspicion. I think there is nothing much new to say about this issue.So, I will not try. I'll only repeat, briefly, what has been said about sexuallity for years since Kinsey and Masters and Johnson. The substance is an interpretation. The words are, I think, my own: Sexuality and sexual behaviour are among the most fundamental of human instincts. And they are, instinctual-educational and cultural influences, notwithstanding. Maslow constructed his hierarchy of needs many years ago. We can parse, examine and analyze these things until we can no longer parse, examine and analyze them. Is it all so complicated? No, not really, yet, I am sure, we will continue to parse, examine and analyze. This is how we are.

Prostitution must be a very tough way to make a living,
But if your body is all that you have to offer,
Then who am I to judge,
Or take their livelihood away.
Be One,
=

Armchair Philosopher - I'd take serious issue with the idea that there's nothing new to say about sexuality since Maslow and Masters & Johnson! A great deal has been researched or discussed in a number of sciences, in the arts, and in philosophy. And I think we've barely scratched the surface of what makes us tick sexually!

Bleah! Let's get back to philosophy, shall we? Thanks.

John and Ken (especially Ken) -- for a couple of feminist guys you really monopolized the discussion. I wish you would have let the guest talk more. She was certainly trying to, but you kept interrupting.

Long time listener first time commenter.
You sure did prove the point tonight about our male dominated patriarchal society by constantly interrupting your guest, talking over her, scolding her choices and not allowing her to answer many of the audience questions.
Excellent demonstration of the concept, gentlemen.

I have never heard our moderators ignore and not allow to participate or express views less than on this podcast. That to me is Ken's patriarchal domination over their GUEST like never before. Very long time listener, never moved to blog, This was true travesty.

It seems to me that Jennie raised a point that was inappropriately dismissed. My own version of Jennie's point goes something like this: If prostitution is fully legalized so that it becomes like any other normal occupation, then people who receive social assistance and, as a condition of receiving it, must accept any offer of work that is offered or lose their assistance, they will become de facto sex-slaves. I think that most people not indoctrinated into such a system would find it deplorable. While I support decriminalization of prostitution and social action to combat exploitation of people who enter into prostitution forcibly or voluntarily, prostitution should not be allowed to develop into into an unregulated occupation.
By the way, the statement that prostitution is legal in Canada is misleading. As I understand it, the specific law against prostitution was declared unconstitutional and, in the absence of a replacement, prosecution is impossible. However, "communication for the purpose of prostitution" remains an indictable offense, seeming to serve little purpose except to facilitate police stings.

Iamcuriousblue,
I would like to thank you for your points about the Feminist driven movement against prostitution. I was listening, I wanted to be in that auditorium and challenge Ken on his pure feminist motivations. It is my understanding that most male sex workers in the gay sex industry actively make the choice to participate in the industry. In fact, most of them thoroughly enjoy the work.
If one wanted to solve Ken's moral feminist dilemma but legalize prostitution, the obvious solution is to legalize male prostitution. Then "disgusting" men only degrade themselves instead of women. Problem solved. But I strongly suspect Ken would reject this proposal for some "new" reason.
Overall I really liked this episode. The guest was perhaps a little dogmatic. But I really liked how John challenged Ken on his Protestant and Catholic background as influences.

You can dress it up however you like but it's sickening moral relativism to feel entitled to have a portion of society be disposable for men's use.

With reference to the comment by Patrick R, the egalitarian ideal in all Western societies makes the idea of legalizing only male prostitution unworkable. However, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary involvement in prostitution is crucial to a morally sound solution.

Good points on all sides.
I think one of the real ways this could hurt women - and why I would dissuade a sister or friend - is the social stigma.
1. How does "prostitute" or "sex worker" look on a resume?
2. How would a date react if you tell him you were working as a prostitute?
It could be something positive on a resume: Prostitutes are often very professional, very much in control of the situation (managing), good at human contact, attractive and charming, and have experience handling cash transactions, sometimes under high pressure and limited security. That's the job! All of that would seem to indicate that this is often rather high-quality human capital we're discussing. In western European tourist cities, you could add that the East-European girls working there also build up very good English skills. Anyone have business ideas to occupy them once these ladies get "old" and go back to the bleak employment prospects of Sofia or Bucarest?
The more serious question is to what extent, once a woman becomes a prostitute, she can re-integrate into society. Marry, have kids. In many societies she will nonetheless be either seen as lesser than a woman who hasn't engaged in prostitution, more "used", less "moral", lower class, and looked down upon (also by prospective husbands), or a prospective husband will have trouble trusting her with monogamy. Maybe she'll revert to that profession if he gets fired from his job? Maybe she'll do so even if they have kids?
For most men those are scary scenarios to play with, even if they are in their mid-30s in Ukraine, want to settle down, and have just met a beautiful, sweet, multilingual, confident and talented woman... who reveals to him that she honed those talents in the sex trade of some place with more money than Kiyiv.

Arvoasitis -
The claim that if prostitution is legalized or fully decriminalized, then poor women will be forced by welfare agencies to take jobs in the sex industry is simply a myth perpetuated by the anti-sex work movement. Snopes has a very good article debunking the oft-mentioned claim that women are forced to take brothel jobs in Germany: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp .
It should be pointed out that most non-Islamic countries already have some subset of the sex industry that's legal. Even where prostitution isn't legal, stripping, porn acting, or webcamming often are. And while it's true that some women, men, and trans people may very well take such jobs out of financial desperation, in no countries do welfare agencies push people into such jobs.
There is *no* necessary incompatibility between full decriminalization of sex work (including prostitution) and having a society where people are not forced into the sex industry, and sex workers are offered real ways to transition out of it, if and when they decide they no longer want to do that kind of work. This is in fact what sex worker activists like Tracy Quan are calling for.