portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

energy & nuclear

What the hell is "Sex Positive"?

Answer my question.
To repeat once again, What the hell is "Sex Positive"? It sounds like some kind of STD, like "Oh crap, I didn't use a condom and now I am sex positive."

well, 09.Aug.2004 11:38

White Lilac

your sex can be male, female, or positive. (or fabulous, or divine, and even gorgeous.)

sex positive. it's the only way to be.

definition 09.Aug.2004 12:56

ooooh aaaah

I believe that "sex positive" means putting a positive light on sex, as opposed to casting it as "dirty" or "dangerous" or fraught with hideous moral hazards. The term is used by sex educators who promote healthy, egalitarian sexual relations between the sexes and a respect for sexual diversity.

also... 09.Aug.2004 13:43


sex positive also encompasses...knowing what you want sexually, and being able to express it safely to whoever you are having sex with. open communication about sex, consent, std's, pregnancy, intimacy, body issues, power imbalances, power play, orgasm and how to achieve it, safety (ie, safe words, and also knowing your own and your partners history of sexual abuse, and being able to then (hopefully) not trigger scary memories, or if it happens, to STOP what you are doing until everyone involved feels ok again...). also, sex positive generally engages in a conversation about the fluidity and grey scale of gender, sexuality, orientation, and types of relationships....

sex positive...it ain't no disease...

one possible reason... 09.Aug.2004 14:59


One reason (I'm sure there can be hundreds) behind it could be to counter Radical Feminism's really negative stance on sex, and sex workers etc...

WOW! 09.Aug.2004 15:08


"Radical Feminism's really negative stance on sex, and sex workers etc..."
Wow, painting with a pret-ty wide brush today, aren't we?! Not only do you want to paint all "radical feminists" the same color, you want to turn them all into the same Proper Noun! Aaaaaauuughh! I don't wannew be assimilated into your big, Proper Noun meme box! Somebody help me!!!!

elements of a backlash 09.Aug.2004 17:10


Indeed, radical feminism is often defined as the recognition that sexual oppression is an integral part of contemporary human societies and the belief that such oppression should be abolished. Radical feminism can only be viewed as sex-positive as it seeks to remove structures that support sexual exploitation and oppression. If one actually takes the time to read radical feminist literature, instead of the more-often-then-not factually lacking critiques of the authors, this would be quite clear.

wordplay 09.Aug.2004 17:14


In my experience, "sex positive" works much like "pro-life" does in that it doesn't actually say anything about what people who self-identify that way think as much as it suggests that everyone else is wrong and bad (sex negative, or pro-death).

I have never seen 'sex positive' used as anything but a euphemistic codeword for sexual capitalism, but doesn't 'sexual capitalist' sound so much yuckier even if it is a more accurate description of the held beliefs of 'sex positive' self-indentified people?

sex pos 09.Aug.2004 18:30


....was coined in attempt to recognize that inside our lovely lefty sometimes anarchisty communities people, often women are getting raped and sexually assaulted. So folks have been talking about how to be preventative rather than reactive about this issue for a long time.

"sex positive" stems from many many people's efforts to value sex, sexuality and consent based communities.

wrong, yoddle 10.Aug.2004 00:46


Like rfm, I personally see radical feminism as the most positive way in which to view sex. And much like Sam, I have noticed that "sex positive" is sometimes used as a euphemism as "sex industry positive" or "sexual capitalism."

But radical feminsim most certainly does not portray sex negatively. That is an old straw man argument that Rush Limbaugh types have long since run into the ground.

i see mostly negativity here 10.Aug.2004 23:29


To be "sex positive" is a much-needed counterbalance to the actively sexually-repressive nature of this Puritan-founded society. We are all taught to fear and hate our bodies starting at a very young age. To associate sexually-positive attitudes with pornography and prostitution...that's as ridiculous a generalization as to characterize feminists as anti-sex.

Also, "pornography" is a loaded word. One person's erotica is another person's pornography. I do hope we're not going to revert to burning copies of Joyce and D.H. Lawrence, in order to protect the fragile psyches of those who find sexually-explicit material to be disturbing. If you don't like it, don't read it.

otoh 11.Aug.2004 10:26


"To associate sexually-positive attitudes with pornography and prostitution...that's"..."ridiculous"
I disagree. I think that someone with a truly "sex-positive" attitude should be able to embrace not only a person's right to view erotic/"pornographic" material, but also a person's right to have sex with whomever they choose (willing partners only, of course!), under whatever terms they can both/all agree upon INCLUDING those which include monetary or other reciprocation. Perpetuating the stigma that accompanies pornography and prostitution seems to me to be adverse to the very concepts that make up the foundation of "sex-positive".

Sam 11.Aug.2004 10:31

sex positive aleady has a meaning

"To associate sexually-positive attitudes with pornography and prostitution...that's as ridiculous a generalization as to characterize feminists as anti-sex."

Actually, it's not, as some people here have been saying. You can go to Google and type "sex positive feminist" and see what comes up to educate yourself, but I'll share here my belief that the term "sex positive" came from former prostitute, madam, and Penthouse columnist Xaviera Hollander's book The Happy Hooker. "Sex positive" doesn't just mean whatever you think it means, it has an established usage within feminism and that usage is pro-prostitution, pro-pornography, pro-sexual capitalism.

I know what pornography is. Pornography is what is sold in porn shops. I haven't seen Ulysses, Women in Love or miniature David's Michealangelos there last time I checked, but maybe you're going to different prostitution film stores than I used to go to before I gave that exploitive, objectifying corporate crap up for good.

"If you don't like it, don't read it."

Because not looking at social problems makes them goes away, or at least makes sexism not affect you personally? Hardly.

A little wisdom from John Donne:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every
man is a piece of the continent, a part of the
main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory
were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or
of thine own were: any man's death diminishes
me, because I am involved in mankind, and
therefore never send to know for whom the bells
tolls; it tolls for thee."

pornography and prostitution are destructive 11.Aug.2004 11:30


To quote *sexual health advocate*, from another thread:

"In just one study of 475 male, female and transgendered prostitutes 92% said they wanted help getting out of prostitution immediately and 100% said they did not want anyone they loved to have to prostitute themselves. I have never seen a credible study that showed dramatically different results"

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women

Prostitution Research & Education Website

Portland's very own Lola Greene Baldwin Foundation

Do the research and destroy the harmful myths commonly held by those on both the left and the right.

I don't hate the player - I hate the game.

pornstitution and prostitution aren't healthy 11.Aug.2004 11:37


For clamydia:

The inherent harms of prostitution and pornstitution have been discussed recently here on PDX Indymedia. You can search around in the gender and sexuality section or investigate these threads.

Republicans and Sex Workers at the RNC

You Are What You Eat: The pervasive porn industry and what it says about you and your desires

A Cruel Edge, the painful truth about today's pornography and what men can do about it

Prostitution and AIDS

And some common sense wisdom; If pornography were healthy sexuality then the prostitutes in the porn industry would be the most sexually healthy people among us.

If legalizing prostitution met it's stated goals of reducing child prostitution, drug addictions, street prostitution, gang activity, and violence towards sex workers then how come the wealthy pimps and pornographers aren't spreading news the great successes of numerous prostitution legalization trials all over the world? They have billions of dollars and the will for 100% legalization as their goal, but all studies everywhere that I have seen show the considerable failures of legalization.

ugh 11.Aug.2004 12:53


I get so sick of people throwing up link after link to support their arguments. If you want to argue something, use your own words and your own experiences. It took me forever to read/reread (some I had already read once) through all of those article, and none of them came anywhere near forming a point-by-point analysis of why pornography or prostitution is INHERENTLY wrong. Yes, they all bring up valid points as to why the current situation surrounding those issues is supremely fucked up, and they manage to throw out some untraceable (as far as I was able to find, anyway) statistics to support their opinions, but not one of those articles even attempts to touch on the fundamental question, which is should people have a right to do with their own body whatever they see fit to do with it?

for Sam 11.Aug.2004 13:19


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273872.shtml is another article regarding this topic, though I fear your perspective is not argued well in the ensuing discussion.

Saying that pimps and exploiters want to de-criminalize prostitution is akin to saying that drug cartels promote drug de-criminalization... legitimacy is in neither's best interest.

wow! 11.Aug.2004 14:02


That was one of the longest and most frustrating threads I have ever read through. It's like, every time it looked like people were about to come around and begin to agree on certain things, some jerk had to jump in with an ad hominem and fuck everything up... Good for you, goatlove, for having the patience and tenacity to ignore the majority of the bullshit personal attacks and keep arguing your point in a mostly respectful manner.

Sam 11.Aug.2004 14:46

legalization doesn't work

If you truly read all those links after they were posted today but before you posted in comment to them then you're the fastest reader I've ever known. Or, you just skimmed them and considered that good enough, but really it's not

I looked through that thread you posted and I think the legalization crowd (yourself included) did a lot of hypothesizing about how legalized prostitution might possibly work in a theoretical world. But this is reality, and in reality the legalization of prostitution has made things much, much worse for prostituted people, and there is ample proof to back that statement up.

"but not one of those articles even attempts to touch on the fundamental question, which is should people have a right to do with their own body whatever they see fit to do with it?"

In theory, I think it's possible a sane, sound person could choose to sell one of their kidneys for $500, but I am very glad that organ selling (even if they're your own) is illegal because the exploitation and abuse from organ selling has proven itself to far outweigh the theoretical capitalism rights of any one individual. I am glad that some people care enough about heroin addicts not to allow them to kill themselves while others stand around saying, "Hey, it's their body, they can do what they want."

Also, I think your reading comprehension skills need sharpening if you missed not only the massive amount of peer-reviewed international research showing the many failures of legalization but the point implicit in my question about pornographers and legalization: where is the proof of legalization's benefits that you are talking about? Do you have anything to back up your claim that legalization is good for prostituted people?

Those are my own words, not 'links and links", and it's a damn good question as to why, if the legalization trials attempted over the last several decades have provided information on how legalization plays out in reality, have the hypothetical positive results not shown themselves yet? Can you provide one single study anywhere showing the multifaceted positive results from legalization trials, at least one to counter the very comprehensive 30-year Swedish legalization experiment which decided prostitution is inherently harmful, because we all know what sexist, prudish fascists the Swedes are when it comes to sexuality and gender equality.

If you read one link in full one article about this, read the translated-from-Swedish article by Maria-Pia Boethius  http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article____2295.asp

"The End of Prostitution in Sweden?

To the ridicule and dismay of many, Sweden is attempting to do away with 'the world's oldest profession' through legislation criminalising the purchase of casual sexual services. How did Sweden's Riksdag, or parliament, arrive at this standpoint? How can we prevent prostitution from 'going underground?' And, principally, how can anyone be convicted through this law? The answers to several of these questions will not be revealed for a few years, when the law has been put into practice. This is a presentation of the reasons for Swedish legislation differing so markedly from that of other countries.

Few proposed changes in legislation attracted so much international attention as the Swedish law against prostitution that came into effect in 1999. For comparable impact, we have to go back to the 1970s, when Sweden enacted a law forbidding the corporal punishment of children.

On the first of January 1999, the day the new law on prostitution was to come into effect, a large number of foreign journalists had arrived to see how it would influence behaviour. Reading the law, it seems modest and bureaucratically phrased:

"Whoever shall acquire casual sexual services against remuneration will—if the action does not come under the general criminal code—be judged guilty of procuring sexual services and be sentenced to either a fine or detention for a maximum period of six months."

Yet it was a global sensation of the first order. The law criminalises the purchaser of sex—most often male—while the prostitute—most often female—is innocent of a criminal act. The prostitute walks away; the consumer is the criminal in the new law.

The law was not created overnight. On the contrary, it was the result of a long and intensive process, lasting over 20 years. It is the outcome of a large number of studies and commissions, of the fact that over 40 percent of Riksdag representatives are now women, and of constant pressure from the Swedish women's movement. It was also the result of the drive in Swedish society towards egalitarianism, with equal rights and obligations for both men and women. The reasons for criminalising the buyer of sexual services but not the prostitute are best expressed in a government bill from 1997/98; a state-sponsored Prostitution Report had earlier proposed that both buyer and seller should be liable to criminal prosecution. In a comment, the government wrote:

'The proposal by the Prostitution Report to criminalise both buyer and seller has been subjected to extensive criticism by almost all referral bodies. The government also deems that, even if prostitution in itself is not a desirable social activity, it is not reasonable to prosecute the party that, at least in most cases, is the weaker party, exploited by others to satisfy their sexual drive. This is also important if prostitutes are to be encouraged to get help to leave prostitution and can feel they will not have to worry about the consequences of having been prostitutes.'

In almost all countries and all languages, the word 'whore' is the most derogatory of insults; a word which encompasses the deepest contempt one can have for a woman; a description of an utter social pariah. At the same time, hypocrisy is served. Groups of men demand that prostitution be allowed, that they have free `access' to these women, whose services they habitually decry. The usual argument is that prostitution has always existed and therefore will always exist. Against this, the Swedish women's movement postulates that because prostitution has always existed does not mean it always must. Extensive political changes are happening in many countries. Women are breaching the barricades of politics. In all the years that prostitution has `always existed,' women have had no share in political power. The balance of power between men and women is changing; Swedish political science studies show that having more women in the Riksdag changes politics decisively. What the new prostitution law demonstrates could be described as follows: that when women finally achieve real political power they use it to create the taboos that we actually need: for example, that no man can `buy' a woman. Another example is a Swedish law from 1988 that forbids possession of child pornographic pictures, since films and photographs of child pornography presuppose that a serious assault has already taken place.

Law is being repositioned from having been general or `objective' to placing blame where it belongs: with the man who buys sexual services or the man who is in possession of child pornography. When men, either as individuals or as a strong majority, have political power, they seem to take more consideration of their fellow men than of vulnerable women and children. As women storm into the political arena, something extremely interesting occurs: what has been seen as `natural'—such as prostitution—is suddenly being questioned. What is encouraging in this process is that women fighting violence and sexual assault directed at women and children are backed by a parliamentary majority of women and men. When in May 1998 the Riksdag approved the law criminalising the purchaser of sexual services the vote count was 181 for and 92 against. And as many men as women voted for the new law.

The journey leading up to this historic new legislation was long and dramatic. In 1971, Sweden saw the appointment of a Sexual Crimes Report. The appointees were seven men and one woman, with a male chief justice as chief investigator. Sweden had long been seen as the haven of `free love.' People abroad spoke about `Swedish sin' and sexual liberation was on the agenda of many radicals. The object of the Sexual Crimes Report was to review what was considered the country's old-fashioned legislation on vice.

The view of the Report was that the state should be involved as little as possible in people's sexuality, which was well and good. This was a new tolerance. But when it transpired that this tolerance encompassed even rape and that the Report proposed that rapists be merely fined if their crime was judged to be "less serious," Sweden's women were jolted awake. The Sexual Crimes Report was an alarm bell. The much-vaunted sexual liberation had turned out to be liberation on men's terms. To begin tolerating rape was, far from being liberation, a deadly blow to women and their sexual integrity. And the Report raised no objections to prostitution, which was legal in Sweden. Was it really reasonable that seven men and only one woman were set to review legislation on sexual issues?

An intensive, nation-wide debate ensued; a debate that was to change people's views on sexuality, rape, prostitution, incest and wife beating forever, it is to be hoped. Violence against Women became a common cause and previously hidden situations and mechanisms of oppression were opened to the public gaze. Women defined their goals as equal pay and better political representation but also a political battle against Violence against Women. Demands were raised for political and public institutions to take action. Prostitution was seen to be part of sexual oppression: it was less a matter of achieving sexual satisfaction as of buying power and domination of vulnerable women."

you can read the rest at the website

a complicated problem 11.Aug.2004 15:12


Why should'nt we be "sex positive"? In spite of the origin of this term's definition, people have obviously appropriated it for their own positive uses. There's nothing inherently wrong with prostitution between consenting adults. God knows people need a sexual outlet, and the bible and other readings don't always cut it. Some people are probably cut out for prostitution and can do it very well, professionally, monetarily, spiritually, psychologically, mentally, etc.. As an industry, or a legal industry, it's probably a disaster.
In legalized prostitution, how well cared for are the workers? Do they get all the benefits of a great job; health care, sick pay, retirement, etc.? They should. If not, don't legalize it, discourage the practice. If you don't want to take care of these people in a manner befitting someone responsible for one of the most vital components of a humans being, don't take it on.
Allowing somebody to use your body to get their rocks off has to be potentially one of the most personally devastating activities someone can do. Intelligent, civilized people could approach this aspect of human experience, and the people who must provide for it, with compassion and reason, ultimately producing a possibly healthier society. Instead, the first, most base responses occurring to humans; self-serving lust or overwhelming contempt, tend to characterize the approach to it. That really, in my opinion, is just not "sex positive" at all.

Sam 11.Aug.2004 15:42


I haven't read the last link you provided. I will, but before I do, let me respond to a few things you said, and then I'll finish up after I read what you posted:<p>

First of all, I'd really appreciate it if you would cease and desist with the condescension. I haven't talked down to you, and I'd like the same consideration. <p>

Also, you sort of lumped your condescending responses to goatlove and I together in that last comment, which kind of tics me off since we are two different people and I may not necessarily agree with everything that goatlove says, just because we both happen to disagree with you. <p>

Regarding your insinuation that I could not have possibly read the links you provided in the time given: Those links amounted to about 41 "book-pages" worth of text if you include the comment sections, which I DID read in the (approximately) one hour between the time I saw them and the time I responded. Keep in mind that I did skim over the stuff I had already read when the thread was fresh, and I also skimmed over some of the redundant arguments in the comments. It makes perfect sense if you take into account the fact that the thread posted by goatlove took up a volume that was roughly three quarters (actually a couple of pages more than 3/4) that of the sum of the text to which you linked, and it took me roughly three quarters the amount of time to read it and respond. I <i>do</i> read pretty fast, though. No need for you to insult my reading comprehension, though, you condescending condescender! (humor)

wait a minute! 11.Aug.2004 15:47


You already posted this on Kirsten Anderberg's article! I DID read this already! (I thought that URL looked familiar...)

ok 11.Aug.2004 16:30


"I am glad that some people care enough about heroin addicts not to allow them to kill themselves while others stand around saying, 'Hey, it's their body, they can do what they want.'"
I'm not. Do you realise how worse off heroin addicts are because of the "war on drugs"? First off, addicts are going to use until they are ready to stop being addicts, and that's not going to happen without help. Incarceration is not help, and as a matter of fact the stress that goes along with incarceration is more than enough to cause people to want to use drugs rather than to quit. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, regardless of what the law says. The majority of dealers are users, so punishing dealers doesn't help. The price of the drug is jacked up because its illegality makes it difficult/expensive to import. The jacked-up price of the drug leads to higher peripheral crime such as muggings and robberies because addicts cannot afford to "legitimately" feed their expensive addictions. The whole thing could be better if A: People didn't get arrested for having heroin, and B: There were more people around who would be willing to *really* help addicts by supporting them in recovery and rehabilitation rather than sitting in an armchair and voting to keep it illegal. Laws are funny like that: the good folks don't need them and the bad folks don't obey them so what's the point?

I'm getting off topic, so I'll just sum up my core argument:

1: Nobody has the right to tell me or anyone else what I can or cannot do with my body.
2: The societal ills associated with prostitution are not a result of the act of prostitution itself but of its subversion by institutionalized sexism and capitalism.
3: I swear I just heard my phone ringing, but I went and looked and there was nothing on the caller ID.

So there.

same arguments still good 11.Aug.2004 16:46


All the links in my post were to other Indymedia articles, so they should look familiar.

As for your reading comprehension, is there any other response to your "I read everything and everything I read was flawed and the statistics were all 'untraceable'" besides to question how well you really read?

You said, "they manage to throw out some untraceable (as far as I was able to find, anyway) statistics to support their opinions", and I know for a fact there are research methodologies presented for the largest studies at www.prostitutionresearch.com as well as easy to find citiations on the journals, books, and unpublished studies for others, so I know you either didn't read them, didn't read them well, or didn't understand what you were reading.

You said, "not one of those articles even attempts to touch on the fundamental question, which is should people have a right to do with their own body whatever they see fit to do with it?" as if all these nonprofit organizations working against prostitution never put much thought into what 'consent' or 'right to work' means to prostituted people. Like none of them question why 13 is the average age a young girl gets raped into becoming a pimp's 'ho, or why 90% of prostitutes are under the control of pimps if it's to be suggested prostitutes are 'doing whatever they want with their body'. I can see exactly where one Canadian study found that Candian prostitutes had a mortality rate an amazing 40 times other workers, and I have been given no reason by you as to why I should discard that information and all the rest along with it.

Sorry, but I don't believe you have given serious consideration to the information that has been presented to you, else you would not have dismissed all of it (all of it!) as inconsequential to the "fundamental question" as blithely as you did.

Again with the condescension! 11.Aug.2004 17:06


That's ok. If you feel the need to talk down to people who don't agree with you, then by all means do it, but I don't have to put up with it. When I said that none of those articles dealt with the fundamental question, I meant it. And no, I'm not going to spend hours getting lost in every hyperlink-maze you send my way. If you have an argument to make, make it yourself. I've stated mine, let's see your rebuttal, sans rhetoric/red herrings.

where's your evidence? 11.Aug.2004 17:41


I'm still waiting for your argument. Just saying "Because I say so" is not an argument.

Also, you truly need to read about the 1999 Swedish law to see how wildly off the mark you are with the heroin analogy. In Sweden, there is no "war on prostitutes"; selling sex is not illegal and prostitutes are not arrested, only soliciting for sex (johns and pimps) is illegal. Prostitutes don't demand the right to get fucked by hundreds of men, it is men who demand access to prostituted bodies.

One Stockholm organization (again, those repressive antisex Swedish Puritans?) claims that the demand for bodies to masterbate into decreased about 75% since implementation of the revolutionary law. Some laws work and some don't. Legalization has proven itself in every instance not to work, and the one country that has decriminalized prostitutes selling but kept criminal johns and pimps soliciting is having great success in the short time since it has been implemented.

prostitution is rarely about personal choice & freedom 11.Aug.2004 17:51


I don't see how making people aware of the consequences of their actions is doing anything negative. True, you can shoot up heroin all you want - go ahead. It's not *necesarily* bad for you. I know many people who enjoy occasional heroin use without ill effect, just as there are some prostitutes still in the initial stage of their career. Some people like to slice the flesh of their arms to make themselves feel better - it took me awhile to stop freaking out about that. To each their own, I guess. Cutting is a whole other subject, but it is just a symptom of other things (prostitution being one of them, btw).

Looking at the facts, certain things become clear: the best way to deal with prostitution is to criminalize the buying of another human being's body (a la Sweden). Legalizing prostitution leads to greater violence against prostitutes, younger prostitutes (including children) and drug problems amongst prostitutes. It leads to sexual slavery and the trafficking of humans.

Do as you will. To each their own, right? Take it easy, man. Take the load off. Don't worry, be happy, right? It's their body, right?

Prostitutes' social ills in the economic systems that mix capitalism and socialism to varying degrees, are ALL made worse by prostitution.

Prostitutes have a ten to twenty times higher suicide rate than non-prostitutes. That is a fact.

All the talk of freedom is nice and tingly, but I'm surprised that clamydia, who has called himself an anarchist, does not also recognize that responsibility comes with freedom. Many anarchists have said this much better than me, as you well know - anarchy is responsibility, not freedom.

the collective mood 12.Aug.2004 01:46


"sam" is obviously considerably more articulate and researched than I may ever hope to be. Just curious, now that sweden has made such a reduction, (according to the studies)in prostitution, what are reports saying about how the population is handling the change on a personal level? Are people who weren't before, now getting boyfriends/girlfriends? are they masturbating a lot more? praying a lot more? gnashing their teeth or just going plain crazy?
It's great to eliminate this predatory-parasitic practice, but I don't think it will truly be overcome if society does not refrain from demonizing sexual need, and instead responds compassionately to those experiencing sexual frustration.

Sweden rocks 12.Aug.2004 08:15


The short answer to the question is the Swedish people love the new law and both men and women are overwhelmingly in support of it (I read somewhere it has about 80% support among Swedes in general).

The long answer is, and it's the last line I posted from the above article: "Prostitution was seen to be part of sexual oppression: it was less a matter of achieving sexual satisfaction as of buying power and domination of vulnerable women."

It is not sexual frustration that drives men to demand obedient and submissive women for a price, it is the will to have power and domination over another. Here is some info about American johns from the Freedom and Justice Center  http://www.angelfire.com/mn/fjc/learningpacket.html

59% were married, 16% were single, 11% in a relationship, 13% were separated, widowed or divorced

76% reported that they were satisfied with their primary sexual relationship, 8% said they were not satisfied

27% had a college degree, 38% had some college, 32% were high school graduates

16% had prior convictions for prostitution, 5% were convicted of other illegal sexual behaviors

49% disagreed and 14% strongly disagreed with the statement "There is nothing wrong with prostitution."

34% disagreed and 45% strongly disagreed with the statement "If I were thinking about getting married, I wouldn't mind marrying a prostitute."

46% agreed while 37 % disagreed with the statement "Prostitutes are victims of pimps."

66% disagreed with the statement "Most prostitutes make a lot of money."

52% agreed that prostitution should be decriminalized while 40% disagreed with the idea.

29% disagreed and 66% strongly disagreed with the statement "It would be OK if my daughter grew up to be a prostitute."

49% disagreed and 12% strongly disagreed with the statement "Women are prostitutes because they want to be. It is their choice."

26% agreed while 69% disagreed with the statement "Prostitutes enjoy their work."

3% strongly agreed and 29% agreed with the statement "It would be okay if my son went to prostitutes." 49% disagreed and another 20% strongly disagreed with this statement.

Here is something a friend working against sexual slavery in San Francisco once wrote:

"Men don't pay for prostitutes because they want to have sex. They don't pay for prostitutes because they need somebody to listen to their tales of woe. They pay for prostitutes for that sense of control, of power, of superiority.

Men don't pay for purchase women from Third World countries because they can't find one in their own country. They do it because they want somebody to push around, because they want to be the big man.

Conventioneers don't take call girls back to their hotel rooms because they need a shoulder to cry on. They do it because they want to experience a woman obligated to listen to whatever nonsense they have to say.

Men don't pull over on Capp Street because they want the sensation of a woman's mouth on their dick. They do it because they want the sensation of degrading a woman, of a woman sucking his dick because he told her to do it."

sexual need/frustration 12.Aug.2004 11:29


Why do you give a fuck about johns, moon? I could care less about those who wish to buy bodies for sex. I care about sex workers, an oppressed group of people. If someone has to pay another person in order to let them touch intimately, then there is something profoundly wrong with that person's interpersonal skills. Even very ugly/smelly people are capable of finding a lover. Even very large-bodied people can find a lover. Johns lack basic empathy and don't want to compromise, it seems. They want a body to masturbate into, essentially. they want a slave. That is fucked up. That is not sexual need or sexual frustration - that is oppression. The johns can masturbate like anyone else, or try and be pleasant to someone and build a friendship that might lead to sexual relations. If he can't do those things, then he has some work to do until he can.

??? 12.Aug.2004 12:56


What the hell is this doing in energy and nuclear?


hmmmm....o.k. 12.Aug.2004 13:22


I appreciate "sam" having posted the results from the questionaire put to johns. If those results really are valid, well, then I guess it's clear to me that I don't know johns. I never thought the john profile could be quite like that. I know there's a lot of assholes in the world, but it more or less seemed reasonable to me that at least some of those dudes were hookin' up because they were frustrated and depressed. I don't respect people who exploit or dominate others. If the business can never be anything other than a person using another to make themselves feel like a hotshot, to the detriment of the others health, then it should go.