The Sex Workers Project had a letter published in the San Francisco Chronicle. For your reading enjoyment…
Don’t call it slavery
Editor – Regarding Joel Brinkley’s “Enslaved, by definition,” Jan. 13:
Finally someone has noticed that the deliberate conflation of
prostitution and human trafficking hurts everyone involved.
The reality is even worse than Brinkley’s admirable column suggests.
Pending House reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
wrongly calls all prostitution “sex trafficking” and makes “inducement
into prostitution” a federal crime. It would also force the Justice
Department to stretch its resources for fighting child sexual
exploitation to cover adult “victims,” meaning prostitutes, whether or
not they see themselves as victims. And many do not.
Our clients who want to leave the business are looking for job training,
housing and other services and choices, not for “rescue.” Trafficking is
a gross human rights abuse that must be stopped, but the administration
needs to understand that not all trafficking victims are prostitutes and
not all prostitutes are slaves.
SIENNA BASKIN Sex Workers Project Urban Justice Center New York”
Sienna Baskin
Equal Justice Works Fellow
Sex Workers Project
Urban Justice Center
p/646-602-5695
www.sexworkersproject.org
Filed under: Academia, Allies, Economics, End Demand, Ethics, Human Rights, Injustice, International, Labor, Legal, Media, Politics, Violence, Workers of Color |
Bound, Not Gagged 
I agree with her 100%.
This article is great. It’s a “must read.” We need to look for progressive and effective approaches to ending slavery rather than conflating all prostitution with slavery, which does nothing to stop or even decrease slavery in the sex industry or any other agency.
good one
I think this is an especially importnat conversation to have because while sex workers are at risk for being charged with federal crimes “for their own good”, US tax dollars are funding human trafficking operations
Thanks for that article, Leah!
Kudos for posting this Leah. I think the last line is the most crucial: fighting voluntary prostitution and ignoring forms of trafficking – of slavery – that happen not to involve sex smacks of agenda misapplied.
[…] should listen to them when they say things like, ‘I love the business and want to stay in it. But I’m interested in helping women […]
[…] Don’t Call It Slavery […]
According to the caller on KMUD’s interview of Amanda and I yesterday it is all slavery. And she is an “expert in the field”. Amanda and I are colluding with the partriarchy to turn all women into “holes”.
I have tremendous difficulty talking to people who think it’s their duty to press upon me how enslaved I am. I don’t know how I’m expected to take such a claim seriously.
I still haven’t been able to listen to the interview yet. Damn 9-to-5 ties me to this desk. Help me! I’m enslaved to the man!
Yesterday while collecting signatures at the anti war march,
One women to me when I asked her to sign the petition to qualify the ballot measure for November, ” I can’t support prostitution, I mean, I know how awful it would be for me if I worked as prostitute.”
And I replied; ” this isn’t about you doing some thing you’d find awful, it’s about not getting arrested for working. I’m sure I would find a few things you do to be pretty awful.”
She signed.
I find that working in a criminalized occupation to be a slave state. Not having the right to say yes or no and no equal protection under the law in combination with unequal enforcement is what creates the slave state. The irony is that the haters of prostitution promote the slave state by advocating to keep it criminal. They are the slave owners.
‘The irony is that the haters of prostitution promote the slave state by advocating to keep it criminal.’
Prostitutes are not illegal.
Prostitution – the process of buying or otherwise coercing (mostly women) for sex.
Sorry, but the whole point of the ‘right to choose’ is based on the assumption that you’re in a a position to choose.
So yeah, it’s slavery. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t have to be paid to endure. And if it’s allowed to become acceptable, you can kiss education, housing, welfare and other ‘lefty’ concerns goodbye…..
Dear Ideology,
I work as a messenger, and I get paid to endure it. Before that I worked as a home health aid, and I got paid to endure that. But I don’t see you calling those professions slavery. Why not?
Hi Susan.
Because neither of those jobs require me to surrender my bodily integrity for a buck. In neither of those jobs does anyone have even the right to touch me, much less fuck me anywhich way but loose for a buck. All my holes are off-limits.
In S&M, alot of the girls get the crap beaten out of them – legally. I’ve seen some serious bruising. Does it take a death for people to wake up and smell the coffee?
Even pro-boxing has Queensberry rules.
To equate all prostitution with slavery is not only ignorant and inaccurate, but it does nothing to stop slavery in any industry and it has resulted in sex workers being persecuted under legislation that is supposed to be about fighting trafficking. This has resulted in tragic consequences in Cambodia, where sex workers are being arrested and taken to a detention center where they are being raped, beaten, robbed, and denied needed medical care by police and guards. Here is a link to more information:
Please think about this before you start equating all prostitution with slavery, FreedFromIdeology.
Oh, but you see, Ideology, you are getting FUCKED when you work a job that barely pays most people to survive on, that doesn’t have any benefits. That’s what you don’t understand.
I am fortunate that I live in a situation where my expenses are low, but most people could not live on what I make. Not in New York City.
See, this is what I can’t stand about people like you, Ideology. You think that sex for money is the worst slavery imaginable, yet being forced to work for chump change is just fine for women.
Tell Nikki and Melissa I said hi.
The last time a home health worker visited me, and I’m in a position to have frequent visits from such professionals, he/she was paid to touch me. Otherwise, how would they connect me to an IV for the treatment? How would they take my temp? How would they get my blood pressure? Touching me is a requirement of the job. Potentially getting sprayed with my blood is a requirement of the job. That’s pretty intimate, if you ask me.
And, yes, it is ok if I touch them. Maybe, if I grabbed their crotch, they would object. But when I’m spewing puke over the bed and an aid rushes to help, it is perfectly acceptable for me to touch them, to grab for them in desperation. That is part of the job: easing patient’s suffering, and touch is often, though not always, involved.
Sexworker:
‘ You think that sex for money is the worst slavery imaginable…..’,
In terms of the big picture, yep. Normalise prostitution and you’ll be lucky to even get minimum wage. Many don’t even get that – they’re pimps fleece them
yet being forced to work for chump change is just fine for women.’
Of course it isn’t. But if you legalize prostitution, you take away one of the most fundamental reasons FOR economic and social rights – the right not to have to surrender your bodily integrity to survive.
After all, we’ve all got bodies. We can all offer them fuck – for a price. You don’t need education, welfare housing. The ‘market’ takes care of everything.
Ponder what kind of prices you could charge in this libertarian ideal.
Keeping it illegal keeps the numbers (relatively) small. Which means you guys get to sell at something of a premium.
But claiming that it’s all just fine and dandy means taking away one of the best reasons for fighting for equal economic empowerment for women.
I would like to see every one collaterised on graduating from high-school. Collateral is power.
Think about it.
Jessica;
Fair point, and one I’ve heard before.
But no, the health aid worker is NOT surrendering bodily INTEGRITY – you can’t shove any part of your anatomy into any of their orifices. (Well, you could try. But you could be done for assault, rape or just sectioned!) Touching ain’t the same as being f**ked – not by a long chalk. It’s like saying an unwanted handshake is the same as a rape.
Of course it isn’t. But if you legalize prostitution, you take away one of the most fundamental reasons FOR economic and social rights – the right not to have to surrender your bodily integrity to survive.
After all, we’ve all got bodies. We can all offer them fuck – for a price. You don’t need education, welfare housing. The ‘market’ takes care of everything.
Ponder what kind of prices you could charge in this libertarian ideal.
Keeping it illegal keeps the numbers (relatively) small. Which means you guys get to sell at something of a premium.
So is this what happens in places where prostitution isn’t illegal?
Does anyone here have numbers?
But claiming that it’s all just fine and dandy means taking away one of the best reasons for fighting for equal economic empowerment for women.
I see very few sex worker rights publications claiming that “it’s all just fine and dandy.” I see a lot of efforts to make major changes which would be made a lot easier if it wasn’t illegal.
Perhaps a novel concept to ponder Freedfromideology,
Pragmatism.
Focus the law enforcement efforts on those who actually enslave and traffick. Focus law enforcement on efforts against those who pay to have sex with minors and for those who exploit the often very dire circumstances of runaway teens to make huge amounts of money.
Lets keep sex slaves to those who are actually sex slaves. If someone is being forced by whatever construct to have sex against their will, for money or otherwise, when consent is removed, that is sexual slavery, rape, etc. Pursue those who enslave, provide resources to assist those that have been enslaved, raped.
Provide resources to alter the conditions that put many in the sex industry that do not want to be there. Poverty, chemical dependency, lack of other alternatives, there is a long list. As long as the causes exist for people to have to be in the sex industry that don’t want to be there will be predators. There is zero chance of wiping out the predators entirely. The best defense to avoiding forced participation in the sex industry is to build better options for those who have no other choice. Different dynamic than human trafficking and sexual slavery but nonetheless poverty isn’t consent.
AND
There really are women who want to be sex workers. They should have the same human, labor and civil rights as everyone else hopes and expects to have. The wiling sex worker is also part of the equation. And they are not just 9 percent as Farley’s jaded studies would imply. The idea of denying rights to willing sex workers as a means of giving rights to those who are unwilling defies logic. Why is it so difficult to take the issues separately and advocate for the rights of all rather than sweeping generalizations and conflation. Solving the problems of the 14 year old sex slave and the 27 year old high end escort are two entirely different dynamics. Just because the vast majority of the participants are female and clients are male doesn’t make them universally the same.
I don’t know you Freed, or i’m assuming I don’t. I don’t want to speculate on your motives and miscast you. I too for many years was a rad fem. I heard all the discussion about pro porn, pro prostitution people, how they say all sex work is fine and dandy. Those are beliefs that are strongly endorsed by radical feminism, those are beliefs that are based upon incorrect assumptions. There is nil support for the idea in the sex worker rights movement that all is fine and dandy. If it were, than we wouldn’t be a human, civil and labor rights movement because we would have them.
We all agree sexual slavery is a horrendous crime, no one other than traffickers and those who enslave and prey upon victims endorses that kind of shit. We all oppose it. I am happy to join those fighting human trafficking, fighting sexual slavery. I am also very happy to be an advocate for sex worker rights. Both are valuable and important activist courses. The enemy is those who take away the rights of all of us.
Ideology,
Bodily integrity is not just about orifices. It’s about hearts and minds. There are many women around the world who work for less than a dollar a day, and barely enough to feed themselves a bowl of rice. I would say that these women are in much the same boat as women who are trafficked, because paying less than what you can live on is a form of trafficking, in my book.
Call me pedantic, but bodily integrity is about keeping orifices off-limits – hence rape law.
‘it’s about hearts and minds.’
Er, yes. And? (leaving aside the fact that the mind is not the body…..)
‘There are many women around the world who work for less than a dollar a day, and barely enough to feed themselves a bowl of rice. I would say that these women are in much the same boat as women who are trafficked, because paying less than what you can live on is a form of trafficking, in my book.’
You could (just about) argue that. Don’t see how it makes a ‘case’ for prostitution though.
Since when did two wrongs ever make a right? Since when did substituting one wrong (regarded by most as even worse) for another constitute an ‘improvment?’
Straight-up physical assault may be ‘just as bad’ as rape. Should it therefore be legalised?
Poverty isn’t
My point is, Ideology, is that you would rather have Third World women starve to death rather than work in the sex industry and make enough money to keep themselves alive.
No doubt you think that they should not have to prostitute themselves to stay alive, and that in a just world they would have enough to eat without doing so. But you see, Ideology, nobody wants to feed them. Certainly not George Bush, who could feed every Third World woman with a stroke of a pen (or Bill Clinton, when he was president).
And when I say nobody wants to feed them, that includes bourgeois soccer-mom feminists who express DIRE CONCERN when these Third World women open up their orifices for pay in order to eat, but can’t be bothered to demand that they be fed decently for the other work they might do.
So instead of coming here and being disrespectful and flippant, Ideology, why don’t you spend your energies seeing what you could do to end world hunger?
>>Since when did two wrongs ever make a right? Since when did substituting one wrong (regarded by most as even worse) for another constitute an ‘improvment?’>>
When homeless and without money for food and shelter I found it not to be about right and wrong or philisophical equations of 2 wrongs making a right.
Right was having food and shelter that day. All else was wrong. Perhaps I am guilty of too much pragmatism and not enough spiritual thought process. Easy to subject life to radical feminist analysis when your stomach is full. Not so easy to live when it’s you hungry, being analyzed by those who aren’t and being told it is better to suffer for the global well being.
Many radical feminists seem to have amazing tolerance for suffering. When it is others that are suffering.
Susan:
‘My point is, Ideology, is that you would rather have Third World women starve to death rather than work in the sex industry and make enough money to keep themselves alive.’
Now, where did I say that? I would rather they were fed – period. One thing’s for sure, legalising prostitution means taking away the best reason for global anti-poverty initiatives. Local too.
Or are you another reactionary that thinks prostitution-as-workfare is A Really Good Idea? Why? Because poor women don’t deserve anything better?
‘So instead of coming here and being disrespectful and flippant, Ideology, why don’t you spend your energies seeing what you could do to end world hunger?’
Would three years working in aid camps qualify? Not much, but more I reckon than most in here….
‘Right was having food and shelter that day. All else was wrong. Perhaps I am guilty of too much pragmatism and not enough spiritual thought process. Easy to subject life to radical feminist analysis when your stomach is full. Not so easy to live when it’s you hungry, being analyzed by those who aren’t and being told it is better to suffer for the global well being.’
I don’t see how this advances the argument for legalising prostituion.
If I was starving, I’d probablyor pimp myself out too – people do whatever they need to do to survive. I could also turn to theft. Acting as in individual in extremis to survive does NOT make a case for either prostitution or theft. Neither should be necessary.
Address the conditions of absolute and relative poverty – that’s the route.
FreedFromIdeology wrote:
“Address the conditions of absolute and relative poverty – that’s the route.”
Since when does persecuting sex workers achieve this?
>>”Would three years working in aid camps qualify? Not much, but more I reckon than most in here….”>>
No, Ideology, working in an aid camp does not qualify as working to end world hunger, however noble the activity.
It means establishing that everyone has a right to enough to eat (with balanced nutrition), and working to support policies which would eliminate the barriers obstructing access to basic nutrition.
Since you feel so strongly about eliminating prostitution, you would go a long way towards that goal by eliminating the reasons why someone would choose prostitution. And the most major reason, particularly in poor countries, is economic survival.
>>”Or are you another reactionary that thinks prostitution-as-workfare is A Really Good Idea? Why? Because poor women don’t deserve anything better?”>>
Decriminalization is not meant to take the place of social programs, but to coincide with them. And as for poor women, Ideology, they do not deserve to be locked up and persecuted when they engage in consensual sex with someone else for pay, which only serves to keep them in poverty.
>>I don’t see how this advances the argument for legalising prostituion.>>
Who is arguing for legalizing prostitution? Maxine’s bill is a decrim bill, most here are opposed to all or at least some of the system in Nevada. I have no love for US style legalization and by no stretch advocate for it.
>>I could also turn to theft. Acting as in individual in extremis to survive does NOT make a case for either prostitution or theft. Neither should be necessary.>>
It isn’t about making a case for prostitution or theft when it is survival sex. This is merging two separate concepts. Poverty isn’t inherently consent for anything. Nor is it making a case for it. But if someone is forced by poverty to work a sweatshop, we may work to find ways to end the horrible labor conditions, but we still advocate for the rights of the workers while trying to eliminate the harm, oppression and exploitation.
It may feel like a noble endeavor to want to end exploitation and oppression, and ending them in the sex industry is something we all want. Trying to do it by ending the sex industry is akin to social antibiotics. Scorched earth isn’t any more an answer than the current system.
‘And as for poor women, Ideology, they do not deserve to be locked up and persecuted when they engage in consensual sex with someone else for pay, which only serves to keep them in poverty.’
I certainly agree with that. But noone in the U.S. gets locked up or persecuted by the police for being a hooker – the most they face are solicitation/public disorder charges.
Some questions:
1.Who precisely do you want to decriminalise? Because prostitutes are no more illegal than drug-addicts.
2. How do you distinguish between decriminalisation and legalisation? (I can remember when legalisation was being touted as the ‘solution’ – look where that went. Every objection I raised has come true. Like my gramps always said – follow the money. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and it’s not the hookers that own the brothels.)
3.’Scorched earth isn’t any more more an answer than the current system.’ A very extreme metaphor – for what, exactly?
And, Jill:
‘But if someone is forced by poverty to work a sweatshop, we may work to find ways to end the horrible labor conditions, but we still advocate for the rights of the workers while trying to eliminate the harm, oppression and exploitation. ‘
I’m not sure what you mean.
You still advocate for the rights of sweatshop workers? How? By improving conditions? Like, allowing at least one toilet-break in a sixteen-hour day?
By full regulation? How to ensure enforcement? Who pays?
Why not eliminate sweatshops completely?
Didn’t legalisation promise protection, improved conditions etc? And what did it that turn out to be, but a state-sanctioned protection racket, with the police more likely to take (non-traceable) kick-backs for a ‘clean bill of health’ than ‘enorce’ labour laws?
Do you seriously think the pimps (of every hue) are going to worry about some piddling sex-workers union? The nature of prostituion/stripping is casual – and such workers have next to no power at all.
You need to move into the real world, not me.
P.S.
‘Who is arguing for legalizing prostitution?’ you ask.
‘Djril’ (‘I see a lot of efforts to make major changes which would be made a lot easier if it wasn’t illegal’ see above) for one.
“Not illegal,” in this case, does not mean the same as “legalization” as it is being used here.
FreedFromIdeology:
“I certainly agree with that. But noone in the U.S. gets locked up or persecuted by the police for being a hooker – the most they face are solicitation/public disorder charges.”
This comment is so ignorant. First of all, these solications/public disorder charges against hookers occur because they are hookers. Secondly, when vice cops set up string operations to bust escorts who work privately, what type of solicition or public disorder is going on? The cops are soliciting the escorts.
Green River KIller: Friends and family, questioned about Ridgway following his arrest, described him as friendly but strange. The same man who went door to door for his Pentecostal[2] church was also obsessed with prostitutes and had dysfunctional relationships with women; his first two marriages were riddled with infidelities by both partners. Both a prostitute and his second wife testified that, in 1982, he had placed them in choke-holds.
quote from swop: Serial killers know that the criminalization of prostitution prohibits sex workers from seeking protection from police and that stigma causes the public to believe that violence is part of sex workers’ job description.
Direct quote from serial killer: ‘helping the police to rid the world of prostitutes, whom they don’t control but he could”. Ridgeway claimed he chose prostitutes as victims because they were ‘the easiest’ targets and that “ he picked prostitutes and runaways because he knew that no one would miss them quickly, if at all”.
What are the haters doing about the anti prostitution laws that are used as tools to kill us?
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:YlKhQyNdMZUJ:www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Ridg_Summary.pdf+%E2%80%98helping+the+police+to+rid+the+world+of+prostitutes,+whom+they+don%E2%80%99t+control+but+he+could%E2%80%9D.+Ridgeway&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=32&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Maxine Doogan;
You quote Ridgeway:
‘Ridgeway claimed he chose prostitutes as victims because they were ‘the easiest’ targets and that “ he picked prostitutes and runaways because he knew that no one would miss them quickly, if at all”.’
He picked runaways for the same reason he picked prostitutes ( many of whom would be runaways too): because they’re vulnerable by the VERY NATURE of their situation.
Despite child abuse laws, we still have child abuse. Most runaways come from disturbed, often violent backgrounds. Few people are going to runaway from parents who care about them. Ridgeway, as with any bully, knew that.
Prostitutes are vulnerable, or percieved to be, for the same reason. No law changes the fact that anyone selling their bodies to a series of strange men is putting themselves at serious risk. Nor is it surprising that so many are drug addicts.
‘What are the haters doing about the anti prostitution laws that are used as tools to kill us?’
You know, I’m receptive to a good argument that a)reduces prostitution, b) so that those engaged in it are doing so out of their own free will and are not being in any way coerced, not even economically.
Hysterical statements like yours (are the laws against child abuse ‘tools’ for serial killers too?) are a sure fire sign that your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.
I note too, that none of the issues I raised have been addressed.
Why is that?
Because you know you can’t?
‘Secondly, when vice cops set up string operations to bust escorts who work privately, what type of solicition or public disorder is going on? The cops are soliciting the escorts.’
Such stings tend to target agencies – i.e. pimping. Public money and resources don’t tend to be ‘justified’ for stings targetting single women operating as prostitutes.
It’s only like to happen if you have, let’s say, complaints from residents that a constant stream of strangers (usually men) are clustering around a particular apartment or house. It’s especially an issue if the area is residential with lots of kids. A slew of johns showing up daily at your neighbours is no parent’s idea of good environment for their kids, or a safe one.
>>”I note too, that none of the issues I raised have been addressed.
Why is that?
Because you know you can’t?”>>
Your issues have been addressed, repeatedly. You just don’t like the answers we give.
>>”I certainly agree with that. But noone in the U.S. gets locked up or persecuted by the police for being a hooker – the most they face are solicitation/public disorder charges.”>>
No you DON’T agree with that, because if you did agree with that, you would be arguing in favor of decriminalizing prostitution, like us. Talk is cheap, Ideology.
And, yes they DO get locked up in the U.S. for being hookers.
And, lastly, there is no such thing as a “noone”.
>>”Such stings tend to target agencies – i.e. pimping. Public money and resources don’t tend to be ‘justified’ for stings targetting single women operating as prostitutes.”>>
What planet do you live on, Ideology?
?>I note too, that none of the issues I raised have been addressed.>>
You may not want to invest too much in idea that your self perception of the strength of your positions is universally appreciated. Your arguments are cliche almost to an extreme as is the haughty miss arrogant rad fem thing you have going. When i get time and energy to challenge your vapid cliche and faux arrogant strength you will get an answer.
Susan;
I live on planet Earth. And you?
Jill Brenneman:
Truisms and cliches – don’t you know the difference?
Resorting to ad homs is hardly a rebuttal.
Yet again I ask: how do you distinguish between decriminalisation and legalisation? Truth is in the details.
Where are they?
And, yet again sexworkeradvocate, it is NOT ILLEGAL TO BE A HOOKER, anymore than it is to be junkie – and not just in Nevada. It is illegal to solicit, just as it is to possess or deal . You cannot try anyone for BEING a hooker, anymore than you can try someone for BEING a junkie. You can try someone for BEING a pimp, or for BEING a pusher. Is your persecution complex so advanced you can’t tell the difference?
If you can hook WITHOUT soliciting, you are home and dry. The cops have to provide evidence of solicitation to secure conviction anyway.
Freed, I’ve seen this movie 1000 times from both rad fem and sex worker rights perspective. I’m just totally uninspired by this anymore. Take my lack of response for what it is, lack of interest in expending the time arguing with you and a total lack energy fpr the exhausting drama that invariably comes with radical feminists. Or take it however you want and have a victory parade. I just don’t fucking care
chau
Ms. Ideology, since you continue to grace us with your presence, you might want to tell us why you’re actually here, or maybe provide us with some intelligent conversation?
Or do you just come here because you enjoy bitch-slapping the whores?
Because, frankly, what I see here from you isn’t any different than the verbal abuse a street pimp gives. The pimps you claim to be so dead set against.
When Jill Brenneman told you she knows what it felt like to be on the street, not knowing where her next meal would come from, you mock her. There is absolutely no fucking way you could have spent even one day in an Aid Camp, let alone three years, and not have an ounce of compassion for somebody who has been in a position similar to those who you have helped.
And you ask if Sexworkeradvocate has a possible “persecution complex”. Are you this person’s psychologist or something? That you can ask a question like that? Or assume s/he may have something like that? Did Sexworkeradvocate ask you for a diagnosis over the message board?
Ideology, you asked me three questions above. And you also asked what’s the difference between decrim and legalization. I would gladly give you and answer to all four questions, with one condition:
That you apologize to Jill Brenneman for for mocking her experience as a homeless and hungry person; that you apologize to Sexworkeradvocate for attempting to diagnose him/her without this person’s permission, and that you apologize to the rest of us for your flippant, condescending attitude and behavior.
Otherwise, no deal. You’ll just have to go Google, type in the subject matter you’re looking for and see what you come with. Because none of us really want to deal with you until you apologize and show the proper respect.
Freedfromideology is nothing more than another psychic vampire. That fucking movement is a Carl Jung dream.
Hi Susan.
If you can uncouple yourself from the heady joys of manufactured outrage and pious posing – jeez, why not liken me to Ted Bundy while you’re at it? –
I’ll be happy to read the CASE FOR DECRIMINALISATION.
So far, it seems to boil down to:
1. Johns are more likely to go to the cops if they suspect trafficking.
And…., er, that appears to be it.
Jill Brenneman:
‘Psychic vampire’? That sounds intriguing.
‘Movement?’
What ‘movement?’
And why ‘a Carl Jung dream?’
You’ve lost me completely now…..
Freed:
Enjoy. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/08/20/sex-work-activism-two-decriminalization/
oh, also, it’s apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.