By Michelle Miller

OPEN a brothel. Regulate the industry. Make it safer. Move it inside.

These are some of the sanitized solutions provided by a recent report from Living in Community (LIC), in an attempt to address the harms of prostitution.

Sex industry

There is a line of thinking which views prostitution as 'work' and the sex industry as commerce. It reasons that if we normalize prostitution and treat the problems associated with it as labour issues, then the harm experienced by women will be reduced.

I reject this view as deeply unjust - rather naming prostitution as the abuse of women. In order to truly reduce harm for prostituted women, we must name prostitution as an exploitative system and reject measures which would further entrench and legitimate the sex industry.

In its effort to reduce harm, the LIC report ends up with a short-sighted analysis which will only serve to create a more robust sex industry in Vancouver and cause more damage to all of society. The study is riddled with contradictions, and belies an agenda to legitimate the buying and selling of women's bodies for the sexual pleasure of others.

So, what is the LIC project? Two years ago a businesswoman in the Hastings area and a self-described "indoor sex worker" came together to look at how businesses, residents and prostituted persons could "make communities healthier and safer" for all affected by prostitution. Their hope was to perform research and consult with community members, then come up with a plan which would reduce harm and increase safety.

Their resulting project, Living in Community (LIC), was funded by the federal, provincial and city governments - and last month, it released the culmination of a two year study and alleged community consultation.

I attended the consultation in my area, the Grandview Woodlands neighbourhood, curious to see how LIC was going to lead us in a participatory dialogue on how to work towards justice and a reduction of the terrible harm experienced by marginalized, prostituted women.

Upon entering the room, I was shocked to see a previously conceived plan slickly printed on presentation boards and set up around the walls. We were asked to vote on the preconceived plan; but it was unclear how our perspectives would shape the outcome.

Were our opinions and concerns really being heard? We hoped so.

Dissent

Imagine my surprise, when the report came out looking nearly exactly like what was posted on the walls - even though the community dialogue revealed significant dissent. My neighbours and I couldn't help but wonder if we were used as pawns.

As someone who has advocated for the dignity of prostituted women for many years, let me give you a deeper look into the so-called prostitution debate, and briefly interact with the action plan presented by LIC

Continue article >>

There are two ways of conceptualizing prostitution.

One way envisions prostitution as work and thinks the problems associated with it will be fixed by working out safer labour conditions. They would say sex is simply a business transaction, and the 'workers' need a safe place where they can conduct their trade.

The other way, an abolitionist approach, recognizes prostitution as an oppressive system of violence against women - which must be resisted and abolished.

To be fair, some of the LIC recommendations are laudable, and hold integrity. In several of their 27 action points, they address the need for safe houses, longer term housing, exiting programs for women to leave prostitution, and treatment for addiction.

But some ofour 2 their action items reveal the contradictory nature of this report: the systemic exploitation of women is presented as a "business," and the women who are terrorized by it are described as "workers."

LIC has a strong desire to fight child and youth sexual exploitation - but makes absolutely no connection between the general sex trade and child/youth exploitation.

If a girl is under the age of 18, she is considered a victim of exploitation; but once she turns 18, she magically turns into an "adult sex worker." She is liberated and empowered by her "choice" to prostitute herself. Victimhood becomes empowerment.

Early in the report LIC claims they have "chosen to focus without judgment on the current realities of the lives of residents, businesses, sex workers and customers of sex workers." They go on to state that their "shared goal is not to engage in philosophical debate, but to take a pragmatic stance."

This claim to neutrality is betrayed by the sanitized rhetoric with which they speak of prostitution. They use the terms "sex worker" and "customer," which belie an agenda to legitimate the buying and selling women's bodies and dismiss the rape and abuse women experience at the hands of perpetrators.

People who are abolitionist use the terms "prostituted women" and "john" to emphasize the fact that people are exploited by a system. It is not their identity, nor is it a "job." Prostitution is violence, not commerce.

LIC states that "sex workers do not necessarily come from dysfunctional families." However, the likely profile of a prostituted person includes violence, rape and abuse.

LIC ignores the documented connections between prostitution and childhood sexual abuse. It is consistently reported that 85 percent of prostituted women experienced a history of sexual abuse in childhood; 70 percent were victims of incest. The average age of entry into prostitution is 14. Most girls are recruited or coerced into prostitution by someone who holds power over them and exploits their vulnerability - usually a vulnerability born of previous abuse.

We have the walking wounded out there, being exploited by the very sickness and commodification of women's bodies which scarred them in the first place. The rhetoric of the ideology of prostitution as "sex work" perpetrates further violence against women.

Prostitution is not a job - nor a practice we want to perpetuate.

Michelle Miller is executive director of REED (Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity), a Vancouver Christian organization.

July 2007