Posted on

Would “legalization” lower escort rates? Client Questions

Recently, on one of the local internet forums, I came across the following question from a client. Never one to pass up a conversation even tangentially related to the criminalization of sex work, I started to answer his question, but my explanation quickly grew and kind of veered off-topic. So, I decided to post it here instead.

I wonder though, that if sex work was ever legalized, if the value of your time would decrease? Just a question… As supply increases, demand lowers.

My answer:

This is a great question.  The short answer is “probably.”  But…

Here’s the long answer:

There’s a huge difference between legalization and decriminalization. 

Legalization

In legalization, our work is legal, but only under certain conditions determined by the state.  The problem with this is…well, just look at Nevada. Well, no. First, let’s look at Storyville.


Historic Marker for Storyville, New Orleans (Red Light District). Sign reads: "Created 1897 and closed 1917, New Orleans' famous legalized red-light district was in this area. Among many great jazz musicians on the scene here were "King" Oliver, "Jelly Roll"" Morton, Louis Armstrong, Tony Jackson, and Jimmie Noone."
God forbid we mention of the actual sex workers, whose work was the entire purpose of the district.

Storyville: The “Red Light District” Approach, Exploitation, and a Two-Tiered Legality

As much as we in New Orleans (myself included) romanticize Storyville, New Orleans’s legal red light district between the years of 1897 and 1917, legalized prostitution was similarly problematic back then. Women were only permitted to sell sexual services in one part of town. A girl could not legally, say, meet a client in her own home, negotiate a price, and accept payment for the time she spent with him. The only legal way to accept payment for her erotic labor was to pay a brothel owner/manager in Storyville for the privilege of working there, and pay grossly inflated rent prices to the building owner, who rented out “cribs” (tiny closet-like rooms for the purpose of prostitute/client meetings and transactions) to working girls by the day. Needless to say, lots of people got filthy rich between 1897 and 1917, and most of them weren’t the actual working girls.

OK, now jump forward 100 years and to the West 2,143.9 miles (according to Google Maps), and let’s talk bout Nevada. In a couple of counties, full service sex work is legal, but only in licensed brothels.  Workers must also go buy a license from a government office ($$, and the worker’s information becomes public, btw), and they can only work for a brothel that has permission from the state.  While working for the brothel, they cannot leave the premises.  They must also

  1. pay for rent and meals at the brothel–you’re not allowed to get an apartment or buy your own groceries,
  2. pay for weekly trips for STI tests at a doctor the state has chosen for that purpose,
  3. pay for the van trips to that doctor,
  4. allow the brothel owner to see their medical info before they can,
  5. give up (I think) half their earnings to the brothel owner, and
  6. rely on the brothel owner for pretty much anything they need for work, which means prices are inflated, etc.

Basically, it becomes a get-rich-quick scheme for the state, the brothel owner, the doctor and his/her staff, and everyone but the people doing the actual sexual labor.  Ironically, one of the justifications given for this type of system is that providers need protection from exploitation (“pimps”). So, instead of allowing a provider to work independently (advertising, screening, negotiating with and meeting clients without anyone else interfering in that process), the state requires the use of a 3rd party, who is involved in (and profits from) the transaction.

Criminalization of the Most Vulnerable, Legalization for the Privileged

And let’s not forget the fact that not everyone will be able to afford that license or all the fees required to get start working at the brothel (licensing fees, transportation costs, required brothel-owned transportation service from airport to brothel, required up-front rent, required up-front food money, etc.).  Nor will everyone who wants the job be hired to work in the brothel. 

So basically, there are a few people who can work legally, as long as they give quite a bit of their earnings to a bunch of people who don’t have much to do with the actual work being done.  And everyone else goes to jail if they get caught.

This is only one form of legalization, but it shows how problematic legalization can be. On the surface, it sounds great, especially to those who have no experience working in this business or meeting with escorts. Keep hookers hidden away from good, regular folks in society? Great! Force them to be tested weekly? Awesome–lord knows they’re vectors for disease otherwise! Require that they work under the supervision of a babysitter who knows what’s best for them? Fine idea! Mandate a government-issued license to fuck? Sounds logical to me! (This is sarcasm, in case you can’t tell).

In reality, there are several problems with the “legalization” type of approach. As I said before, those who are most vulnerable (poor people) will not be able to afford to work legally, and will continue to work illegally and suffer the consequences. And providers who may not be the brothel owner’s “type” for whatever reason (race, age, body size, looks) will also not be able to work legally, and will continue to work illegally and suffer the consequences. I don’t think it’s fair to set up a system that punishes poorer, or fatter, or older providers for doing the same thing their wealthier, thinner, younger counterparts are doing, nor is it an improvement on the system we already have.

In addition (and to me, this is the most important part), I think it’s flat-out wrong for the state to legislate who can fuck whom, as long as everyone is of legal age and is consenting. It is absurd to say that it’s OK and legal for consenting adults to have sex for this reason (love, horniness, the desire to get back at an ex, etc.) but not that one (the need to pay one’s rent or phone bill, the desire to buy a fancy new dress, etc.).

Decriminalization: What Sex Workers Want

Now, with decriminalization, it’s no longer illegal to trade sex for money.  You can pay for it.  You can sell it.  As long as both parties are of legal age and consenting, it’s your business.  There will still be certain regulations, of course, but no new laws need to be made, because laws covering those issues already exist. For example, most rational people would object to allowing the buying and selling of sex in a park or at the grocery store. Well, we already have laws prohibiting public nudity and public sex. The same goes for forced sexual labor–we already have laws against rape.

What most individuals working in the world of erotic services want is decriminalization, because then it ceases to be illegal for providers to do the work they do.  And it ceases to be illegal for our clients to…well, to be clients.* All we want is to have the right to have the same sexual encounters that everyone else is free to have without fearing arrest because someone leaves us a little monetary compensation for our time and attention.

*Please don’t confuse decriminalization with the “Nordic Model.” Advocates of the “Nordic Model” will often use the term “decriminalization,” perhaps out of ignorance, or perhaps in an attempt to obfuscate the truth–that the “Nordic Model” is almost universally opposed by sex workers themselves. The “Nordic Model” takes an “end demand” approach–sex workers are no longer criminalized, but clients are. Obviously, that’s a really shitty situation for us–would you want the purchase of your products and/or services to be criminalized? Do you think a doctor’s practice could succeed if it were illegal for patients to visit? What about financial advisers? How profitable would that business be if it were illegal to seek financial advice? What if it were legal to sell alcohol, but not to buy it? Do you think bartenders would feel “safe” and “protected,” or would they just want to go back to slinging beers to their law-abiding customers in peace? You see, we do want to right to work without fear of arrest, but we don’t want our clients to be criminalized. Not only would we have a more difficult time finding clients, but when there’s that much of an imbalance re: risk of arrest (as in, we would be taking no risk by meeting with clients, but they would be risking arrest every time they chose to visit an escort), all kinds of unexpected consequences arise. And of course, the majority of them ultimately put sex workers at risk.

The Rates Question

So, your question was whether our rates will have to drop if and when this work is legalized.  Legalized?  Well…probably not.  Legalization comes with all kinds of “you can do this, but…” caveats, and those caveats cost lots of money.  Those brothels in Nevada?  Those girls’ rates aren’t cheap, unless they’re desperate because they owe the brothel owner $$$.  Decriminalized?  Maybe.  Once there’s no fear of arrest, there will probably be more supply–more people will join the profession.  But remember, there will also be more demand.  Less people will be afraid of visiting a provider.

I have a feeling our rates would have to drop some…or at least, many of us would have to drop our rates somewhat.  However, that’s a small price to pay for being able to work without worrying that you’ll be arrested and lose everything you care about–your home, your day job, custody of your children, maybe even friends and family.  And it would almost certainly be easier to meet with clients safely because I’m betting clients would be more willing to hand over the necessary screening info if they could be sure we weren’t cops posing as providers for a sting.

Equal Power, Equal Protection

Just think about it…No one could threaten to “out” us (clients or providers) to the cops.  If a provider stole from you, you could go directly to the cops and report the incident without them giving you a hard time.  If a provider was sexually (or otherwise) assaulted by someone she met with, she could report it without worrying about being arrested for the type of work she does.

The “But Taxes!!!” Argument

People bring up taxes as justification for legalization. Many, many, many of us already report earnings and pay taxes.  Of course not everyone does, but that’s common in lots of service industry jobs (waiting tables, bartending, etc.) and lots of informal labor (babysitting, cleaning houses, fixing people’s computers in your home, etc.). Decriminalization would make it even easier to do that–either as a business owner (independent provider), or as an employee at an agency or brothel (depending on how it’s done, a provider could be an independent contractor or a regular old employee).  Imagine if doing taxes was as straightforward and easy as walking into one of those tax prep places in a strip mall and saying “I’m an escort. Here are my receipts for the year. I saw this many clients and made this much money and spent this much on advertising and supplies.” So many providers would find it a lot easier to, I dunno, be approved for a mortgage and become property owners so that they have something to show for all the work they’ve done over the years, and a real asset to hand down to their children or to cash in on when they retire. Wouldn’t that be nice?

“Sexually Deviant Fallen Women” or “Desperate, Misguided, Helpless Victims”?

For as much as society loves to either demonize us or paint us all with the “poor, helpless victim” brush, they sure don’t seem willing to do the one thing that would actually empower us–that would enable us to show that we are so, so much more.

Update as of 3/2017:

I’ve recently come across the writings of Missy Mariposa, a former independent escort-turned-legal brothel worker at Sheri’s Ranch. Her experience at Sheri’s Ranch has been overwhelmingly positive, and doesn’t resemble the restrictive and exploitative environment I imagined. I fully admit my image of brothel work was based on a couple episodes of a reality show I saw way back when, and a few descriptions I had read by workers at another legal brothel in Nevada (not Sheri’s Ranch). Missy has fully embraced brothel work, and she explains why in this post: Why I hung up my heels as an independent and embrace the brothel. Color me enlightened!

Posted on

Open Rant to SexWork Prohibitionists Everywhere

OK, I normally don’t show this side of myself here on my blog, but I think it would be disingenuous not to right now, given the recent (August 11th) announcement by Amnesty International that they now officially support decriminalization of all forms of sex work worldwide.  They’ve been discussing this for a while now, much to the chagrin of prostitution prohibitionist groups and the celebrities they’ve convinced to support them (under the guise of the “anti trafficking” cause).

Sidenote:  the term “sex worker” refers to anyone who works in the sex industry:  escorts and courtesans, exotic dancers, cam performers, porn actors/actresses, full service providers, professional companions, pro-dommes, street workers, sensual massage providers, phone sex operators, etc.  The term does not apply to people in the business who do not provide the actual services (strip club managers, porn producers, escort agency owners/managers, etc.).

Feminists?

As a sex worker and an activist, I often run into prohibitionists who are absolutely married to the idea that no woman would ever choose to engage in full service sex work, and that any woman who does engage in it is being exploited by a man–be it her “pimp” or her “john” (yes, they use those words, even though those words aren’t really in widespread use among sex workers themselves).  They see sex work as inherently exploitative to women, and they see women as victims in need of rescue.  I refuse to call these people feminists–anyone who insists on infantilizing women and denying them agency is not a feminist.  Anyone who refuses to help women by working to secure labor rights for all workers is not a feminist.  Anyone who advocates police brutality against and confinement of poverty-stricken women so that they can be “reeducated” and “rehabilitated” into sweatshop workers is. not. a. fucking. feminist.

“But what about the men?”

“But wait,” you say.  “What about male sex workers?  Are they being exploited, too?  And for that matter, what about trans girls (‘TS’ in the biz, or ‘T-girls’)?”

I can answer that in one (sort-of) word:  LOL.

Prohibitionists prefer to ignore the fact that men are also sex workers.  It doesn’t fit their neat, clean predator/victim paradigm.  As for trans women, well…most anti-prostitution prohibitionists don’t consider them women at all.  I’m not sure they even know that trans guys exist.

In their world, there are three kinds of people:

  1. heterosexual, male-assigned-at-birth men
  2. basically asexual female-assigned-at-birth women
  3. “enlightened” prostitution prohibitionists, er, “anti-trafficking activists”

Oh yeah, and then there’s us.  By “us” I mean the people who support sex workers rights, and the rights of all adults to have consensual sex–to share our bodies in one of the most basic, personal, human ways available to us.  This is a basic human right that people of all stripes have been fighting for for years (even in the US, there are states that still have anti-sodomy laws on the books!), and anyone with any sense of logic and/or justice supports that right…except for when it comes to women and the exchange of money, because it’s just plain easier to see the fairer sex as weak, naive, innocent, and pure than to acknowledge that adult women are sexual beings with agency and ideas, desires, needs, and goals independent of men.

The “Pimp Lobby”

And you know what the prohibitionists call us? The “Pimp Lobby.” Because they refuse to believe that we are speaking our minds, or that female providers would actually–gasp!–defend the rights of adults to engage in consensual sex, regardless of the reason. They actually believe that we are “lobbyists” for “pimps.” They believe “pimps” control us sexually, financially, and ideologically. They believe that we are paid or coerced by men to pretend we have chosen this work. I’m not sure how they explain all the research (with sound methodology even!) that points to full decriminalization being the best approach, but I guess denial is a powerful thing. Powerful enough to convince prohibitionists to ignore evidence and soldier on with their mission to force a moralistic view that results in harm to real people.

…Or maybe they don’t really believe it.  Maybe that’s just their way of convincing people to ignore us. Maybe that’s their way of persuading the public to completely disregard what is said by the people actually doing this type of labor–the very people these prohibitionists spend time and energy ostensibly trying to “protect”–since we don’t, in fact, want or need what they say we do.  Pretty sinister.

So yes, you could say I’ve got a lot of pent-up anger for these people.  Especially since they refuse to listen to sex workers who speak out, and instead insist that our voices don’t count because we’re the privileged ones, the exceptions to the rule of poor imprisoned girls who are raped multiple times a day for their pimp’s profit.  Nevermind the illogical nature of this claim (Where are these millions of imprisoned girls?  Why are they never found?  And are there really that many men willing to pay to rape a woman?  As far as I know, the vast majority of rapists just rape–they’re not going to pay another man for something they can do for free.).

“I’m not a sex worker, but I played one in a movie once…”

Anyway, so on an article about all the Hollywood celebrities (some of whom played prostitutes in movies!  So, ya know, they know all about the reality of sex work) who signed an open letter penned by CATW International urging Amnesty International not to adopt any policy that supports the full decriminalization of the sex industry, one particularly stubborn person in the comments section posted a link to a document titled “Prostitution Statistics,” referring to it as “cold, hard facts” (good lord, please take a research methods course, stat):

(Update: As of December 2016, the University of Hawaii has removed that document from their website. It appears that happened sometime within the last year–I don’t want to flatter myself, but I kinda hope someone on their web admin team noticed the sudden uptick in links to that page, which appeared to be nothing more than some undergrad’s improperly-sourced, slapped-together assignment. Too bad they didn’t do that before it was cited as a legitimate source by various nonprofits all over the internet. Still, if you’re interested, here’s an archived copy of it via the Wayback Machine.)

I couldn’t help myself.  I went on a rant and couldn’t stop, and it became a rant to every and any of these people I’ve encountered or will encounter EVER.  And here it is:

Oh, honey…those are not “facts,” much less cold, hard ones.

I’m sorry, this is going to sound incredibly condescending, but what’s your education level? Because no one who knows a damn thing about research would post that link in an attempt to gain footing in an argument. That looks like an undergrad’s report on prostitution, sourced entirely from hooker rescue projects and modern “white slavery” hysteria. How the hell would they even come up with “Most prostitutes have been victimized, at some point in their lives, by sexual violence. More than 90% suffered childhood sexual abuse…” What? And really, why would that be the focus of anyone’s research? What would that accomplish? How would that help anyone? Sex workers don’t need to justify their reasons for engaging in consensual sex; their government needs to justify its reasons for criminalizing consensual sex between adults.

And this: “At least 2/3 of prostitutes began working in prostitution before the age of 16” has been thoroughly debunked. The origins of that (and other similar “stats” you’ll hear, like “The average age of entry into prostitution is between 12 and 14”) are hard to track down, but as far as we can tell, they originate from a survey done in the early 80s with a very small sample size of participants taken exclusively from a program that worked with minors who had exchanged money for sexual services. As in, everyone participating in the survey was under 18, because that’s who the program/facility was there to serve. And then they averaged those numbers, claimed they were representative of the experiences of sex workers in general, or someone else misunderstood them. So the highest possible age of entry would be 17. Of course the average would be low. They never asked any adult sex workers their age of entry. And the media, law enforcement, advocacy groups, and people like you have been running with that number for 30 fucking years.

What you don’t understand is that your view of sex workers shows a fundamental disrespect for women. When someone’s oppressed, you don’t help them by infantilizing them; you help them by arming them with rights, and by supporting them in their fight for those rights. You don’t want people to be exploited for their labor? You support them in their fight for labor rights, fair pay, legal protection, etc. I said it before, but maybe you didn’t catch it: no one gives a shit about all the human trafficking going on in agriculture, fishing, construction, and hotel housekeeping companies, but let’s say they did. You don’t want women slaving away, cleaning hundreds of toilets for 18 hours a day, while their boss holds their papers and their paychecks, all to pay some “debt” to a “job recruiter”? Let’s talk about immigration policy. Let’s talk about fair wages and labor laws. That’s what we’re talking about, after all: exploiting sex workers for their sexual labor. You don’t want women to have to have sex with men they don’t want to have sex with and then be forced to hand over their earnings to an abusive “pimp”? Fine. Decriminalize their work so that they don’t need “protection” (in the form of an abusive man who makes them work all day and takes their money) from police. And decriminalize their clients so they don’t need “protection” from, say, a man who can rest assured his victim won’t go to police to report him, and even if she did, she wouldn’t know his name, anyway. When your work and your clients aren’t criminalized, you can easily “screen” your clients before meeting with them—your client won’t be afraid to disclose identifying info because he’s not afraid of being arrested for meeting with you. You can also employ a bodyguard or driver without your client freaking out and thinking you’ve brought some dude there to kick his ass and rob him (because, when you and your client are not committing a criminal act, you can assume that both of you are law-abiding citizens, especially if you’ve screened him in advance), and without you AND said bodyguard/driver fearing that cops will mistake him for a “pimp.”

I understand you’re fighting what you think is the good fight. Apparently, at some point in your life, you joined up with some rescue project and did some “work” that seemed incredibly important and life-affirming to you at the time. I don’t want to take that away from you—for all I know, you helped some people. But if you care about justice in the world, you will continue to educate yourself about the issues you claim to care about, no matter how much it hurts to find out you’re wrong. Decrim is the safest thing for all of us. Not just me (or other women you dismiss as “too privileged” to know anything about the business we’ve worked in for years). For ALL of us.

There is no dichotomy of “happy hooker” and “sex slave forced to endure rape for someone else’s profit.” This topic is incredibly complex and nuanced. No, not everyone enjoys sex work. No, not everyone finds it empowering. No, not everyone would choose something else were it available (I wouldn’t). Yes, some of us were sexually abused as children (as were many teachers, lawyers, home makers, doctors, social workers, etc…). Yes, some of us started very young (though most of us start when we’re in our 30s or 40s). The point is that it doesn’t matter what our individual situations are, criminalization hurts ALL of us. And yes, that includes the Nordic model.

I get where you’re coming from, though. When I first started working, I heard about the Nordic model, and honestly, I thought it sounded pretty damn good. I hadn’t been working long enough to understand how the business really works, and I sure as hell hadn’t discovered the sex workers’ rights movement. I was still indoctrinated with the media images and the statistics gleaned from sloppy, often unethical research. I didn’t have a “pimp,” and I didn’t know anyone who did, but I still assumed that the vast majority of sex workers were being forced to fuck dozens of men a day while some evil bastard kept their money and beat them for fun. So yeah, the Nordic model sounded awesome. Put those evil, money-grubbing fuckers in jail!

While I didn’t have a “pimp,” when I first started escorting, I did have a “manager.” He was the guy who answered the phone and directed clients to one of the 10 or 15 girls at the agency. We set our own prices, and we spent as many hours as we wanted with each client. We sent him $100 for each client he referred to us. I didn’t even meet him in person until maybe 3 months after I started working for him, and by then I was already preparing to strike out on my own as an independent.

Did you catch the fact that my manager would have counted as one of those “evil, money-grubbing fuckers” I imagined getting their due via the Nordic Model? I didn’t. Did you catch that I was, if you go by the definition of the loudest voices in this conversation, a “trafficking victim”? I didn’t catch that, either. I would NEVER claim to be one, but by THEIR definition—one of the many absurd ways prostitution prohibitionists define “trafficked”—I was a trafficking victim. They count all third parties as traffickers. If you are a sex worker helping to support your unemployed/unemployable/just f-in broke partner, non-minor child, or other adult family member who lives with you, that person can be considered a trafficker. If you are a migrant worker who voluntarily crosses borders to work independently, you are counted as a trafficking victim.

Soon after that, I realized how wrong I was. But I admit I had a weird, visceral reaction to letting go of my “Jail the pimps!! Go after them!” position. I sort of wanted to cling to it. I don’t know why. Did I enjoy the boogeyman simplicity? Maybe. Or was I just trying to avoid the feeling of finding out I’d been had? I’m not sure. But I guess that’s what happens when you learn more about a subject, and you realize that the facts contradict what you’ve always thought to be true—what sources you’ve trusted have always told you was true.

And the longer I’ve been in the biz, and the longer I’ve been an activist for sex workers’ rights, the more I’ve learned. There’s tons of data. There’s a reason Amnesty International, the World Health Organization and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women support us. And honestly, if you were to work in this business, you’d understand that common sense supports us.

The truth is, this is a very, very old problem steeped in racism and xenophobia. In the 1910s they referred to it as White Slavery (see the Mann Act), and now it’s sex trafficking. Nevermind the fact that there are more than enough willing sex workers that there’s really no need to force women into it (I hate talking about supply and demand, because it’s so much more complex than that, but in the simplest of terms, the supply already meets the demand. Trust me, usually people are whining about how they aren’t getting enough business). And nevermind the fact that, even if supply didn’t meet demand, people don’t want to pay to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them. Rapists don’t pay to rape people; rapists just rape. But we cling to this idea that there are zillions of women all over the world being kidnapped, drugged, and forced into prostitution while men profit. Why, even though the numbers (upon inspection, and not just taken at face value) show us that this isn’t true? Well, because a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping this moral panic alive. Follow the money: it usually leads to those pushing an agenda centered on female “purity,” or those who are directly profiting, i.e., the rescue industry (Hey there, Somaly Mam!).

Please, please just stop talking about this until you’ve taken the time to listen to sex workers all over the world (Even in Eastern Europe and SE Asia!). Because you know the way you feel about your perspective? Like it’s a desperate situation and you have to fight, fight, fight for those who are in danger, are suffering injustices, and have far less privilege than you do? Yeah, that’s how I feel, too. Except people listen to you, and I’m the one who will have to deal with the consequences. They hurt me, they hurt my friends, and they hurt people all over the world every day. You’ll be able to walk away thinking you accomplished something, score 1 for the good guys, etc., and you’ll never have to look back, and you’ll never have to fully comprehend the mess you’ve made. And you’ll leave us to clean up, and then you’ll wonder why we’re so fucking angry with you.

BTW, it may not please you to know that sex workers in poor, “developing” countries can and do organize for their rights, but it’s true! And look what they have to say about decrim! Listen to them!)

And here’s more on “supply” and “demand,” in case it interests you. Here’s one on myths about sex trafficking and sex work (mostly about the Olympics, the World Cup, the Superbowl, and other major sports events being huge attractions for sex traffickers, etc., but there’s a lot of other good stuff in there, too) I found pretty fascinating too when I first got started on my mission to kick ass and take names until hookers all over the world are free to hook safely.

And here’s a flippin’ awesome rant about the rescue industry and two of the biggest figures in it (Nikolas Kristoff and Somaly Mam).

*

And of course I got no response.  I never do.


#rightsnotrescue

Via Ava Grace in Brisbane:



And here’s a little bit of perfection from Ava St. Claire:

Posted on

Blue Books and Brothels: Storyville and the Legislation of Morality

A while back I met with a gentleman, and one of the topics that came up in conversation was New Orleans’s “sordid” history–namely, the period from 1897-1917 when the city set up Storyville, a red light district where prostitution was legal.

We discussed my fascination with E. J. Bellocq, a photographer working at that time who, despite earning a living photographing (among other relatively mundane things) Catholic school students’ school pictures, was drawn to the…less wholesome side of New Orleans in his art.  He is now best known for his Storyville Portraits, a collection of photographs of Storyville prostitutes taken around 1912, just five years before Storyville was shut down. These pictures weren’t found until after his death, but they’re wildly popular now–so much so that they have completely overshadowed his other work, such as his photos of the opium dens in what was then New Orleans’s Chinatown (now the CBD).

Clara Miller of Mahogany Hall, Prostitute in New Orleans's Storyville
Anyway, a couple days later, after he’d left town, I got an email from him with a link to this site.  It’s a fun little site with lots of info, but I think the most interesting thing about it is the collection of photographs of Blue Books.  Blue Books were basically guides to Storyvile–like the Eros-nola.com of paper.

It’s striking how similar the Blue Books are to the advertising methods used in the industry today.  Look at Clara Miller’s ad–her main selling points are her lovely disposition, her worldly (she’s traveled to Europe) yet relateable (she’s a local girl born near Baton Rouge) personal history, and her eagerness to please (she “can sit up all night if necessary”).  And of course, she’s a beautiful octaroon.  Sounds a lot like an elite professional companion, seeking extended dates, no?

I love the intro, in which the publishers swear that the listings contained in the book are truthful representations of the ladies and services they advertise.  “This book contains nothing but Facts,” they write.  Oh, I wonder how many men were duped by the ol’ bait-and-switch back then.  The predominant business structure in Storyville was the brothel arrangement, where several women worked in a house under a single owner/employer. It was basically the equivalent to today’s agencies. And the brothel owners (Madams) could really submit whatever information, real or false, they believed would attract customers (is this sounding familiar yet?).  I hope they made sure the girls had a chance to read the ads first!


And on that topic, what of the bait-and-switch?  Back then, since the business was legal, I guess situations like that one were much less problematic–it was just a matter of the gentleman saying, “No, thank you, that’s not what I was expecting,” and moving on to the next available lady that struck his fancy.

And what of brothels?  There weren’t really any “independent escorts” in those days; women worked for business owners, who charged them a fee for the room, the advertising, security, etc. (again, like an agency).  This is one of the reasons I’m against “legalizing” sex work–once there are strict regulations, we basically lose all control over how and where we work, and what we do with our own bodies.  Look at the situation in Nevada.  Sure, the brothels are legal, but the women working in them are dehumanized to the point that they are simply equipment, and the laws are such that the person who benefits most from their work is the employer (brothel owner).  The women are not permitted to leave the property (?!????!!!!!??), they are subjected to–and charged for–weekly medical exams*, they must pay rent, a flat grocery fee (regardless of what they eat), and several other miscellaneous fees for services and items they are forced to buy, and they are forced to directly compete with the women they must work and live with for the duration of their stay.  And before they receive their paychecks, the employer takes (from what I understand) about half of their earnings.
Continue reading “Blue Books and Brothels: Storyville and the Legislation of Morality”

Posted on

This swirly script is entirely inappropriate for this post.

Last night, someone broke into the office of Women With A Vision and set fire to their files and office equipment–everything they use in their mission to “improve the lives of marginalized women, their families, and communities by addressing the social conditions that hinder their health and well-being.”

WWAV fought to change the law (Crime Against Nature) that required sex workers to register as sex offenders, effectively preventing them from securing housing, straight jobs, social services, etc. Apparently, someone had a problem with that.

Women With a Vision is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, and contributions are tax-deductible.

wwav-no.org

Continue reading “This swirly script is entirely inappropriate for this post.”