Shhh! It's a secret...?

Thank you! Also, just in response to some above comments, rights don't come from a burning bush. They are not facts, nor objective truths. They are DEFINED by human beings. I find it odd that some here would assume that EFN's defining the legalization of the profession a "right" to be her opinion and their defining it not to be a "right" a fact. All rights are opinions that have been agreed upon by enough people. Originally Posted by chelseabean

Point of disagreement between you and Thomas Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thank you! Also, just in response to some above comments, rights don't come from a burning bush. They are not facts, nor objective truths. They are DEFINED by human beings. I find it odd that some here would assume that EFN's defining the legalization of the profession a "right" to be her opinion and their defining it not to be a "right" a fact. All rights are opinions that have been agreed upon by enough people. Originally Posted by chelseabean

Point of disagreement between you and Thomas Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Originally Posted by harkontume

No disrespect to Thomas Jefferson (slave holder though he was), but he nor the constitution of these great united states are infallible. That's the reason we have amendments, right? It's a living, breathing document of rights, never closed. And those initial rights were defined by human beings. Beautiful and prescient as they were, they were born of a very human cultural shift, the age of enlightenment. And your point is?

This is a problematic area of philosophy. For the purposes of this discussion all that's required is agreement as to what rights are due all people, not an agreement as to the *source* of those rights.

(Otherwise you get into various relativistic or skeptical positions regarding the possibility of ethics at all. For God believers the source of ethics (and thus human rights) is God's intent. For those who deny a divine source of ethics things become more complicated. Possible alternatives include asserting the requirement of logical consistency (Kant), or ethical behavior as being biologically advantageous in social animals (in part, game theory and utilitarianism).

But if you believe bodily autonomy comes from God, and I believe it's a utilitarian requirement, we still both believe in bodily autonomy and so for the purpose of this discussion we agree and need not go further.)

I don't deny a teleology here, but ethics is a particularly human endeavor. Being the source of ethics, albeit not the source of everything,is our birthright. We are the part of the universe that is conscious of itself.

FWIW scientists have documented a sense of fairness in other animals. I.e. I'm not sure ethics is strictly restricted to humans.

A sense of fairness (although I'm not sure at all how that is discerned) is a far cry from a system of ethics. I love animals and they will do certain things outside of their natural milieu or impulses because they love you, but sit down and define their rights in a body of work is beyond them.. Come on now. I see no problem with a social constructivist point of view as far as seeing our constitution as something handed down on high and something we our selves created to define what makes a good and healthy society. I think it is helpful to remember that the constitution was created by human beings and is still being created by them. It's a living document, it's pages always open to redefine and to hone as we need to. Maybe we are discovering truths, maybe we are creating them, who can really say? But, the thing is moving and we have to keep up.

There is a level of ethics determined by a creature's well-being and is not exclusive to humans. Seems woo'ish on a deeply Chopratic level to say ethics is a birthright given to us by a self-conscious universe. That is not the argument I would wish to base any laws.

Perhaps the legalization of this activity becomes a difficult conversation because often morality ( and that morality being often the basis by which we draft and implement laws) is determined by what is considered to be in the best interest i.e well-being of an individual or a group of individuals. Sean, you bring up the wonderful argument of body autonomy and I am in no disagreement there, but I'm not sure I can say with a clear conscious that legalizing this industry is congruent with what I believe to be in the best interest of the population's well being. Though some may wish to romanticize it, in legalizing we also must acknowledge the brutalities of it that will by no means go away.

There is a level of ethics determined by a creature's well-being and is not exclusive to humans. Seems woo'ish on a deeply Chopratic level to say ethics is a birthright given to us by a self-conscious universe. That is not the argument I would wish to base any laws. Originally Posted by Miss Valentina

What level of ethics is that? I'm not sure I'm following. I didn't say that it was a self-conscious universe. I said we were the part of it that is conscious of itself. It's a little different. It just seems to me a little better of a construct than the the idea of separateness, A god outside of everything from whence all truths come. I just personally have never seen a shred evidence on the planet to support that notion. . And that whole construct gets rolled up into a lot of things, one of which harkontume just engaged in, name dropping the constitution as if wasn't a document created by humans and highlighting a creator and we're done. But, much of this is neither here nor there in terms of original conversation. I do hold that truths are socially constructed and that ethics are our birthright, at least as it concerns the creation of a society.

A large part of my interest in this has been theoretical. And, I think a large part of what you have to offer here is practical. Can the argument be easily construed as a civil rights argument. Sure. very easy to do. Can it be seen as a workers rights or a woman's rights issue? Easily. But, I have never worked in Europe and have no idea as to the practical implications of legalizing. I'm sure it's fraught with issues. so, I would imagine how well it works depends on how it is done and what the real intent of the laws are. For instance, Sweden made it legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy it. The whole idea behind that obviously is this is victimizing and we are not going to punish the victim, but the victimizer. A lot of conflict there within the industry as you can well imagine. I would also imagine that each country is different. But, I don't know. You would have more to say on that subject than I. What are the specific issues you have seen there? I am really curious about that, knowing nothing of it.

Some people just enjoy talking down. Or they really believe providers are dirty bitches who deserve what they get. Originally Posted by FloridaShark

+1

There's quite a bit of that around these parts.

EFN, you are awesome and I applaud you for being so brave to stop living the lie. I know how hard and stressful it can be as my ex wife was a dancer. We had to make up jobs and excuses constantly to our family.

Have you thought about starting your own podcast or blog about sex worker rights and issues outside the comedy world?

I have carefully read and tried to digest all of the posts on this thread. The subject is fascinating and several posters are not only eloquent, but capable of provoking a good deal of thought, not only on this subject, but peripheral subjects as well. The bottom line for me, however, is that this small part of my life is private, and must remain so. Any provider that is unwilling or unable to ensure (as far as possible) complete discretion is not someone with whom I will be spending my time.

Let me preface this by saying, I do not wish to be antagonistic to you Madame ChelseaBean, I do very much enjoy debate, it is rare that I get to do so. It is a wonderful thing to be able to engage in a intelligent conversation with someone who can clearly hold her own, even if perhaps we may have differing views... In fact I welcome it! I wish I had more friends as bright as yourself with whom to converse and keep my brain sharp. It is my desire that you know I welcome a challenge to my views, I hope you do as well.

"I don't deny a teleology here, but ethics is a particularly human endeavor. Being the source of ethics, albeit not the source of everything,is our birthright. We are the part of the universe that is conscious of itself."

This would seem to me to imply that humans are the source of ethics and those ethics come from a universe that is conscious of itself i.e. a self-conscious universe. Please tell me if I'm wrong, otherwise I will continue thus.

The problem I have with this is multifold. First, there simply is zero evidence that supports this assertion. Unless you, like I implied, give yourself over to the hijacking of quantum physics perverters like Deepak Chopra and his ilk who are more than happy to use deploringly confusing language to convince us that our sense of morality, and our consciousness is a gift from the universe. To make that claim means you must be able to prove it, and I'm afraid we cannot by any credible scientific means. Additionally, I strongly abject to the notion that our ethics and morality comes from "On High". Let's just suppose for a second that they did come from "'On High". You still have to prove this supposed universe is able to communicate its consciousness to us on our own brain level. This idea becomes a slippery slope because you can insert Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, or even the loathsome burning bush into the place of the Self Aware Universe and all become fallacious and as unprovable as one another.

I roundly reject the idea of a conscious universe as much as I do the dogmas of gods current and ancient. The universe is entropic, destructive, it likely does not give a shit about you much less our piddling ethics and moralities. Invoking the consciousness of the universe really does nothing but prop up the notion of current new age thinking but does nothing to prove ethics. Again, ethics and moralities that come from "On High" seems to me a very dangerous position on which to base laws.

As to ethics being a "particularly human endeavor": it appears we are just barely grazing on vast field of scientific knowledge through the idea of evolutionary ethics. The idea of biologized ethics and mores seems to suggest that a certain level of empathy, mores and ethics may be the result of evolution and is present in higher sentient animals, ourselves included. Time and further scientific application will either dismiss or make more sense of this theory in time, but I believe I can say observing the nature of elephants, dolphins, dogs, and many other social creatures that ethics may not be a particularly human endeavor.

I wrote earlier on the dangers of legalizing prostitution. I will not again bore you with regurgitating it much here. I am in favor of it if only to identify trafficked persons, to have a modicum of support from LE, our right to provide for and feed ourselves, doing away with victimless "crime", body autonomy and in doing so it opens the conversation about sex positivity. Here I will admit to the slippery slope of my own argument as my own objectiveness and pragmatism comes into conflict. I simply cannot say without much internal debate that I believe its best for the well-being of society as a whole, and I personally base much of my own ethics and ideas about laws as to what is good for the well-being of an individual or society as a whole.

For me the good of the above outweighs what I perceive are the negatives. But only by the most narrow of margins. The negatives for me among many are; being identified forever as a prostitute by this country, the fact that legalizing does not even put a dent in the hatred and mistrust of prostitutes and the abject misogyny we are subject to. The vulnerability clients when you as a provider are subject to the scrutiny of the government. The fact that LE will still mistreat you in the most horrible ways. There is also a tawdriness that becomes quite visible when you legalize these activities, a tawdriness that I don't welcome. We are all familiar with the red light district in Amsterdam, Pattaya in Thailand and other highly visible places of prostitution. They are some of the more loathsome places in the world, I'm not certain I wish to see hoards of persons flocking to this industry just because they can. Especially the young and/or marginalized. I believe there are many, many heinous dangers to this industry, only one being the fact that it is illegal. Making it legal does very little to negate those dangers.

Should this ever become legal, in my working years (it won't) I will never identify myself to this government and would continue to operate much as I do now, flying as much under the radar as is possible. I cannot say I was any safer in Europe than I am now.

Europe is a big place, especially with regard to sex work. It goes from being totally illegal to entirely legal short some simple restrictions akin to zoning laws. So you really have to refer to practices by country. There are, of course, abused sex workers even in the most liberal countries. (Although note there is growing illegalization from the left in Scandinavian countries). But I've known women able to do sex work in countries like the Netherlands and Germany unpimped, unarrested, and unafraid. Making sex work legal doesn't guarantee safety, nor does it confer social acceptance. But the lot of prostitutes in Europe is generally better where it is legal, and I see no reason to think the same wouldn't be true in the US.

My intentions were never to debate the existence of God on a Hooker board.
(that would be at the very least hypocritical and silly)

However , when it comes to "rights" , consider this.
"Rights" endowed by a Creator do not change when one political party or another takes office.
When one or another economic or social view is in the Majority.
When one religious view is predominant ( including Atheistic or Humanist or Christian)

If they are inalienable they are permanent.
If they are defined by men they are whimsical.

I think it is a much safer world viewpoint to consider "rights" as something more stable then an ever-changing social and political landscape.

Well, I have stepped on this thread enough.. hark - out

EFN, you are awesome and I applaud you for being so brave to stop living the lie. I know how hard and stressful it can be as my ex wife was a dancer. We had to make up jobs and excuses constantly to our family.

Have you thought about starting your own podcast or blog about sex worker rights and issues outside the comedy world? Originally Posted by hardnfast

Since I am still a working girl, those sorts of public things will have to wait, though I plan to publicize and educate as soon as I can be "out." Probably within the next year or two.
While I cannot safely talk publicly about my experiences or what we do (talking on a radio show with an alias is as much as I'll push the envelope on that one), I am doing what I can behind the scenes to get a movement going on here in Austin.

Right now my focus is on getting our voices (not OURS specifically, OURS meaning anyone who supports the decriminalization of sex work) heard and showing Austin (to stat) that we want rights, and we want respect. As far as I've seen, there's not much of an activist group here in town for sex workers, so I am working on starting one OR joining up with any current ones and creating a new one.

I'm meeting up with the head of Austin NORML this Friday to ask her about what goes into running such an activist group and she will also be providing me with people and resources that can help me get this started. I've been doing a lot of reading and research on other SW activist groups around the Country and putting together what I can to help gain supporters. I'm hoping maybe some of her NORML peeps will be open minded enough to possibly help out with our first public assembly of protest/support.

I'll also be purchasing these stickers - http://www.swaay.org/img/store-stickers-large.jpg - once I have a better game plan of...everything. I think this would be a great way to generate buzz if used wisely...

There's a lot to learn and a lot to do, but I'm totally dedicated in starting and continuing a movement that needs to be known here in Austin. I want people to see red umbrellas and know that it's a symbol for sex worker rights. I want them to see a red umbrella and think about the bad work conditions and human rights abuses sex workers face. I want them to see the sex and human trafficking that doesn't have to happen.

It's time our* voices are heard. It's time sex worker rights be a current political debate.

*OUR again not meaning just us working girls...OUR = anyone in support of sex worker rights/decriminalization