Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:44:56 +0200 (SAT)
From: Peter van Heusden <pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: Prostitution


On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
Responding to a rather old post of Malgosia's:

[snip]

> 
> Yes, but it seems to me that the problematic here operates in a very
> different space than in the case of prostitution.  Again, there is no moral
> condemnation attached to being a wet nurse.  As in the case of the surrogate
> mother, the woman who thusly sells her body is not treated as shameless
> or immoral.  The reason I am offering these examples is because I would like 
> to better understand how much of Peter's "alienation" and "losing one's body"
> argument is rooted in moral attitudes specifically having to do with the 
> way women are viewed in the context of the sex act itself.  This is not 
> to say that my procedure or examples can survive scrutiny. 

Hm. Your examples have made me think again - and I have no clear response.
Renate's example of the peep show workers suggests what I was trying to
get at - that something normally viewed as "intimate" and "pleasurable" is
commodified, and in the process, one is (by this process of
commodification) alienated from that "intimacy" and (and thus?) 
"pleasure". 

This leads directly to a question about where these associations come
from. The idea that sex is private, not public, obvious to some extent at
least plays into precisely what role bourgeois society wants for sex - the
private process whereby class society is reproduced with as little
resistance as possible.

That said, I do not believe that just turning this formulation on its
head, and proclaiming that sex should be public is very helpful. In fact,
proclaiming that sex should be open to unrestricted and unrestrained
commodification ultimately serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, in the
sense that the commodification of society in general serves the interests
of the bourgeoisie.

So, how to analyse this position when articulated *not* by the owners of
Hustler, Penthouse or Playboy, but rather by prostitutes, porn stars or
other workers in the field of sexuality? To me, the fact that certain sex
workers take a libertarian stand towards sexuality is hardly surprising -
in essence, a certain section of the sex work profession appears, to me,
to form part of the 'new middle class' - labourers whose jobs are by no
means secure, but whose skills and social position allows them some
lee-way. (I fit into that position myself, as a semi-freelance computer
specialist)

So, to ruthlessly change my position :), I'd suggest that to speak of
'prostitution' without speaking of the class of the prostitute is to muddy
the issue. Just as I may write computer programs during the day, and come
home and write more programs at night (and thus prove that I am not
entirely alienated from my labour), so a prostitute might ply her trade
without suffering profound alienation from her sexuality. However, I am in
a quite different position to the job-insecure COBOL programmer, whose
particular circumstance offers less protection against the crushing gears
of capitalist society. Similarly, a street prostitute would be in a very
different position to one of a higher class - with a higher degree of
risk, a lower degree of security, etc.

Thus, I would suggest that Marxist-Feminists should employ a class
conscious analysis of both prostitution and sexuality, always highlighting
the role of class society in their construction (I guess that much is
obvious, but the obvious is often difficult to apply - at least for me:).
The question of what should our position be with regards to prostitution
is not a single or singular question.

Peter
P.S. I'd suggest that the section in the Communist Manifesto on
Petty-Bourgeois Socialism is worth reading with regards to an analysis of
many forms of libertarian philosophy.
--
Peter van Heusden |    Computers Networks Reds Greens Justice Peace Beer Africa
pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za | Support the SAMWU 50 litres campaign!