-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
May
8
Walking Out a Rapist
Filed Under Europe, International, human rights, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | Posted by Cara |
Did anyone doubt that my first post back would be about a rape-related issue that is considered “controversial”? If not, you know me well.
. . . Well, almost.
You see, the British Home Office has released this campaign to fight the sex trafficking industry — and from what I can tell, I love the concept (I have a practical criticism later). But, nowhere can I find the full text on the poster or an image large enough to make out the small text myself. As the Home Office has received my criticism before for some pretty terrible anti-rape ads, I’d like to know the full text before I sing its praises. If you find it, please send it on! I’ll be looking for it over the next few days; just be aware that my opinion is subject to change or expand on that basis. But here’s what we know:
Posters will appear in clubs and pubs from Monday warning men against paying for sex in brothels with exploited or trafficked women.
The posters, which will be piloted in men’s toilets in Westminster and Nottingham, will say “Walk in a Punter. Walk out a Rapist”.
They are part of a six-month home office review into tackling the demand for prostitution, which began in January, and aim to point out that trafficked women are forced into selling sex, and that forced sex is rape.
“So if you pay for sex with a trafficked woman what does that make you?” the posters ask.
They also urge Johns “if [they're] man enough” to call Crime Stoppers if they come across something suspicious.
On the one hand this messages sounds about as basic as it can get. “Women who are trafficked are forced into sex, forced sex is rape, those who engage in the forced sex are therefore rapists.” Yes, clearly. Just like those who drink too heavily become drunk, driving while drunk is against the law, and those who engage in driving while drunk are therefore . . . *gasp* drunk drivers!
But while this sort of thing seems screamingly obvious to me and many other feminists, the message is one that is painfully needed. I believe that those who commit rape always know that they are having sex to which their partner did not freely consent — they just don’t want to acknowledge the immorality and violence in their actions by calling it “rape”. I don’t think that most Johns who rape trafficked women see their actions as rape (even the most evil rapists in the world don’t want to think of themselves as rapists). I don’t think that most people see Johns who “hire” trafficked women as rapists. But they need to.
In fact, I floated a similar suggestion a while ago:
Making Johns believe that they will face legal prosecution for reporting a suspicious brothel is certainly not going to help matters. These women are generally held prisoner. They can’t come forward. The men who visit brothels can.
For that reason, I personally see benefit in taking out bold ads alongside those in the paper for sex workers stating something along the lines of “X number of women are trafficked into the sex industry every year. If something seems wrong, it probably is. Not leaving could make you a rapist. Walk away and report it.” We need to make men see the difference, to help Johns develop some sort of a conscience, to finally inform them that paying to “have sex” with a trafficked woman is rape. Though, of course, this would only work if the government did actually decide to legalize proper brothels, so that sex workers and brothel owners would not face other legal action in the case of a false report. This is yet another road block.
The idea was probably already out there in a lot of places, though I don’t ever consciously remember seeing it elsewhere. In any case, I’m glad that someone else had the idea. Because it’s one that I honestly did not expect to ever see the light of day, at least not anytime soon.
Now, before it starts: no, this is not going to end sex trafficking, it is not going to end violence against sex workers and it is not going to stop men who visit prostitutes from continuing to visit them. This much should be obvious.
So what is the point? The same as it ever was: to inspire a shift in public opinion. I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I do not thinking highly of Johns. Many sex worker advocates disagree with this position, and despite my agreeing with most of their arguments, this is one view that has not shifted as I have become more educated on this issues. Quite frankly, Johns’ views and actions scare the shit out of me. While reform is a noble and necessary project, I’ve always thought that preventing men from becoming rapists is a lot easier than dealing with them once they have already raped. And I do think that we have a chance every day to prevent more men from becoming the kind of men who do not care about consent, whether it be with a girlfriend or a sex worker. We have the chance to change the common view among women that men are not to blame for their sexual assaults or infidelity with prostitutes, but that the sex workers are. And I think we have the opportunity to draw a line in the public consciousness between selling sex and selling rape.
Of course, it doesn’t take backlash long to begin. Highly ambiguous headlines are appearing: Men told sex trade “is rape”. (The phrase “sex trade” can describe many things.) Message boards that I am not going to link to have members arguing that prostitution prevents rape (because rape is all about unfulfilled sexual desire, and of course prostitutes just can’t be raped) and repeating the same tired but still outrageous line that it’s not rape so much as “theft”. Even some “feminists” are getting in on the action. Want to know why I finally stopped reading Broadsheet, despite the fact that they’re good for the occasional story I haven’t already seen? Lots and lots of reasons, actually, but really it’s because of shit like this. There are, apparently, no shortage of people who are willing to make the argument that, as Marcella so beautifully frames it, “she was really raped but he isn’t really a rapist”.
They are really rapists. A person who rapes is always a rapist. I’ve made the argument before and I stand by it — though because it is rather graphic, I will link to it rather than quote — that Johns absolutely know when they are paying to rape a trafficked woman. If they don’t, I can only believe that it’s because they don’t care enough to pay attention or let the possibility cross their minds. And rape by “negligence” is still rape. Failing to make sure that you have affirmative and non-coercive consent before sexual contact begins is always rape. Again: they just do not care or, as virtually all rapists do, see rape as something entirely different from what they themselves are doing.
With regards to what I already know about this campaign, I have only one concern: are those falsely reported to be potential trafficking victims granted immunity? Prostitution in Britain is technically legal, but many actions with relation to prostitution are not. If men trying to do the right thing are merely going to end up causing non-coerced sex workers to face arrest and prosecution, and therefore be driven underground, I don’t see any net benefit. Helping trafficked women to safety only to put voluntary sex workers in more danger is an ugly and immoral deal, one that’s both difficult to refuse and impossible to accept. If the British government is going to do this, they damn well better make sure that it’s done right, with the goal of reducing all violence, and with the best interest of women in the sex industry in mind, regardless of whether they are voluntary or forced. If they merely intend to protect some victims deemed worthy while creating new ones who are not, my support is revoked.
And seeing all of the things that are right with this campaign, that would be a very sad thing.
What are your thoughts?
Popularity: 18% [?]
Comments
22 Comments so far
-
"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." --Margaret Sanger
-
"Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less." -- Susan B. Anthony
I think its fantastic that they are using the right words. Calling it rape.
Overall my first impression is to be incredibly heartened by it. Although there may be unintended consequences that I’m unaware of.
This part, “if [they're] man enough,” does make me want to bang my head in frustration though. I know it isn’t at all important in the context of preventing rape, but I really wish they had refrained from using that particular language.
It’s hard enough deprogramming men about what is “manly” without the government piling on.
Oh and welcome back.
Thanks for this entry. Definitely a good’un. *salute*
Kristen, I was just wondering if the idea of prodding men to be “man enough” to care about and report a sex crime they come across as a john isn’t in a way a change in how “manly” men are to behave? This is just a thought I’m curious what you think. As a guy I think I would read that as “hey its not manly to just get off and not think of the consequences.” or something like that. Or maybe I’m just too optimistic about my fellow men.
Great post Cara, welcome back.
The small print says:
“Trafficked women are forced into selling sex. Forced sex is rape. So if you pay for sex with a trafficked woman, what does that make you? If you suspect a woman has been trafficked, don’t close your eyes to it. And if you’re man enough, call Crimestoppers.”
“man enough” - that could potentially play both ways. And yes - it is a bit problematic BUT if it helps shifts public opinion in any way that is productive with respect to understanding rape then I’ll quietly wince about the idiotic “man enough” rhetoric.
Punter?
Patrick,
IMO, “manly enough” is generally used to shoehorn men into fitting an archetype. I don’t like archetypes. Regardless of whether its used for good (as in this case), it still makes me want to bang my head. Doubtless they are using the “manliness” saw because they know men will buy it. And if it saves rape victims, then I’ll take it any day, but I wish we didn’t have to resort to that language to do so.
Welcome back, Cara!
The “man enough” thing struck me as well. I agree that it could be taken either negatively or postitively, but in either instance, it still reinforces the gender binary. Why should any characteristics be identified with manliness (or womanliness, for that matter)?
I’m uncomfortable calling anyone who sleeps with a trafficked girl a rapist, even though she is being forced to have sex against her will.
Uh, wow. Just wow.
I don’t dare read the comments.
Punter = One who visits a brothel. (Thanks urban dictionary)
Good initiative, I think it will help.
According to my husband (not British, but Australian), a punter is a customer or bet-taker — “someone who is taking a chance at something”. I was under the impression that it was just a colloquialism for “bloke” but I guess I was wrong.
I agree with the “if you’re man enough” thing. It bugs me. But it’s something I’m torn on. I’m not a big fan of equating “masculine” with “man” or being “a real man”. I also think that it’s a great idea to reframe masculinity as something that doesn’t mean being an asshole (since it doesn’t). I also think that you have to play to your audience — and this is probably a group that won’t respond so well to “do the right thing” and respond better to having their masculinity called into question (as much as I don’t like it). And the whole visiting a brothel thing is a masculine culture. I have trouble harshly criticizing the attempt to turn that on its head. But those who have argued against it are right in that it’s absolutely not unproblematic.
And thank you Morgan, for the full text!
Welcome back!
The ad seems to make the message very clear and I’m glad for anything that helps keep women safe. I know human trafficking is a HUGE problem in prostitution, but I do wish the campaign had also made an effort at protecting women who are forced into prostitution through channels other than trafficking, like coercion or poverty.
Thanks Kristan, You make a good point.
I personally don’t have a problem with “man enough”. I REALLY think we need to reframe / redefine the identity of masculinity from what it is (macho asshole bullshit) into something better (read: kinder, gentler… less assholish) and more holistic. Whether or not we like it, the gender binary IS important for a lot of people who fail to grasp that grouping / categorizing others is harmful in many ways.
Frankly, I think that once the idea sets in that “being a REAL MAN means not being an asshole”, it’ll be a great deal easier to dissolve the gender binary.
I like this poster: puts a lot of responsibility on punters to watch themselves AND other men; goodness knows that men are more willing to shut up and mind their own business than muck about with other men’s privilege.
Great. Even if it makes the average person think about expanding their definition of rape, that’s good.
From my perspective as British, ‘punter’ does have the connotations of customer/ gambling that Cara mentions. It also brings up a picture of a particular kind of working class man (Victorian man with a cap who works in hard industry, drinks, gambles, perhaps involved in a bit of low-level crime). But, having said this, in recent years, it is increasingly used just to refer to men who use prostitutes.
Also just to be pernickity- prosititution is not illegal in Britain (although certain related behaviours are- street-walking, brothels). This is different from being legal- as many campaigners in the UK like to point out. The difference is mostly, if prostitution was legalised, it would come with various state protections for prostitutes and perhaps more regulation. As it is, it is seen as a not illegal, but risky behaviour- and so warrants no state interference.
Isn’t the initiative side-stepping a wider problem?: if a woman is hopelessly poor and her only chance of making money is by selling sex, which do you deem better: sending her back home to die in poverty, or buying sex from her (=letting others do so) thus helping her get out of poverty which she feels is worse than being a prostitute? I know this is a bit outside of the “trafficking of women who would never have consented to becoming a prostitute” that this campaign seems to be about, but isn’t this MUCH more common? What do you think, is it OK to buy sex from a woman driven to sex industry because of poverty? (I’m genuinely interested at what you’d say to that one, even though it’s clear you have no idea how it feels being poor, let’s say how you seee it from theoretical, moral point of view.) PS I’ve never had anything to do with buying or selling sex and don’t personally know anyone who has.
Patricka, I don’t think that it’s right to buy sex from a prostitute at all. Maybe in a world that didn’t see women as nothing more than sexual commodities, I would feel differently, but we don’t live in that world. As I said, I don’t like Johns or what they do. I also think that women should absolutely be able to legally sell sex. That doesn’t mean that I like it. Just like I think that cheating on your spouse is wrong. But I don’t want to outlaw it.
But that’s my personal opinion. From the objective standpoint that you’re talking about, I don’t think that either situation you describe is morally “okay”. I don’t think that women having no means of survival other than prostitution is morally “okay” for our society to accept. Under these circumstances, I don’t think that these women have a “choice”. But I do think that there is a moral difference between this and literally holding a woman hostage in sexual slavery. Just like there is a difference between a horrible sweatshop that someone works in because its their only means of making a living, and those who are being held hostage as slaves to perform the same kind of work. Both are horrible. Both are immoral. Both deserve our attention and outrage. Both need solutions. But one is a hell of a lot more difficult to deal with than the other, and I don’t think that taking away a person’s only source of survival is the answer.
I think it’s a great campaign.
If you can’t stop them using prostitutes, at least try and stop them from using trafficked ones.
Marco:
I found your comment to be relevant and include an important point for discussion. Unfortunately, you chose to riddle that comment with sexist language towards both me and the women who are sex workers or being held in sexual slavery. You are welcome to rewrite your comment in a way that does not insult women if you’d like to see it published.
[...] Curvature is back (yay!) with a post on a fascinating new campaign in Britain, aimed at getting potential johns to report women who [...]