Where were all the Happy-Hookers when I was on The Game?

[caseymoz]

15. The myth of the myth of the Happy Hooker.

The happy hooker over-representation you're giving is a straw man. There is nobody who says the industry is wonderful. Nobody. There may be some who say their experience has been, on the balance, positive. Perhaps through luck. There may be some who say that instilling a more positive attitude in society will improve the conditions of other sex workers, (Nina Hartley, Annie Sprinkle, et al) and they work toward this. But there is absolutely nobody who says satisfaction in the industry is common, and if anything, the drive to legalize it is an effort to relieve the troubles sex workers experience, not one to make happy hookers happier.

There is nobody in the industry who claims sex workers are not mistreated, though the degree of mistreatment is in dispute. This is simply because some numbers and claims are immediately implausible to people who have worked in the industry, those who are acquainted with people in it, and sometimes even anybody who looks out their door. Such as the claim that there are 200,000 to a half-million underage prostitutes working in the US. That statistic has been debunked. I don't know if it's being used anymore, but where and why did people come up with it to begin with? It reveals an inclination to lie.

That's why many don't listen, why you can't seem to get them interested. Plus, they're a little skeptical that the best interests of the sex workers are what's at the heart of it. Especially when so much vitriol (that sounds suspiciously like slut shaming) is spewed at people who say their experience has been positive. Right now, everyone claims they want to help sex workers. However, the repented, contrite sex workers are the only ones antis are friendly to. This doesn't bode well for people who are still in the industry, happy ones or not.

The actual difference is one side wants to abolish the sex industry, while the other side thinks abolishing it is impractical, costly and actually makes the sex workers lives more miserable.

Abolishing it is Plan A that people in the West have been implementing without success for the last 300 years. During that time, the plan has fallen short, aggravated abuses, marginalized sex workers, and deprived them of any legal framework that could protect them. Gimmicky ways of getting it abolished, such as the Nordic Model, ignore several facts, not least of which is commercial sex will still be extremely difficult to catch.

Legalizing or decriminalizing is the other side, positing that most problems in the industry or troubles that gravitate toward it can be relieved within a tolerant legal framework, and more cheaply. It doesn't mean the industry is peachy, or that it's being approved of. And it's based on this observation: outlaws almost always act worse.

For the Nordic Model, it has flaws that nobody has acknowledged, and they come down to this: prostitutes have sex drives, too. Money is a conscious motivation. The sex drive, though, is primal and also acts beneath consciousness. In other words, it's about the sex, too, not equally in the transaction, but it's there. The net results? The prostitutes themselves are going to find ways of protecting their clients, and since the prostitutes will always be presumed the innocent party, they'll be proactive in how they do it. The only choice there is to arrest them for the measures they'll take, probably mostly obstruction of justice, which is a felony, and again, you'll end up putting them in jail as much as their clientele. As for pimps, prostitutes will continue to operate without them.

Why? Because as long as people have constant sex drives and money, you're going to have commercial sex, and arguably, the money might not be necessary either. You don't need a patriarchy for that. Though the addition of one would make it worse.

There are ways you can stop it. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is apparently very successful at doing it. That's an example of the measures you'll have to take.