> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 9 Jan 98 08:48:25 +800
> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 9 Jan 98 08:48:19 +800
> Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:47:54 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from jhuml1.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml1.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.86])
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:41:28 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from sokol.wpmc.jhu.edu (wsokolow.wpmc.jhu.edu)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:39:54 EDT
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 11:30:04 -0500
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: prostitution
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
> X-PMFLAGS: 34078848
>
> At 05:03 PM 1/8/98 +0000, Jim Craven wrote:
>
> >Response: No Bill, you just don't understand, the theoreticians,
> >backed up with data/theory mining and anecdotes from some of the
> >"high class" and "educated" sex workers (proletarians) have it all
> >figured out.
>
> etc.
>
> There is no reason for getting cynical, Jim. There is plenty of room for
> disagreement without getting personal. Besides, why should I accept your
> definition of prostitution as universally valid and disregard all other
> views presented on this list, including those who engage in the trade
> themselves?
>
>
> wojtek sokolowski
> institute for policy studies
> johns hopkins university
> baltimore, md 21218
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice: (410) 516-4056
> fax: (410) 516-8233
>
Response: Generally a fair comment. I did not purport to give a
universally valid definition because the "universe" of "sex workers"
like the "universes" of all types of workers is stratified.
I have to run to teach but I'll write one more piece on where my
experiences and observations come from. Suffice to say, none of my
contacts with "sex workers" have ever given me any masturbatory
fantasies (many nightmares however).
Since "sex work" supposedly involves production of a commodified
service and a commodity not really different than any other
commodity, applying that logic, I have indeed "turned many tricks" in
my life and continue to do so to survive.
But applying the logic that I have not "turned a trick" and therefore
cannot comment on the conditions, attitudes, costs, benefits etc of
"sex work", then has Tracy ever turned a trick in Patpong in Bangkok,
has she ever been sold at 13 years old to a brothel? Has she ever
turned a trick as a young Indian girl or boy in Great Falls Montana?
Or, those who support "sex work"--the theoretical males__presumably
Doug Henwoood has never "turned a trick", so appying the same logic,
on what basis is his support for "sex work" ratified by some activist
hookers more valid than my opinion ratified also by many "sex
workers" with whom I have had extensive contacts and who I genuinely
regard as friends and comrades and with whom I keep in regular
contact. Neither Doug Henwood nor I presumably have turned a trick so
it is a wash on the theoretical male side.
Jim Craven
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Who controls the past, *
* James Craven controls the future. *
* Dept of Economics Who controls the present, *
* Clark College controls the past." (George Orwell) *
* 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 (360) 992-2283 FAX: (360)992-2863 *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
