Describing 'Chris Dangerfield: Sex tourist' as 'a new spin on an old argument regarding the sex trade', Tony McKenna in his response 'Hell de Jour' then goes on to provide an old spin on an old argument regarding the sex trade, whilst almost completely avoiding the points I raised.
He describes my argument as a 'familiar one: prostitutes are exploited but hey that's okay - because so are billions of other people'. There is absolutely no mention of anyone being exploited as being 'okay'. My argument is concerned with the perceived difference in the consumption of prostitution via pornography and its consumption through actual physical sexual engagement with a prostitute, but McKenna chooses to ignore this, he appears to have another agenda, and it doesn't include my article.
He asks: 'Is he [Dangerfield] correct when he says that the exploitation of a prostitute is no different from the exploitation of a shelf stacker?' I said prostitutes are exploited, and so are shelf stackers. I did not suggest, imply, or hint there are no differences.
After some selective bias confirming statistics that rather than support or question any argument simply remind us some prostitutes come from damaged backgrounds, (again, a specific example of a general problem) McKenna's next sentence suggests more about a particular relationship to sex than anything else: 'And the actual consummation of the act itself - the moment at which one human being pays a sum of money in order to reduce another to the status of a human toilet - is explicitly premised on the victim's powerlessness...No longer do they confront the other person as an independent sexual being with their own set of needs and desires, but rather as a 'thing' which is entirely subject to the whims of another. A living receptacle. Prostitution is not simply about sex; it is about power and objectification.'
When in a restaurant, I care little about the waiter's desires, although their needs - to earn a living - are certainly taken into account when I pay - much like with a prostitute, that's how wage-labour works. It's a general problem not specific to prostitution. Regarding 'a living receptacle' - even in a loving monogamous relationship I'd argue anyone receiving sperm into their body would be defined as a 'living receptacle' for the simple reason, that's precisely what they are during that moment of sex. It is not derogatory, it's tired inflammatory padding which attempts to mask the lack of an argument.
McKenna says we have negative slang words for prostitutes. We also have negative slang words for children, wives, husbands, friends, police, dogs, God etc. With little else to add McKenna is just trying to stain prostitution with the same demonization, suspicion and darkness I was questioning in my article, it's the same trick as the 'living receptacle' angle. He continues: 'The grubby inadequacy of the John....his own deficient premise....how can he not despise her for that? I can only assume the here, McKenna is sharing his own experiences with us.
He then relies on more emotive classics that have held this debate back for years: 'For most prostitutes their work provides a misery almost without limits. We know this because up to 95% of them are problematic drug users' I've slept with hundreds of prostitutes and hundreds of non-prostitutes and I've seen more addiction in the latter. I'm sure there are prostitutes on drugs - again, a specific example of a general problem.
After calling me a liar 'I don't believe those who argue this is merely another form of exploitation really genuinely believe in what they are saying' and some more guesses and moral posturing, he closes with this:
'Humour is a powerful thing...Sometimes it is capable of smuggling in some very nasty notions all in the guise of a cheeky-chappy, slap on the back type affability. Dangerfield's article seems to be provocative and liberal but it is anything but. It is merely a rehash of the dull conservative demand that those who are most vulnerable in society should be allowed to enjoy the only freedom they have - the freedom to be exploited.'
If anyone can find where I said anything of the sort, please let me know.
Essentially I made three points, namely that watching porn is using prostitutes, paying for sex has a negative status that doesn't reflect the acceptance of the former point, and the demonization and mythology that has surrounded the debate helps no one. McKenna managed to completely ignore the first two whilst contributing to the problem addressed in the third.