Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Red Light, Green Light


I recently had the incredible good fortune to spend nearly a week with some of my favourite people in a city I now have a swooning crush on: Amsterdam. Its winding canals and cobblestone streets and unbelievably, impossibly ubiquitous bicycles (not to mention its accompanying civilized cycling culture, in which bicycles always have the right of way) hooked me.

Our hosts, my friends Wanda and Craig, had made Amsterdam their home for the past 8 months, and made sure we had ample opportunity to explore by creaky, fixed-gear fietsen. They lead us down narrow streets, over canal bridges, through densely populated parks and throngs of other cyclists with an easy familiarity that I found baffling. A couple of days into our visit, we decided to pass through the fabled Red Light District. I have dim memories of my first visit there, nine years ago, recalling mostly that I felt then that the city had two faces, a glossy, shiny one for daytime and a decidedly more debaucherous one at night. As you no doubt know, prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, and many sex workers ply their trade openly, in street-level windows illuminated by red lights. I remember walking through the streets back then under the overprotective arm of an American rugby player, who I met (along with his girlfriend, who had the other arm) while traveling and spent a few days with. We watched with wide-eyed fascination as women in g-strings gyrated and beckoned in our direction, and men in actual trench coats offered us drugs. We scurried through the streets, trying to be cool and take it all in, none of us wanting to admit to the others that we were freaked out. This time around, I thought, my matured gaze could handle it better. I couldn't wait to see it all again with fresh eyes.

Amsterdam's Red Light District is controversial for those of us in the business of trying to work out how sex workers' safety, human rights and dignity can best be preserved. It is, for some, upheld as a bastion of freedom, in which sex workers can join unions, receive health benefits, work in secure spaces and find widespread acceptance that their work is valid and respectable. It's also seen as a way of ghettoizing sex workers and their patrons, keeping them separate and removed (physically, and by extension conceptually) from the rest of 'civilized' society. I was raring to meander the streets and to see for myself, and had plans to visit the Prostitution Information Centre, where visitors can learn about the Netherlands' sex work laws, have a walking tour of the Red Light District by Centre staff (all former sex workers); but even sex work advocates take Easter Sunday off. It was closed, and I didn't return to it.

So we wandered the neighbourhood ourselves. “I never really go down there,” Wanda had said to me the day before. “I don't like it. It's not the women that bother me, though, it's the groups of guys, I'm disgusted by them.” This got me thinking about something we talk about at work sometimes, about the tension between being pro-sex work and still feeling discomfort (and judgement) about Johns, the (mostly) men who pay for sex workers' services. I squared my jaw and thought to myself, “You can't be grossed out by the customers if you believe the business is a legitimate one. That's the just and non-hypocritical way to look at it.” And then we entered the neighbourhood.

It was teeming with men. Groups of foreign, mostly english-speaking guys crowded every bar's patio, and individuals and pairs of men wandering the streets, stopping to point and gesture at women separated from them only by a pane of glass. The looks on some of their faces reminded me of that cartoon wolf (was it a Looney Toon?) who used you drool and snarl and howl and look hypnotized when that woman in a hot red dress would pass by. They seemed delighted with themselves, confidence bolstered by morning beer. They snapped photos (despite the signs on every agency wall insisting we refrain from doing so) and made lecherous, immature comments. We were followed into a store (comically named SexyLand Erotic Supermarket) by a group of tall, stocky English guys who clearly thought it was ok to invite themselves into our personal space, sidling up beside us while we were looking at underwear and stockings, and ask “See anything you like? I'll get it for you if you do.” They'd chuckle wildly and loudly at each other's banter; we left. “They were enjoying that way too much for us not to be getting paid for it,” I sighed to my friends when we were away from their gaze. As a sidenote: this was the precise moment when I realized how much my perspective has shifted over the past decade.

Of course, there are customers who don't behave this way; we just didn't see them, because they're so much quieter and less conspicuous than the ones who do. While the Dutch men (friends and family of Wanda's) I talked to about my work back home and about the Netherlands' prostitution laws had mature and nuanced approaches to the issue, throngs of tourists to the area are clearly leagues behind in having any kind of analysis about prostitution as an industry, like any other, whose workers are entitled to operate free from harrassment and degradation. It makes me doubt that the Red Light District really accomplishes what I think should be broader goals of communities that embrace either legalization or decriminalization of sex work: normalizing and integrating the industry into the rest of society. The spectacle of it, the erotic supermarkets, the women (and some girls) in windows, the drunken, sunburned guys making obnoxious gestures through the windows, the tacky souvenirs (my favorite: a sex worker in a glittery snowglobe), trivializes the industry, invites voyeurism without requiring any standard of behaviour in return, and distracts from any semblance of intelligent conversations about sex work. While sex workers may receive a generally positive social response from Dutch citizens, the Red Light District feels like something of a theme park both staffed by and designed for visitors (as many as 95% of sex workers in the area are from other countries). I expected better. “You imagined emancipation and you got a freak show?” my office-mate suggested.

Exactly.


4 comments:

  1. What a wonderful descriptive adventure you had by the sounds of it. I feel like I went there by listening to your terrific narritve!


    I too hope to meander those lovely streets of ill-gotten gains...lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You can't be grossed out by the customers if you believe the business is a legitimate one. That's the just and non-hypocritical way to look at it."

    I struggle with this, because I have a hard time conceptualizing sex work in a society in which men and women were actually equal. I think it's why I'm not totally on-board with legalizing the purchase of sex - the very problem I have is with the customer, not the vendor. This is a customer who operates from a position of power that privileges him to buy a woman's body for sex. I can't help but be grossed-out and disturbed by that, regardless of how much I believe in a woman's right to participate in the sex work industry if she wants to or has to.

    Es complicado.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, now I'm re-reading this comment and I hope I am not suffering from a case of being-a-narrow-minded-jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carlita, thanks for your comments. It's always exciting to me when people are engaging with these issues thoughtfully.

    I don't think it's narrow-minded (or jerky) to want what's best for women and to be concerned that the sex trade can be an expression of power imbalances.

    The problem with the opinion you've voiced, which I think is a fairly common one amongst feminist thinkers and doers, is that it presumes that sex work is inherently exploitative and that there is something wrong with the exchange of sex for money or goods at its root. I don't believe this to be true. Women who do sex work are not selling their bodies, they're selling time and services, and there's a huge difference between those two views in terms of how the seller is conceptualized.

    Do I disagree with the intentions of customers (who are more often, though not always, men) who purchase sex because of beliefs (conscious or subconscious) in their dominance and superiority over and right to ownership of women's bodies? Do I find it deplorable that certain customers, when they’re paying for sex workers’ services, believe that what they’re doing is buying a body to which they have license to do what they please? Absolutely. But I also disagree with the unjust power dynamics that can emerge in other industries too, and that doesn’t mean that those industries are inherently unjust, or that, under the right circumstances, they wouldn’t be just another facet of a functioning, healthy society.

    There are a great number of nuances to the world of sex work, and it is the circumstances within which the work is performed that makes it problematic, not the work itself. For example, selling sex to pay rent or buy food or pay legal fees (and so on), also known as Survival Sex, isn’t the same animal as, say, paying a licensing fee to the city you live in to work as an escort in an agency with security and safety measures in place. The necessity of survival sex is a symptom of inequality for sure, in that it’s an indicator of poverty (and its intersection with racism, gender, ableism, stigma, etc). But that doesn’t extend to all forms of sex work.

    As for the ick factor…I get it. I really do. But I think we have to be willing to shift our ideas about people who pay for sex (and other erotic services) at the same time as working to do the same about those who do the work. There’s nothing morally wrong or flawed about that if they’re doing it in a way that is respectful and non-violent (in the broadest sense of the word “violence”). It’s a service that some people want and some don’t. Using it (or providing it) doesn’t say anything about one as a person.

    ReplyDelete