Sonia Sánchez - 'No woman is born to be a whore'

In this interview Sonia Sánchez, a former prostitute and the author of Ninguna mujer nace para puta ('No woman is born to be a whore'), explains why prostitution is a form of exploitation and violence against women, and can never be a legitimate job.

Sonia uses the word ‘puta’ (the Spanish equivalent to ‘whore’) because “it doesn’t disguise the sexual violence and abuse” that women suffer in prostitution.

She never tires of telling the story of how she left her home province of Chacao for Buenos Aires in search of work at the age of 17, only to become one of the estimated 4 million women and girls sold into prostitution each year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"How did you end up becoming a prostitute?"

It was prostitution that came to me; through lack of food, a job, a home, and a good education. That's why I implicate the state and the government. They made me into a puta because my economic, social and cultural rights were violated, allowing me to be abused by others.

"Why does prostitution exist?"

It exists because of the men who go whoring; our husbands, priests, judges and politicians. Without the demand there wouldn't be putas, and without putas there wouldn't be prostitution, and without prostitution there wouldn't be human trafficking for sexual exploitation. I would tell the governments not to legalise prostitution, that it is violence against women.

"What would you say to those who claim that prostitution is a job like any other?"

If you are a puta I wouldn't say anything to you, because I was there myself, and in order to survive the concentration camp of prostitution, I had to maintain the lie that it was work. I would tell the governments that they must not regulate this massive violence towards women; that they were elected by the people to uphold our rights, not to create laws that legitimise violence. Because prostitution is violence.

You say that prostitution left you without a voice and that you lived through this stage in your life in a haze. How did you escape?

By expressing the anger that I had inside me - which is not the same as hate. The only thing that prostitution didn't manage to destroy was my capacity to love, and that is how I could start to reconstitute myself as a rebellious and disobedient women. Today I can say that this is my body and I can speak for myself, and not as a mouthpiece for others.

I don't use the word puta to humiliate or label women. I use it because it doesn't disguise the violence, but makes it visible.

What would you ask of society? How could the people around you have helped?

I would ask society to stop being complicit in this violence because everyone, whether you take action or not, is involved. It would be good if we started to question the division between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people; between what happens in the home and out in the street.

And what would you say to the women that practice prostitution voluntarily?

That I understand them because I've been there, and I know that when a woman becomes a prostitute, it is through physical and psycholgical violence. In order to survive she has to lie to herself, and on behalf of others. But above all, I would tell them to find themselves, because when you are made into a puta, you are hidden from yourself. I would ask them to look for that rebellious and disobedient woman inside who can say 'enough is enough", because they are not in control of their own lives. And I would say ‘work to overcome what you fear’’, because there is a lot of fear.

Translation by Ben Riddick

Original interview in Spanish here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch Sonia Sánchez's talk for TedX here:

The New Politics: The Neoliberal enthusiasm for the prostitution business

By Cruz Leal Rodríguez 02/04/2016

Barcelona City Council seems intent on regulating prostitution, to protect the rights of women who enter the sex trade voluntarily. This has provoked a counter-movement lead by four female mayors from the metropolitan area, and several feminist groups, spearheaded by the Women's Democratic Movement (MDM).

This political struggle has sparked a media debate over the regulation of prostitution, amid a flurry of accusations and political point-scoring from all sides. Some of the accusations are probably true, and this is partly what politics (both New and Old) is about; political actors will use whatever measures within reach to defend and broadcast their convictions, and gain hegemony over opposing ideas. Whether they genuinely believe that their ideas are better for society, or are simply toeing the party line; we must remember that political parties are shaped by ideologies, and they may have to perform ideological contortions to defend their policies. Therefore, I welcome the debate.

I hope that it continues and deepens; that it reveals prostitution for what it really is, in all its complexity. Asking who it benefits, how it works and what its function is would be a good start. I hope it is explained and understood, that data and statistics emerge, and that the myths are dispelled. I want everyone to have so much information on the topic that it becomes impossible to shrug off and ignore. Just repeating that well-worn refrain that "something must be done" is not enough. We must question ourselves and what society accepts as a normal, natural and inevitable 'lesser evil'.

The debate must take to the streets and spread by word of mouth. It should force us to take up a personal stance, and ask the uncomfortable questions that challenge cosy acceptance of the problem.  

We should understand that the debate only exists because of politics, and feminist policies on equality are not compatible with a neoliberal perspective that commercialises bodies for the market.

The one thing that all the different camps agree on is that “something must be done” about the problem. Perhaps they even share an understanding of its magnitude. After all, prostitution qualifies as a "wicked problem", to use a social planning term. Yet social scientists never apply this term specifically to prostitution; despite the fact that the problem is deeply ingrained, growing and made even more complex by globalisation. Despite the fact that it affects the whole of society, and that the majority of its victims are women and girls: around 40 million of them. On the other side of the equation, the consumers of prostitution are almost all men, leaving open the possibility that some are social workers or policy makers themselves. It is essential to view prostitution as a "wicked problem" because of the serious consequences it has for all of us, even if it risks upsetting the social scientists. It allows us to see prostitution for what it really is: an immense problem that affects everyone.

The discrepancy between all the possible 'solutions' is what drives the debate, and constitutes the very essence of politics. Political decisions reflect ideological viewpoints and always have social consequences. We decide how we should approach a problem and where to begin; how many people will be affected, who stands to lose or gain and who we should favour. Political decisions are charged with symbolism and meaning. Making a wrong decision, or abstaining, has even greater consequences than making the right decision. Not deciding is implicitly a decision in itself.

If we approach prostitution as a problem that can be solved, and not as something inevitable, we must ask ourselves about the causes. And when it acquires the magnitude of a "wicked problem" - globalised, involving significant economic interests, rooted in inequality - we must also ask ourselves about the causes of the causes. We must recognise that complex problems require complex solutions that rely on social complicity. Those solutions will provoke reactions and resistance, require different levels of intervention across different frames of time, and the results are not guaranteed. We need, not only innovative and imaginative policies, but also the resources necessary to implement them.

Above all, we must realise that rejecting the wrong policy is just as important as choosing the right one. Because the wrong decision only worsens the problem and allows it to fester, until it becomes lodged in the imagination as a natural, unavoidable fact of life. In social policy a bad decision outweighs a good one; an error is more costly, frustrating and undoes the work of previous interventions. In fact, this is how most social problems reproduce and multiply; what begins as an injustice ends up as a naturalised and normalised system of exploitation.

That is why I hope the debate keeps on growing. After all, it owes its origin to the feminist movements that first demanded the right not to be prostituted, exploited, and be forced to sell the only thing they possessed: their own bodies. It was the eruption of neoliberalism in the sixties that introduced the myth of free choice based on consent; the idea that becoming a prostitute was a matter of individual choice, independent of any social context, and therefore a legitimate job option.

Barcelona City Council's stance on regulating prostitution has been ambiguous and biased over the last few years, so this recent controversy may help to clarify the different positions. At one point, to appease neighbours' complaints, the council opted to issue fines to prostitutes; later admitting that very few of them were actually collected. It was a hypocritical gesture; in reality its position, without openly expressing it, was in favour of regulating prostitution. That is why they tolerated the barrage of promotion from both the public and private media, which presented prostitution as a legitimate business. Over the years there has been a deluge of news stories about the advantages that prostitution offers over other jobs. A good salary, excellent working conditions, the possibilities of integration with family life, professional status… with such high praise, it’s a wonder we don’t all consider prostitution to be the best career option available. It was presented as a highly respectable job by the media, who repeatedly called for the introduction of training and professional standards in the industry. In connivance with the pimp lobby, they treated prostitution as if it were a public service; even calculating its contribution to the GDP and tax revenue.

The tourist guidebooks refer to Barcelona’s reputation as a highly popular destination for buying sex. It’s as if we ought to be proud of our city being branded this way; as though it was part of our cultural heritage. Come and enjoy our sunshine, Mediterranean gastronomy, a visit to the Sagrada Familia...and at the end of the day, why not let your hair down with one of our famous putas? The complete tourist package.

The controversy unleashed will allow, for a moment at least, a space for abolitionist arguments to spread. Feminism has evolved and incorporated class struggle. In an increasingly conservative and regressive society, its original causes continue to be valid. The patriarchy is adapting to the times and aligning itself with the neoliberalism that supports it. Any new policies based on collective ideals are discredited by the neoliberal values of individualism, privatisation and competition.

In the face of this, feminism's commitment to the abolition of prostitution represents a defence of human rights. This includes the rights of prostitutes; not on the basis of what they do, but because they are people. This is why feminists are urgently calling for policies that aim to solve the problem, rather than accept it as an unavoidable ‘lesser evil’.

Policies that only aim to reduce harm do not go far enough; they must also legitimately aspire to eradicate prostitution. Policies must treat prostitution as a “wicked problem”, and institutions must make a sustained commitment to providing the resources needed to implement them. All government actions must be based in equality; with policies that support, empower and offer alternatives to women in prostitution, whether or not they want to leave it. There is no room for shortcuts or half-measures; prostitution is a gender issue that must be viewed from a feminist perspective. Feminism’s ideology can only be of the left, and can never fit into the right-wing neoliberal framework.

We must listen to the voices of everyone involved; which includes prostitutes, those who want to leave prostitution, and all the women who never want to become a prostitute. The sex trade is an institution that affects society as a whole. We need informed opinions that are based on the values of peaceful coexistence and tolerance, not hypocritical and selfish individualism. To analyse and understand the problem, we must establish processes of mediation. This would allow society itself to contribute to sanctioning the users of prostitutes, promote change in how young people are socialised, and develop different attitudes to sexuality.       

          

If we aim to abolish prostitution, the debate must be centred on the consumer and the demand. It is not only a matter of issuing penalties to consumers; society must denounce the act of buying sex itself. We must hold the users of prostitutes to account, as we would with any abuser. Buying another person’s body should not be accepted as a natural, harmless and inconsequential act. We need a truly innovative change of policy direction; one that shifts the spotlight away from the prostitutes’ motives, and on to the silent, accepted consumer and his demand for a degrading sexuality. And we need to hear the voices of all the men who oppose these practices, yet remain silent. If we want to combat the sexual objectification of women in our culture, these men must speak up and explain why they reject it.

We must expose the fallacies and myths constructed around a sexuality that is based on consumption, and ruled by the sacrosanct market. When prostitutes are given no other alternative, we cannot justify the trade in women's bodies (or parts of their bodies) with the illusion of ‘free choice’. Having to sell sex for survival does not constitute freedom of choice. But we are free to take affirmative action, and oppose the normalisation of sexual exploitation in our society. In this case, the most radical choice is to say NO.

For the new policy makers, I leave you with some words from the renowned militant feminist and political activist, Beatriz Gimeno:

“Supposedly left-wing feminists often use prostitution as a metaphor for the free market: an ideologically neutral space in which transactions and contracts are negotiated.

The regulation of prostitution can only be defended from a neoliberal position. Its principal supporters are the businessmen that profit from it, and the right-wing politicians who have freed themselves from conservative moralising. Neoliberals have been very quick to realise that regulation is perfectly coherent with their policies. (...) This is why supporters of regulation avoid ethical questions and simply confirm prostitution’s existence as something inevitable; allowing a certain part of it to be permitted, subject to licensing and taxation..."

Translation by Ben Riddick

Original Spanish article - La nueva política y el entusiasmo neoliberal por la emprendiduría prostituyente

The woman who sold women

By Lydia Cacho 18/02/2014

At an international event to discuss detailed strategies to eradicate slavery, our table was dedicated to considering how to weaken the criminal economy of trafficking. We were joined by the Australian director of the Global Network of Sex Worker Projects (NSWP).

Following a presentation by a financial expert, she took the microphone and explained that she had been a prostitute in the past. She then proceeded to attack all of the organisations across the world that rescue victims of human trafficking.

She said there was some kind of conspiracy among human rights advocates; to take the right to sell their bodies away from young people and women. And she tried to discredit those who have saved thousands of children from being exploited for sex tourism in Southeast Asia.

It was clear that the event had been sabotaged, but for the English organisers it seemed politically incorrect to rebuke the sex industry advocate. Later, an Interpol expert explained to us, behind closed doors, that this woman was suspected of promoting brothels in which there was clearly slavery of very young women.

It remained a conversation in the corridor; at the slightest attempt to open it to discussion, we were accused of moralising over women's right to use their body however they see fit.

A few days ago Mexican newspaper El Universal revealed that the Mexico City authorities had arrested Alejandra Gil, known as the "Madam of Sullivan". While posing as a defender of sex workers’ rights, she was actually part of a well-established network of sexual slavery. According to the wide-ranging Attorney General investigation she exploited 40 women, who were threatened with violence and death.

Some young women managed to escape and report this supposed sex workers’ rights activist; and their testimonies revealed the strategies used by human traffickers across the world, in response to new laws to eradicate the trade.

Evidently, not all activists that defend human rights from within the sex industry are traffickers. However, there are many survivors of the sex trade that, once inside the criminal industry, choose to be part of it. They convince themselves that now its their turn to exploit a new generation of youths, normalising the trade as a false form of economic freedom controlled by third parties.

We have seen the industry of exploitation win hundreds of both low and high-profile cases; such as that of the Trevi/Andrade clan who, supported by the entertainment industry, emerged triumphant and even more famous after destroying several young lives.

Because legal systems are much faster-moving institutions than cultural norms, the culture of violence in our society impedes the progress of justice and the fight against crime.

There is a perverse logic at work here, which confuses debate and prevents understanding of the slave trade’s complexities. Labour exploitation in the interest of economic progress has been normalised over centuries, contributing to the creation of a false discourse that justifies economic, race and gender inequalities as being inevitable.

In other words, our culture has been permeated with the notion that exploitation, poverty, class discrimination, racism, and sexism are unavoidable and should therefore be assimilated. Most sex traffickers argue that they provide security, income and freedom to prostitutes, which gives them the right to economic retribution and control over their "employees".

Nobody said it would be easy to determine how each human being should assume their partial freedoms; or work out how and why millions of people who grow up with violence go on to reproduce it, and come to see abuse as something deserved.

No one said it would be easy to identify the psycho-emotional components and the emotional and psycho-sexual manipulation that lead someone to be enslaved, and to believe that they deserve this abject condition.

Rafael Barret said: "If Good does not exist, we’ll have to invent it". The same could be said of Freedom.

Slavery cannot be eradicated without throwing the spotlight on every group that insists on justifying the sale of human beings as an economically profitable business. As we have seen in the recent case of the "Madame of Sullivan", the traffickers are sat at the table that defends the freedom to enslave, disguised as freedom of choice.

Translation by Ben Riddick.

Original Spanish article, 'La mujer que vendía mujeres'