The Daily Dot recently ran an article titled ‘Louis C.K. Could Have Hired A Sex Worker’ Is A Lazy, Dangerous Argument. In it, I was quoted as follows:
Elle Stanger, a Portland-based freelance writer, activist, and sex worker, echoed this sentiment. But she told the Daily Dot that while there are sex workers who are willing to accept clients who wish to act out "victimizing" role play, consent is still necessary and she finds it rare that clients will have the awareness and understanding of the behavior that they’re looking for, and therefore can’t verbalize it.
"I find it’s very rare that people are aware of their behaviors that push on other people’s boundaries...because they aren’t able to recognize how they’re healthy, or how they’re hurting people," Stanger said. "They might know that they’re doing something wrong, so they can’t identify exactly how... A lot of people don’t understand how much communication has to go on in consensual sex work."
Stanger argues that an ideal model of sex work requires all parties to be informed and consenting. So if men like C.K. are aroused by exposing himself to a nonconsenting person and harming them, sex work may not be an option for them unless they’re victimizing the sex worker, too. Because men who pay for sex work aren’t immune from abusing sex workers.
"It would be a suitable option if a client talks to the sex worker, the provider, and they discuss and agree on a role play, that would be an ideal situation. But if the perpetrator is looking to hurt someone or scare someone, then sex work is not a viable option because you’re just creating more victims," Stanger said.
Read the entire article at DailyDot.com.
Return to StripperWriter.com Homepage