Feminist teacher defends her prostitution

[biblthmp]

Feminist teacher defends her prostitution
Says women have right to self-determination, sexually and economically

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 28, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A Berkeley, Calif., High School teacher is defending her moonlighting career as a prostitute, comparing herself to Martin Luther King Jr. in her fight to decriminalize the vocation.

"As a feminist I believe in every woman's right to self-determination, and that includes sexually and economically,'' Shannon Williams, 37, told the San Jose Mercury News.

Williams, a former biology teacher who became a field-trip coordinator last year, was arrested earlier this month in her Oakland apartment, the paper said. Police say she agreed to have sex with an undercover cop for $250 an hour.

The woman is determined to eliminate laws against the world's oldest profession.

"I feel like a gay teacher must have felt 20 years ago after being outed,'' she told the San Jose paper. "I feel that prostitution laws are dinosaurs. That they're similar to sodomy laws, and they will eventually be repealed.''

About 20 supporters of her position held a rally outside Alameda County Superior Court yesterday, one of whom was arrested for taking off her shirt, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

During a brief hearing in the courthouse, Williams' plea entry was delayed a week at the request of her lawyer, reported Bay City News.

The teacher told reporters outside the courthouse she believed women in the "sex industry" are entrepreneurs and should have the same rights as other workers.

According to the Mercury News, Williams complained that during her arrest eight to 10 police officers alleged refused to let her get dressed.

"I felt they were looking at me like an animal or something," she said. "I had this real desire to tell them, 'I'm not who you think I am. I'm a person with dignity and pride.'"

Williams could strike a plea bargain, which would include a misdemeanor charge and a small fine.

 

[SG-N]

Where is your opinion about it? :bugeye:

It's hard to say if it's right or not. I'm not against her choice : if a woman wants to be a prostitute then she should be allowed to do it. However, she is a teacher too and as long as she must be an example to her students, it can be a problem. It depends on the age of the students and their behavior in front of the prostitution.

IMO, nowadays, it's not a good idea to be both a teacher and a prostitute.

 

[biblthmp]

Originally posted by SG-N

IMO, nowadays, it's not a good idea to be both a teacher and a prostitute.

You say nowadays, does that mean that there once was a time, when it was a good idea, or do you expect that to come in the future?

 

[SG-N]

One century ago, a teacher that would have shown her knees would have lost her job... so in the future, we will be used to more and more "strange" things. I guess that this kind of thread will not exist anymore in less than 50 years (and I'm pessimistic here).

What about you?

 

[curioucity]

Dumb...... if she's an elementary school teacher, she should have gone completely undercover for that.....

 

[SG-N]

My mistake : "a former biology teacher who became a field-trip coordinator last year".
She is not a teacher anymore... Anyway, it doesn't change my opinion about it.

curioucity :
She was in high school.

 

[otheadp]

50 years from now, when prostitution is legalized and is being taxed by the gov't, a mother is talking to her 7 year old daughter before tucking her in to sleep:

-so, Britney, what do you want to be when you grow up?
--I wanna be a prostitute, mommy.
-you are as cute as a button, and so smart too! a great idea sweety. that's the way to show your freedom, AND make a decent living i have the best daughter in the whole world.

 

[Spyke]

When someone posts an excerpt from an article, or in this case the entire article, an accompanying link nevertheless would seem appropriate.

 

[SG-N]

Originally posted by otheadp
that's the way to show your freedom, AND make a decent living

That's one way to show your freedom, AND make a decent living. (It must be a choice.)

Isn't it the same with porn movies? No... you don't only sale your body : you sale your "image" too!

 

[SwedishFish]

it's not that i'm against prostitution. personally, i think the patrons are a little pathetic but the providers are doing well for themselves. it's the most money a woman can make. so while this is a good reason to make it legal and demarginalize it, it also wouldn't be necessary if women could make enough money in "men's" fields to support themselves. this teacher is the exception. most prostitutes only do it because they have to, they'd starve to death otherwise.

i have an old college friend who became a stripper. we all kind of shake our heads at her and mutter under our breaths about what a shame it is. but the truth of the matter is that when she comes around, she's sporting $500 coats, snorting 1000's of dollars worth of coke (another head shaker). take what you will from that.

 

[Xev]

She can sell her labor in one way, why can't she sell it in another?
You want capitolism and democracy, you want the rights of the individual to determine what they do with their body so long as they do not infringe on another's right - you fucking put up with prostitution.
If your culture was not saturated with disgust for the female body, you would not even blink at this.

 

[okinrus]

She can sell her labor in one way, why can't she sell it in another?

Does the people pay for her sexual diseases, the customers, or her pimp? Maybe we should rule out the pimp here because she's a real entrepreneur.

You want capitolism and democracy, you want the rights of the individual to determine what they do with their body so long as they do not infringe on another's right

The goverment has laws against drugs, seatbelts, and labor laws neither of which infringe on someone else's rights. Doesn't the right of goverment to protect us include even ourselves?

If your culture was not saturated with disgust for the female body, you would not even blink at this.

This is Xeve the woman with no morals. Should we take away the indecent exposure laws or compromise with fig leaves?

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

Does the people pay for her sexual diseases, the customers, or her pimp? Maybe we should rule out the pimp here because she's a real entrepreneur.

I'm presuming you have a point here.

The goverment has laws against drugs,

Which should be scrapped except in certain cases.

seatbelts,

My right to not wear a seatbelt does not trump your right not to have to pay for my paraplegic ass if I get in an accident.

and labor laws neither of which infringe on someone else's rights.

Labor laws protect the workers from their employers, not from themselves.

Doesn't the right of goverment to protect us include even ourselves?

No. Nor does my government have a "right" to protect me. It is based on my consent to be governed, not any abstract "right".

Should we take away the indecent exposure laws or compromise with fig leaves?

I have no clue what you're on about or how you derive this from my statement.

 

[Repo Man]

At the risk of making your head explode, I think that reading Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do would do you a world of good, Okinrus. And you too, Biblthmp.

THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea: You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

Simple. Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights. And yet, it's not the way things are.

Roughly half of the arrests and court cases in the United States each year involve consensual crimes—actions that are against the law, but directly harm no one's person or property except, possibly, the "criminal's."

More than 750,000 people are in jail right now because of something they did, something that did not physically harm the person or property of another. In addition, more than 3,000,000 people are on parole or probation for consensual crimes. Further, more than 4,000,000 people are arrested each year for doing something that hurts no one but, potentially, themselves.

The injustice doesn't end there, of course. Throwing people in jail is the extreme. If you can throw people in jail for something, you can fire them for the same reason. You can evict them from their apartments. You can deny them credit. You can expel them from schools. You can strip away their civil rights, confiscate their property, and destroy their lives—just because they're different.

At what point does behavior become so unacceptable that we should tell our government to lock people up? The answer, as explored in this book: We lock people up only when they physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

Contained in this answer is an important assumption: after a certain age, our persons and property belong to us. Yes, if we harm ourselves it may emotionally harm others. That's unfortunate, but not grounds for putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for hurting person A. If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, person A could be put in jail for hurting person B. This would, of course, hurt person A's mother, who would see to it that person B would go to jail. Eventually, we'd all be in jail. As silly as that situation sounds, it is precisely the logic used by some to protect the idea of consensual crimes. Arguments in favor of laws against any consensual activity are usually variations of "It's not moral!" And where does the objector's sense of morality come from? For the most part, his or her religion. Some claim "cultural values" as the basis of morality, but where does this set of cultural values come from? The sharing of a similar religion. To a large degree, we have created a legal system that is, to quote Alan Watts, "clergymen with billy clubs." Says Watts:

The police have enough work to keep them busy regulating automobile traffic, preventing robberies and crimes of violence and helping lost children and little old ladies find their way home. As long as the police confine themselves to such activities they are respected friends of the public. But as soon as they begin inquiring into people's private morals, they become nothing more than armed clergymen.

It is a great book, and it is free!

 

[okinrus]

Labor laws protect the workers from their employers, not from themselves.

The worker makes a contract with the employer knowing full well the conditions in most cases.

My right to not wear a seatbelt does not trump your right not to have to pay for my paraplegic ass if I get in an accident.

I have no problem having the goverment pay others medical bill even for someone like you but it's not something that beneficial for us and so should be avoided. And why should the goverment
allow their people to go to unproductive trash because they chose to? Could these people then have to be drafted in the army? Isn't that a requirement for being a US citizen?

No. Nor does my government have a "right" to protect me. It is based on my consent to be governed, not any abstract "right".

While there are some self-evident rights, for the most part, your rights are granted to you by the goverment.

At the risk of making your head explode, I think that reading Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do would do you a world of good, Okinrus. And you too, Biblthmp.

Throwing her into jail may not be the best option but allowing prostitution does not solve anything.

That's unfortunate, but not grounds for putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for hurting person A. If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, person A could be put in jail for hurting person B.

Emotional harm done here is usually temporary. Drugs and prostitution cause emotional and physical harm. Not only that, the woman has placed herself in a position where she could be abused or rape.

 

[Repo Man]

"Allowing" prostitution? No one needs to allow it, it is going on around us, all of the time. It is more a matter of telling government to butt out of things that are of no concern to it.

Don't like prostitution? Don't pick up any prostitutes. Making it illegal only drives it underground.

Freedom to only make the "right" choice is no freedom at all.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that it isn't illegal to have sex for money? But you have to be in the adult film industry, and have a third party pay both of you, rather than either of the participants paying the other.

 

[okinrus]

Don't like prostitution? Don't pick up any prostitutes. Making it illegal only drives it underground.

I'm not fully concerned with myself in any issue. More or less, in any moral issue we have to judge the effects it could have on others. Significant others such as our school mates, friends, wifes, husbands etc. So for example while legalizing cocaine would not affect me directly, it might affect a friend of mine who might unwittingly succumb to the curosity and try it. Well once that decision is made, it is pretty much made for good because an addict has a very hard time stopping his or her addiction. So the addict who once had freewill, does not dispite actually wanting to quit. We can make the claim here that not giving people a chance to become addicts actually increases our freewill. Another problem is that legalizing a substance would also affect treatment. If the police can't catch them, then how will they go to treatment> Or maybe you don't think that cocain addicts deserve treatment, but I and most american's do.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Quote: it also wouldn't be necessary if women could make enough money in "men's" fields to support themselves. this teacher is the exception. most prostitutes only do it because they have to, they'd starve to death otherwise.

Women in many under-developed countries are forced into prostitution for survival but this is seldom true in the West. In Denmark and Holland where there is a good social welfare system and free education prostitution flourishes. In Denmark 'pimping' a sex trade worker is illegal but a woman selling sex is not. In Holland it is controlled and taxed and even unionized; they have access to health care and std testing. Moralizing about prostitution does not deter the practise and only marginalizes the women. The Mayflower Madame could have made many a lucrative choice with her Harvard education and privileged background but she chose to be a madam instead. Legalization would clean up the street corners and make the profession safer which means they would not need a pimp.

 

[Pete]

It is a great book, and it is free!

That book just took half an hour of my life that I'll never get back.
It's monetarily free, and it's well worth that price.

I agree with the writer's basic ideology, but the arguments in the book are not good.

Rating: 0.5 stars

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Okinrus please explain why you compare a cocaine addiction to buying or selling sex?

I understand you think it is your duty to protect people from themselves but in actuality ITS NOT!! You have your moral principles and others have their own. Strange how in the land of freedom everyone is busy trying to restrict their neighbors from behaviour that does not concern them. Do you have any other suggestion for eradicating prostitution other than prision? Prison has not stopped the oldest profession from a continued existence.

It has been reported that during military exercises in Thailand marines were told that the country is 100% hiv positive and avoid the red light districts. After their shore leave it was noted that 75% of the men went ahead and procured sex anyway. So much for the warnings.