At least two women from pimp Dennis Hof’s legal brothels have made credible accusations of sexual assault. In the process of studying the sex trade for the past 20 years, including two years in Nevada, I have learned that many of Nevada’s legal pimps are control-obsessed thugs who regularly assault women.
Clarifying what the sex trade is all about, a sex buyer explained, “prostitution is renting an organ for 10 minutes.” Some pimps view prostitution as a time-share business, with women occupied for a brief time rather than owned outright. The attitude “I paid for you, so I own you, so I can do whatever I want to you” is common among pimps and sex buyers, who together are the most frequent assaulters of women in the legal brothels. The warning signs are the same behaviors you see in pimps and men who buy sex: an attitude of sexual entitlement, unwanted touching, persistence and social isolation of their target.
A woman who prostituted in a Nevada legal brothel said that the experience was like being the pimp’s property for two weeks. “You have sex when they want, with whom they want, and it doesn’t matter how you feel or anything,” she said. “You’re locked in a box for two weeks and guys come in and out.”
Other women describe the Nevada legal brothels as “little prisons in double-wide trailers.” When we interviewed 45 women in Nevada’s legal brothels, 81 percent told us they wanted to escape prostitution. They most often had pimps or boyfriends coercing them from outside the brothel. Many faced poverty or homelessness (47 percent of the women in Nevada’s legal brothels had been homeless). A Nevada legal pimp reported that he saw pimps from out of state drop off the most beaten-down, injured women for what amounted to incarceration as they were coerced under slave-like conditions to make more money by selling sex.
Although it has improved conditions for pimps, legal prostitution does not make it safer for women in the brothels. We all somehow hope — against the evidence — that there’s something we can do to make prostitution better for the women. That we can magically make the women safer from everything we know that happens to them, but that few can even stand to think about. But there is much evidence that legal prostitution is physically dangerous.
In the brothels, there is pressure on women to accept any sex buyer who chooses her, regardless of how drunk, foul-smelling, verbally abusive or threatening he seems. If a woman rejects more than one or two johns, she can be fired. Some women were afraid that if they reported violence from sex buyers, they themselves might be blamed for it or even fired.
A former brothel manager (who feared for her life if her identity were revealed) stated that only a small percentage of brothel violence is reported and that the women are so accustomed to violence in their lives that an assault seemed “almost insignificant” to them. As one woman explained, “What is rape to others is normal for us.” Sexual harassment is the job of prostitution, yet somehow we don’t think of women in prostitution as part of #MeToo. She has the right to exist without sexual harassment, without prostitution, just like the rest of us.
There is no evidence that legal prostitution will eliminate illegal prostitution. In fact, a 2013 study of 150 countries showed that wherever prostitution was legal, sex trafficking increased. Legal prostitution is about 10 percent of the sex trade in Nevada. The other 90 percent is illegal. Why is that? Legal prostitution is a legal welcome to pimps — it creates a prostitution culture in the state, normalizing prostitution and attracting sex buyers and pimps from all over the world.
Having discovered that almost all legal prostitution is controlled by organized crime, the Dutch have shut down more than half of the legal brothels in Amsterdam. Dutch politicians are working on changing the country’s prostitution law.
It’s essential to end the laws that place Nevada’s counties themselves in the role of pimps. Lyon and Nye County advocates are currently gathering signatures to reject legal pimping. The fewer pimps in Nevada — legal or illegal — the better.
I can’t remember the exact words, who said it or when, but the general message was: courage isn’t the lack of fear, but doing something even when you’re afraid. I am writing this with lots of fear about a backlash that will almost certainly happen. However, I’ve reached the point where I can’t stay silent any longer and need to muster whatever courage I can and do what I think is right, regardless of the cost.
This past week, a woman I’m proud to call a sister ally, Yuly Chan, was no-platformed by a small group of individuals who appointed themselves judge and jury of acceptable ideas and speech. They claimed Chan was a violent, hateful woman whose political opinions were too dangerous to be shared in a public venue and demanded she be removed from a panel scheduled as part of this weekend’s Vancouver Crossroads conference. Chan had been invited by conference organizers, the Vancouver District and Labour Council (VLDC), the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), and Organize BC, to speak on behalf of her group, the Chinatown Action Group. The Chinatown Action Group organizes to improve the lives of low-income residents of Vancouver’s Chinatown, many of whom are seniors. She was to speak to the incredibly important work of this group at the conference.
A recently-formed group called the Coalition Against Trans Antagonism (CATA) wrote a letter to the organizers, then an open letter that included a link to a website CATA had built, documenting supposed evidence of Chan as a threat to public safety. Although Chan was not speaking on the panel about debates around gender or prostitution, Organize BC members interrogated Chan about her politics regarding these issues and eventually refused to move ahead with the panel unless she was removed. Instead of condemning the unethical tactics and behaviour of CATA, intended to silence Chan and smear her as a hate-filled oppressor, the organizers cancelled the entire panel, sending a message that the organizers and their supporters were not willing to take a stand to ensure the needs of low-income Chinese residents were heard. As a result, the Chinatown Action Group was no-platformed right along with their representative.
CATA also demanded that the conference organizers issue a public apology for daring to invite Chan to speak about the activism of low-income Chinese residents of Vancouver. They also demanded that a policy be instituted with the guidance and approval of only “trans women and sex workers,” banning anyone “who promote[s] any form of oppressive, supremacist, and fascist ideology from being offered and/or provided a platform at any of VDLC, CUPE, and Organize BC’s future events.” But who decides which ideologies are “oppressive, supremacist, and fascist”? And why, in activist and academic circles, has it become common and acceptable to engage in witch hunts to rid “the community” (that is made up of whom?) of particular political positions that are grounded not in hate or violence, but in a radical feminist analysis (radical meaning “the root”)? Chan, and so many others who question and critique systems of power are being persecuted for having these feminist or critical politics. It is not violent oppressors, supremacists, or fascists that are being silenced and no-platformed in this case and others like it, it is feminists. There are limits, of course, to the idea of “free speech,” but what I am addressing is specifically discourse among activists and academics on the left.
Organize BC privately and publicly apologized to CATA for inviting Yuly Chan to speak on the panel. But I will not apologize for standing next to Chan and the Chinatown Action Group, and next to all people who have been no-platformed, threatened, intimidated, bullied, and even beaten for their political opinions.
What was Chan’s crime? Having a political analysis and sharing it. She is accused of promoting “SWERF/TERF” ideology. “SWERF” stands for “sex worker exclusionary radical feminist,” and “TERF” stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist.” These terms are used as insults against women with a radical feminist or class analysis of prostitution and gender. “SWERFs” and “TERFs” are accused of hating, oppressing, harming, and sometimes even killing trans women and sex workers, despite the fact no feminist engages in these practices.
I am of the political opinion that prostitution is a form of male violence that should be abolished. I am also of the political opinion that gender is a social construct and hierarchy that traps and harms women and should also be abolished. Today, these two sentences are enough to mark me as a violent, hate-filled, supremacist/fascist, and have the ability to destroy my reputation, livelihood, and potential academic or employment opportunities now and in the future. I have already been passed over for some opportunities due to my political analysis of prostitution, asked to leave conferences, told I’m not allowed to speak about prostitution when invited to speak about Indigenous research, and threatened with police involvement. I have been intimidated and harassed due only to my politics, not my behaviour. These are only some examples of some of the backlash that I, and other women, have experienced for speaking our opinions. This backlash, however, doesn’t just include no-platforming, but also threats and acts of violence. To many, this may sound unbelievable, as though I am exaggerating. I wish this were the case. I wish I were exaggerating. Unfortunately, this is the reality of activist and academic circles in Canada and elsewhere.
Speaking of academia, in 2016 I was publicly accused online of being an oppressive “SWERF” and “TERF” by a former employee of the Centre for Gender Advocacy at Concordia University, where I am a student. This is the first time I am speaking publicly about this incident, as I have been too afraid to do so since it happened. Although this individual is no longer employed by the Centre for Gender Advocacy, going on instead to become the president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), this issue has not been resolved. In the public post, I was accused of oppressing sex workers and being “transphobic,” funders and the university were tagged, a quote was attributed to me that I never said, and individuals went on a hunt to dig up evidence of my supposed bigotry. One person attempted to publicly engage in discussion about these allegations against me, which I’m grateful for, but they were not heard. Some faculty members were concerned that a staff person at a student support organization was making these types of public allegations about a student and alerted some in positions of power at the University, but got little, if any, response. The manager of the Centre for Gender Advocacy was made aware of the situation, and I am not aware of anything that was or is being done to resolve and rectify the situation. No one has reached out to me to apologize for the online bullying I had experienced, or to speak about concerns or questions they had about my politics, leading me to believe this type of hostility is directed at me not only by one staff member, but the Centre for Gender Advocacy as an organization. I explored different options myself, but was unable to find a way to formally hold the individual and Centre to account. I attempted to find support at the University, but those I approached refused to speak out against the behaviour of the individual and the Centre.
Regardless of your politics, this behaviour is unacceptable. It is not ok to tell lies about people or subject them to political persecution over disagreements. It’s important to note that the Centre houses Missing Justice, an Indigenous solidarity group that hosts the march for murdered and disappeared Indigenous women and girls every year in Montreal. As an Indigenous woman who works on these issues, I was already alienated from Missing Justice when, a number of years ago, non-Indigenous organizers told me to stop speaking and attempted to literally grab a megaphone out of my hand when I was invited to make a statement at their gathering by another Indigenous speaker. My crime was a decolonizing and feminist critical analysis of prostitution and speaking out against men buying sexual access to Indigenous women and girls. In other words, my crime was having a political opinion that differed from the organizers. Rather than attempting to silence an Indigenous woman at an event supposedly held for Indigenous women, a better way forward would have been to publicly acknowledge at the event that my statement does not reflect the organizer’s politics and to encourage those in attendance to learn more about the issue.
Although this incident happened many years ago and the online bullying at Concordia happened two years ago, it continues to severely impact my life as a student in different ways. The message I received from the inaction by the University and the Centre for Gender Advocacy is that it is entirely acceptable to attempt to silence those who are critical of prostitution. I still hear this message today. I feel fear about publicizing these experiences. The very fact that I feel intensely afraid to speak about my own experiences speaks volumes about the climate of activism and academia today.