The smart thing to do would be not to enter this debate

I have a crush on John Campbell* - I think that's pretty much compulsory for women of my demographic. But I'm seldom home to watch his show (which probably plays a part in maintaining my crush - I've seen enough adds for features on 'fair-trade' coffee to know that he'd annoy me a lot if I watched him every day), I did happen to catch the end of it the other night when he was talking about the Boobs on Bikes parade. I was really impressed than rather than make it a moralistic debate, they had a debate about objectification. I have no objection to topless women, some of my best friends have been arrested for walking topless down Queen St, but I do have a problem with women's bodies being treated as objects. This parade was advertising some sexual expo.

I've read few feminist posts about prostitution recently, and it reminded me . I think punk ass marc is right at least part of the problem is the assumptions people make. I usually find myself terribly frustrated by both sides of any prostitution debate.

In some senses my analysis of prostitution is pretty similar to what is seen as the standard radical feminist analysis. I believe that prostitution is a form of rape, because it is sex that is only consented to because of economic coercion. I am deeply disturbed and angry that there are men who have no problem buying women (or men) and forcing them to have sex.

I also think that by its very nature sex industry objectifies and commodifies bodies. That shouldn't be particularly controversial, given a reasonably standard definition of object and commodity. I don't believe a body should ever be an object or a commodity, and I believe you can't buy or sell any form of sex without making bodies objects and commodities.

My analysis doesn't change whether we're talking street prostitution or working in a high-class brothel. The friends I've had who have worked as prostitutes were theoretically working in the best conditions possible - they were highly paid, they had the ability to refuse clients, and the environment they were working in was relatively safe. I don't know if they see that work as rape. But even if they don't it still fits my definition of coerced sex.

But I fully supported New Zealand's legalisation of prostitutes. It makes me really angry when feminists blame prostitutes for upholding a particular world-view - my analysis is of prostitution not of prostitutes.

I don't think it's my analysis of prostiution that is different from what is seen as the standard radical feminist analysis. It's my analysis of work.

My analysis of econmic coercion doesn't just apply to sex work. I believe coercion is involved every time someone exchanges their labour for money.** I love my job, it is meaningful and fulfilling. But that doesn't stop my job being economic coercion. I think people can have a wide range of experiences of work and still the underlying reality is that work under a capitalist system is coercion and exploitation.

* I know not everyone who reads this blog lives in New Zealand. John Campbell has a half-hour current affairs show each night. I think I'd describe him to Americans as a non-comedic, more left-wing, Jon Stewart. Do other New Zealanders think that's a reasonable description? I can't think of a comparison for anywhere else so if you're not from NZ or America you'll just have to use your imagination.

** Note to the right-wing commenters: this is a thread for discussing prostitution. If you want to tell me that I'm wrong and the employer/employee relationship is one free from coercion and instead all hugs and puppies then wait. I promise I'll give you a thread where you can argue about that sometime soon.