Should feminists support the decriminalization of sex work?

[The Xl]

Why would the buying of sex be seen as a crime? One could argue that those who need to buy sex in the first place are victims as well.

[IMPress Polly]

Why would the buying of sex be seen as a crime? One could argue that those who need to buy sex in the first place are victims as well.

To your question: Please don't make me repeat myself. I just wrote you several paragraphs explaining only a few of the reasons why.

As to the last part, no one "needs" to purchase someone else's body. Sex is not a human necessity. Not for any one individual anyway. And frankly, most of the men who do buy sex are old guys who have had plenty and just don't like the haggard appearance of their post-menopause wives or their wives' refusal of certain particularly degrading acts. And they're wealthy enough to pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a single escapade. They're not victims. They're subjecting women (most of whom are relatively poor victims of abuse and/or drug addiction who struggle with mental illness) to the most degrading and painful sex acts they learned from porn that you can possibly think of. They are not trapped in that mode physically, economically, or psychologically in any sense other than their sense of personal entitlement and selfishness. How are they victims?

[Chris]

Interesting, one who says she's an anarchist advocates government control of sex.

And one who advocates my body, my choice when it comes to abortion, reverses herself when it comes to sex.

And "Sex is not a human necessity. Not for any one individual anyway." It's a biological necessity.

[IMPress Polly]

Interesting, one who says she's an anarchist advocates government control of sex.

And one who advocates my body, my choice when it comes to abortion, reverses herself when it comes to sex.

And "Sex is not a human necessity. Not for any one individual anyway." It's a biological necessity.

I'm not sure you understand what anarchism is. Anarchism refers to a rejection of social hierarchies, not to a rejection of lawmaking.

There's also less than no reversal on female bodily autonomy here. There is a world of difference between owning one's body and selling it (or, perhaps more correctly, having it sold) to someone else.

As to the last part, sex is an urge, not a necessity. Self-control is possible, believe it or not. Sex is a necessity for our species overall, not for any one individual. You aren't actually biologically required to have sex every single time you feel like it.

[Chris]

I'm not sure you understand what anarchism is. Anarchism refers to a rejection of social hierarchies, not to a rejection of lawmaking.

There's also less than no reversal on female bodily autonomy here. There is a world of difference between owning one's body and selling it (or, perhaps more correctly, having it sold) to someone else.

As to the last part, sex is an urge, not a necessity. Self-control is possible, believe it or not. Sex is a necessity for our species overall, not for any one individual. You aren't actually biologically required to have sex every single time you feel like it.

I'm not sure you understand what anarchism is. Anarchism refers to a rejection of social hierarchies, not to a rejection of lawmaking.

Definitely true for Marxists, even post-modern, neo-(not so sure)Marxists.

For free-market anarchists, like me, it's the opposite, rules without rulers.

There's also less than no reversal on female bodily autonomy here. There is a world of difference between owning one's body and selling it (or, perhaps more correctly, having it sold) to someone else.

You advocate autonomy for woman having an abortion but want the state to dictate that in the case of sex. What's the difference between owning your body and "selling" it to do any work for another, like in your case to teach or mine to develop software? None. You're making sex a special case.

As to the last part, sex is an urge, not a necessity. Self-control is possible, believe it or not. Sex is a necessity for our species overall, not for any one individual. You aren't actually biologically required to have sex every single time you feel like it.

Sorry, I forgot you deny biology.

[Adelaide]

Just remember that you directly requested my input by name.

The approach to prostitution that I favor is the approach crafted and endorsed by the Coalition Against Traffic in Women, which in recent years has become known as "the Nordic model" for its popular adoption across most of the world's most pro-feminist countries (Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden). This approach treats pimping, brother ownership, and the buying of sex as criminal acts (i.e. offenses that can land one in jail for years), not misdemeanors (i.e. something you might just get fined for if caught). Prostituted women, in this policy, are seen and approached as victims of an exploitative industry, to which end they are not penalized for selling sex. The essence of "the Nordic model" is the view that prostitution is a crime against women, not as instead simply an affront to family life like our more conservative laws in this country generally view and approach it as.

An infographic seems like an appropriate format by which to make an unserious argument about a serious issue.

Prostitution is not a job, it's a condition. The goodness of prostitution to girls and women is best concentrated in the average life expectancy of prostituted persons. There's a reason why you're paid as you are. It's basically rape. You consent only nominally and in theory. You have sex with all kinds of mostly pasty old jerks you don't want to and do whatever they want to put you through and nothing else. The percentage of prostituted women who genuinely enjoy their "profession" and are not instead trapped therein either physically, economically, or psychologically (e.g. by way of drug addiction, Stockholm Syndrome, etc.) is marginal, NOT the rule. Not even the women who work in the happy legal brothels in Nevada can evade this reality. Hence why Mr. Dennis Hof (now a candidate for public office) stands accused of sexual assault, for example. Prostitution is an enterprise that naturally supplies men with a certain mentality of entitlement concerning our bodies. Fully the majority of prostituted women experience actual rape in the course of their labors in said field and there's lots of evidence to suggest that the main effect of legalization is generally to corrupt the police and increase sex trafficking. By a lot. (e.g. Germany. Nevada. Etc.)

Prostitution doesn't just hurt women who actually suffer in the industry either. Wherever brothels and red light districts are established, rates of sexual harassment of women in general increase because the men tend to resultantly assume that any woman standing on the roadside by herself is a prostitute and wants to be propositioned.

The proponents of normalizing prostitution with flattering lingo are kidding only themselves. Neither one's pimp nor one's clients do not refer to you as a "sex worker". They call you a $#@!, a $#@!, a ****, and, most commonly, a $#@!. That is the actual mentality that prostitution helps legitimize. They don't respect you or think of you as a human being.

No, "the Nordic model" does not improve the conditions involved in prostitution. That's not it's goal. It's goal, which it tends to succeed at, is the minimization of prostitution. That is the only humane option here.

I requested your opinion on purpose, whether I agree with you or not. I think out of most of the members you are probably the only one who has actually investigated this with any seriousness.

I see your point on many of the issues that you listed. I hold sort of an "unsure" position on the issue. I want sex workers to have more access to health care, to work in a safer environment, and for pimps and such to be prosecuted more harshly (which you mentioned). I think that I favor a sort of decriminalization that wouldn't normalize it but try to help the people who are working in the industry.

I think that you are also against porn (right? I could be wrong). I think that there are some women who can have sex for money and not feel like they have been violated or exploited. I do not think that everyone in the porn industry feels that way, and I am sure that a vast majority prostitutes do not feel that. But I think that it is possible for men and women to trade sex for money with no negative side-effects. Maybe most of that minority has something in their past that cheapens sex or their body-image/sense of worth or something, or maybe not.

You mention a rise in sexual harassment, but the infographic mentioned that Amsterdam saw a drastic reduction in sexual assaults and violence. I didn't look into the study(ies) used or the methodology. Assuming that's the case, wouldn't it make sense that sexual harassment would be included?

[Adelaide]

Why would the buying of sex be seen as a crime? One could argue that those who need to buy sex in the first place are victims as well.

How are they victims?

Seriously - I am curious. I just finished taking two courses in victimology and the sociology of violence and crime. It was hard because of my personal background, but it was really useful to view the issue differently, such as considering that many offenders are actually victims themselves. So, anyway, it's a serious question.

[CCitizen]

I am sorry I can not speak for feminists -- I am a man.

In my opinion, men should support decriminalization of all people involved in consensual sex work. When voting for judges and politicians, men should view their stance on sex work as a very important factor. Of course sex is not a right, but voting and speaking within one's best interest is. Sadly in USA 2018, a large majority of men make political decisions based on unearned guilt rather then their self interest.

We greatly appreciate feminists who support decriminalization, and we respect the decision of those who support criminalization.

As I have mentioned before, The Law mostly enforces The Will of The Majority.

[Adelaide]

I am sorry I can not speak for feminists -- I am a man.

In my opinion, men should support decriminalization of all people involved in consensual sex work. When voting for judges and politicians, men should view their stance on sex work as a very important factor. Of course sex is not a right, but voting and speaking within one's best interest is. Sadly in USA 2018, a large majority of men make political decisions based on unearned guilt rather then their self interest.

We greatly appreciate feminists who support decriminalization, and we respect the decision of those who support criminalization.

As I have mentioned before, The Law mostly enforces The Will of The Majority.

Men can be feminists. I think that an unfortunate number of people think of it as "anti-male" when that is really not what it is, for most people who identify as feminist. We do not want to put men down. We would like to see some charges or improvement on some women-specific issues, and then also discuss areas where there are still some inequalities.

I don't think I understand the rest of your post.

[barb012]

I hate to be the bearer of truth but women who sell their bodies for sex do not see themselves as victims nor do their clients. These women make a lot of money for a lot less hours compared to other workers. Men who only need sexual release without the attachment factor find this to be a good arrangement. It is a win win for both parties involved.