Should feminists support the decriminalization of sex work?

[CCitizen]

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 have advocated for gender equality since 1996. I support feminists who advocate for women-specific issues.

But the primary role of men who are genuinely interested in gender equality should be advocating for issues that affect men: men get 63% more time for the same crime, men are discriminated in divorce, male victims of DV suffer extremely severe discrimination.

[CCitizen]

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.

Thank you.

In a Democracy, The Will of the Majority is the Law.

Even if I disagree with The Majority, I would never violate their will by visiting an escort or by using a drug.

[IMPress Polly]

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.

To answer your question about my position on porn, yes, I am a sex trade abolitionist. I find it fairly pointless to focus on distinguishing between the various forms thereof -- prostitution, pornography, stripping and erotic dancing -- because, frankly, the demography of the "workers" in each case is pretty well the same, to the point that there exists a tremendous amount of overlap. Many if not most strippers and porn performers, for example, are also prostituted on the side or else graduate to prostitution eventually. Most strip clubs are also quietly brothels. There is a certain common mentality to those who are willing to participate in the sex industry in the subordinate role. These conversations invariably remind me of Andrea Dworkin's famous quote:

"Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women."

Rape is the type of experience that tells you a lot about what you're worth to the world. A survey of a typical American high school classroom recently found that most people in that age bracket would not have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million. The average prostituted woman, who is of a similar age, does so for less than $200. Before their pimp takes most of that revenue. You see the difference in self-esteem?

The porn performer's career typically goes through two stages: the first stage is the easy one, where they are featured in mainstream videos. This part of their career typically lasts two or three weeks before their audience becomes bored with them and needs fresh meat. Thereafter, they are relegated to exploitation videos (the kind wherein the performers stand to be say choked until they puke and then required to eat their own vomit) for the duration, which typically lasts a few months. Then their very short career in porn is over. But the pictures and videos are online for the whole world to see forever. Then what? Well, then one graduates to other, similar fields of endeavor. Like prostitution. A happy ending born out of a happy beginning.

There is also the effect of mass pornography consumption to consider because, at present, the average American teenager is using it as their primary form of sex education. What are they learning? Well, to judge by the typical testimonials, they are learning gender roles. They are learning that it is the man's role to be aggressive and dominant in bed (or wherever applies) and the woman's role to be passive and servile; that women enjoy any and all dominant behavior that a man can possibly exhibit; the more extreme, the better. With extraordinarily few exceptions, those are the sexual roles in pornography. It's not exactly a progressive institution.

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?

First of all, concerning that study out of Amsterdam, one notices two interesting things: first that they chose a rather small country as their sample and not a more intuitive case study like that of the large nation of Germany, and secondly that the initial decrease didn't last. It's also only a decrease in reporting. One does not actually know whether that meant a decrease in actual assaults. I mean reporting of sexual violence has increased since the Me Too movement hit the mainstream last year, but that doesn't actually mean that the Me Too movement has caused an increase in sexual assaults, does it? Just the opposite! It means that the level of stigma attached to reporting these things has fallen off. I can't help but wonder if that brief drop-off in reporting in Amsterdam might have been a product of the opposite phenomenon -- of increased stigma on reporting -- considering how temporary it proved to be.

Regardless though, what is clear is that the main, long-term effect of legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands has been a transformation of the business from being essentially a local phenomenon wherein most of the buyers and the prostituted women themselves were from that country to instead a globalized phenomenon wherein the average patron is a wealthy, foreign sex tourist and the average prostitute is a trafficking victim born elsewhere. Rises in sex trafficking are, in fact, invariably consequential of legalizing the prostitution of women.

[The Xl]

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.

You don't think constant rejection and a lack of any physical intimacy couldn't manifest itself into any sort of depression or other mental conditions? Prostitution is the best way for a lot so called undesirables or the mentally and physically handicap to have any level of intimacy. So while I'm not saying all purchasers of sex are victims, I think a case could be made that some of them are.

[Adelaide]

You don't think constant rejection and a lack of any physical intimacy couldn't manifest itself into any sort of depression or other mental conditions? Prostitution is the best way for a lot so called undesirables or the mentally and physically handicap to have any level of intimacy. So while I'm not saying all purchasers of sex are victims, I think a case could be made that some of them are.

You mean like supposed "incels"? Men who can't find a sexual/romantic partner... there is someone out there for virtually everyone. It's not that hard. Rejection is difficult but there are so many ways to find someone for yourself now. Like, if you are super shy, dating websites can offer a good platform to break the ice and not have to approach someone in person.

It would make sense that some people who use the services of a sex worker are victims, but for the most part I am really not sure how much I agree. You point out those with handicaps might use sex workers more, but I don't know that it is the norm for that demographic (but it makes sense).

[donttread]

I think it would be safer for everyone around.

Plus a middle class guy who can't afford a mistress could pay for sex legally like the rich do. Plus we might be in danger of being a free society

[donttread]

Should feminists support $#@!s? Well, I don't support $#@!s, and I don't know why I should appreciate feminists supporting $#@!s.

On an abstract philosophical level, I guess I'd have to say I really, really don't care. More importantly, I find the question very annoying.

What's wrong with two adults making a business arrangement that involves ex and money?

[Ethereal]

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.

How is the right to sell one's body not necessarily implied within the concept of bodily autonomy?

And saying that sex isn't a necessity is sort of like saying contact with other human beings isn't a necessity. One could technically survive without socialization, but it would be an extremely painful and meager existence.

[Ethereal]

To answer your question about my position on porn, yes, I am a sex trade abolitionist. I find it fairly pointless to focus on distinguishing between the various forms thereof -- prostitution, pornography, stripping and erotic dancing -- because, frankly, the demography of the "workers" in each case is pretty well the same, to the point that there exists a tremendous amount of overlap. Many if not most strippers and porn performers, for example, are also prostituted on the side or else graduate to prostitution eventually. Most strip clubs are also quietly brothels. There is a certain common mentality to those who are willing to participate in the sex industry in the subordinate role. These conversations invariably remind me of Andrea Dworkin's famous quote:

"Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women."

Rape is the type of experience that tells you a lot about what you're worth to the world. A survey of a typical American high school classroom recently found that most people in that age bracket would not have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million. The average prostituted woman, who is of a similar age, does so for less than $200. Before their pimp takes most of that revenue. You see the difference in self-esteem?

The porn performer's career typically goes through two stages: the first stage is the easy one, where they are featured in mainstream videos. This part of their career typically lasts two or three weeks before their audience becomes bored with them and needs fresh meat. Thereafter, they are relegated to exploitation videos (the kind wherein the performers stand to be say choked until they puke and then required to eat their own vomit) for the duration, which typically lasts a few months. Then their very short career in porn is over. But the pictures and videos are online for the whole world to see forever. Then what? Well, then one graduates to other, similar fields of endeavor. Like prostitution. A happy ending born out of a happy beginning.

There is also the effect of mass pornography consumption to consider because, at present, the average American teenager is using it as their primary form of sex education. What are they learning? Well, to judge by the typical testimonials, they are learning gender roles. They are learning that it is the man's role to be aggressive and dominant in bed (or wherever applies) and the woman's role to be passive and servile; that women enjoy any and all dominant behavior that a man can possibly exhibit; the more extreme, the better. With extraordinarily few exceptions, those are the sexual roles in pornography. It's not exactly a progressive institution.



First of all, concerning that study out of Amsterdam, one notices two interesting things: first that they chose a rather small country as their sample and not a more intuitive case study like that of the large nation of Germany, and secondly that the initial decrease didn't last. It's also only a decrease in reporting. One does not actually know whether that meant a decrease in actual assaults. I mean reporting of sexual violence has increased since the Me Too movement hit the mainstream last year, but that doesn't actually mean that the Me Too movement has caused an increase in sexual assaults, does it? Just the opposite! It means that the level of stigma attached to reporting these things has fallen off. I can't help but wonder if that brief drop-off in reporting in Amsterdam might have been a product of the opposite phenomenon -- of increased stigma on reporting -- considering how temporary it proved to be.

Regardless though, what is clear is that the main, long-term effect of legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands has been a transformation of the business from being essentially a local phenomenon wherein most of the buyers and the prostituted women themselves were from that country to instead a globalized phenomenon wherein the average patron is a wealthy, foreign sex tourist and the average prostitute is a trafficking victim born elsewhere. Rises in sex trafficking are, in fact, invariably consequential of legalizing the prostitution of women.

Or maybe the rise in sex trafficking is a result of other countries keeping it illegal, which creates a strong incentive to traffic women out of those countries and into countries where it is legal. If it were legal everywhere, then it would return to being a largely local phenomenon.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
How is the right to sell one's body not necessarily implied within the concept of bodily autonomy?

I would think that the difference between retaining bodily autonomy and having that autonomy sold by a pimp to another man or men would be self-evident.

If one's bodily freedom ends at the point of sale, what follows is basically rape, particularly in the consideration of the fact that you wouldn't be having sex with that individual in the first place it you weren't being paid (i.e. you don't want to).

Places that legalize prostitution do not do so out of concern for the well-being of women. They do so to add another source of tax revenue. In the age of neoliberalism, it is now basically and increasingly taboo to tax rich people who can afford to pay at higher rates than anyone else. The result is that governments are increasingly strapped for cash with which to fund their public welfare programs and other obligations. Therefore, in addition to scaling back or even just terminating the funding for many of those obligations (mostly public welfare), governments today tend toward legalizing anything that can be taxed to help make up the difference in lost revenues. The so-called sex-positive movement is just an ideological pawn of this larger scheme, not an authentically feminist movement, to which end you will notice that adherents thereto tend to also be economic neoliberals. And male. Personally, I am for ending the age of neoliberalism and restoring graduated taxation fully, and thus evading the fiscal necessity of legalizing things like the sale of women's bodies to men.