Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Slogging Is Difficult | Freaky Indeed »

Friday, March 14, 2008

Thinking Critically about Legalizing Prostitution

posted by on March 14 at 17:16 PM

In the wake of the Spitzer scandal, one rarely-discussed issue that’s being brought to the forefront is the legalization of prostitution. And, it would seem, most progressives are for it. They pronounce that Spitzer’s affair “wasn’t that bad” because “prostitution should be legal.” But I want to back the party wagon up, here and really consider—should prostitution be legal?

Even though I am an ardent feminist, prostitution was not something I thought about in great detail until, frankly, this week, when I’ve started doing research about it. I’ve always had an unarticulated unease about prostitution, and I’ve been shocked by the attitude that many people have it’s “just another line of work.”

What previously was viewed as a severe form of sexual exploitation is now a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body and a way to sexual liberation and self-determination. This change is a contemporary and pertinent example of the revival of a stagnant repressive political agenda, which now permeates virtually all current political, academic, and popular discourses on prostitution and trafficking in human beings.

It is a logical enough train of thought in a capitalist system that prostitution would be an extension of “choice” as applied to reproductive rights. Unfortunately, “choice” has an economic rather than moral connotation, and these are not economic issues. They are moral ones. The Left shies away from talking about morality, because we (selectively) find imposing our morality on others distasteful. However, I don’t think being anti-prostitution is imposing morality; it’s being anti-exploitation. But more on that in a minute.

I’ve started investigating countries who take different approaches to prostitution than the US. In Australia, the state of Victoria has legalized prostitution (made it legal to buy and sell sexual services, as well as run a business that provides sexual services). Turns out, it’s not working so well. The women don’t have any more control over their situations, and trafficking, including that of children, has been increasing ever since legalization. They don’t have a means of transitioning out of prostitution (since no other legal job requires state-supported transition programs).

So far, the best approach that I’ve come across is that taken by Sweden, where it is not illegal to be a prostitute, but it is illegal to purchase sexual services.

In Sweden, it is understood that any society that claims to defend principles of legal, political, economic, and social equality for women and girls must reject the idea that women and children, mostly girls, are commodities that can be bought, sold, and sexually exploited by men*. To do otherwise is to allow that a separate class of female human beings, especially women and girls who are economically and racially marginalized, is excluded from these measures, as well as from the universal protection of human dignity enshrined in the body of international human rights instruments developed during the past 50 years.
One of the cornerstones of Swedish policies against prostitution and trafficking in human beings is the focus on the root cause, the recognition that without men’s demand for and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able to flourish and expand.

*I would note there are women who pimp, traffic, and purchase sex as well, and they are being just as exploitative (though I think the number of women picking up street prostitutes is negligible, and men are the vast majority of purchases, pimps, and traffickers of prostitutes.)

Decriminalization of selling sex is a good idea, because it puts power into the hands of the women and it sends a strong message that we, as a society, do not think it is all right to view women as pleasure products. But decriminalization alone won’t do it, and here’s where progressives who “don’t want to impose their morality” on individual prostitutes can get on board, because this is about imposing our morality on society at large.

Our abysmal abstinence only sex-education is also to blame for the propagation of prostitution in America (and, by extension, our society’s uptight attitudes about sex). They teach that women are the gatekeepers of sex that men aggressively want, putting the onus on women to a) not want sex and b) prevent unwanted sex from happening, further propagating the damaging and insulting myth that “men just can’t help themselves.” (here’s a giant report about that, if you don’t believe me). This fosters a culture in which men learn they must aggressively pursue sex and feel entitled to sex, which contributes to the culture of prostitution.

So from the research and thinking I have done so far, I oppose legalization, but think these two steps should be the goal in reducing prostitution:

1) The purchasing, trafficking of sexual services should be illegal, but selling sexual services should not.
2) Sex education should focus on respecting and understanding of your own body, sexuality, and boundaries as well as those of others.

We have a long, long way to go before people respect their own bodies and the bodies of others, especially the bodies of women. Until we get closer to that ideal, it’s advocating abuse and exploitation to support legalized prostitution, since legalized prostitution in a society without equality plays into the dominant power paradigm and cannot avoid be systemically exploitative.

RSS icon Comments

1

I think I heard this blog post on NPR yesterday.

Posted by nbc | March 14, 2008 5:25 PM
2

great post.

Posted by infrequent | March 14, 2008 5:27 PM
3

That's great and all, but in order to buy into that argument, we have to assume that prostitutes are exclusively female. Which is most definitely not the case.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 14, 2008 5:37 PM
4

Friday is suddenly becoming less freaky in the last few posts and more staff writer sounding.

Posted by Anona | March 14, 2008 5:42 PM
5

Where'd you get your stats on an increase in trafficking?

Posted by Kiru Banzai | March 14, 2008 5:57 PM
6

There's a reason that the first half of the phrase "harm-reduction" is "harm." The approach of harm reduction starts from the premise that some kind of regulatory approach that stops short of criminalization will reduce a negative outcome. For example, Britain provides some heroin addicts with maintenance levels of heroin in order to reduce the profitability of the illegal trade and also the transmission of infectious diseases. The point is not to lend state sanction to heroin use, the point is to reduce the cost to society of a problem that can't be solved by criminalization.

The fact that the Australia or Nevada models of legalized prostitution don't do a very good job of this doesn't necessarily mean that a harm-reduction approach can't work under any circumstances, but it does point out some obvious problems with treating prostitution as just another business. When I look at the Nevada laws governing brothels, for instance, it's pretty obvious to me that the laws are written to protect the business interests of the proprietors and not the rights of the prostitutes themselves. Given that the American political process is so thoroughly corrupted by the influence of lobbying money, it stands to reason that the parties who profit the most from such an exploitative system would make sure that the laws work to preserve their business model.

However, even in places where prostitution is outlawed in this country this is generally the case, because criminalization prevents prostitutes from seeking any recourse when they are victimized. They cannot go to the police if they are mistreated, they cannot form unions, they are unlikely to seek any kind of legal assistance whatsoever because of the stigma attached to their position and because they fear prosecution. Thus criminalization allows abusive pimps to operate with little fear of consequences, and because the "product" they are dealing in is an illegal one, it is also an immensely profitable one.

I agree that the commodification of sex is unfortunate and that the "it's just another business" line is morally bankrupt. But the fact is commodification of human life is endemic at every level of our society and it seems naive to expect that this one area might be the only exception. We're working at computers made from materials dug out of the ground by miners (and in many cases, minors) working in conditions that are deplorable, and yet nobody is suggesting that they not be allowed to go down into the mines to dig up our precious minerals for us. We're wearing clothes made by people working in factories for pennies a day. And on and on. Exploitation is the very bedrock of modern capitalist society.

Unless we're going to overturn that model (and if you've got a plan for that, I'd love to see it) the best hope we've got for reducing problems like this is to address the underlying economic realities that make sexual exploitation so profitable, to offer alternatives to those who wish to get out, and to deal with those individuals who will inevitably still continue to engage in this sort of commerce in a humane way.

And lastly: I'm pretty sure prostitution predates abstinence education.

Posted by flamingbanjo | March 14, 2008 6:22 PM
7

Well said, flamingbanjo.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 14, 2008 6:41 PM
8

does anyone else think it's weird that prostitution is totally legal as long as you film it?

Posted by 8blockwalk | March 14, 2008 6:42 PM
9

preach it, sister! the post is spot on.

Posted by julia | March 14, 2008 6:42 PM
10

@8, you're absolutely right. Wow.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 14, 2008 8:22 PM
11

@8,

No. The Supreme Court says porn is free speech, so it's free speech.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 14, 2008 8:53 PM
12

exelizabeth... thanks.

Posted by treacle | March 14, 2008 9:26 PM
13

Exelizabeth, thank you for a thoughtful and balanced post on a complex issue. Nice to hear such intelligence and restraint on a topic so contentious.

Note to the Stranger: please hire this woman! You need her.

Posted by Irena | March 14, 2008 10:23 PM
14

For more info on the free speech thing, see this article on slate.

Posted by A | March 14, 2008 10:25 PM
15

@14, Thanks. I was reading this post and wondering where I'd already read it before.

http://www.slate.com/id/2186243/

Posted by Andy | March 15, 2008 1:07 AM
16

Uh, I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but as stated earlier your view is completely straight male heterocentric. First of all, I do not believe the increase in terrible things happening since the legalization of prostitution in Australia. You would have to show me statistics on before and afterwards and state how you got them. Has it occured to anyone that these things are usually just not reported, i.e. under the radar? Just because someone says that "there has been a significant rise blah blah blah" doesn't mean it is so people. READ CRITICALLY. Where's the citation? How was this data obtained?

Also, what about Germany, what about the Netherlands? There are many other examples to look at in the world. And please let's not forget Nevada. Isn't the fact that one state in this great sexually hypocritical nation is able to have legalized prostitution while everywhere else it's fodder for police and others to exploit and penalize.

I know - prostitution takes advantage of women. Yep. Pornography takes advantage of women. Yep. Vogue takes advantage of women (and makes 'em feel really bad about themselves).

Posted by Exe-heterocentric-ibeth | March 15, 2008 6:16 AM
17

I suppose it is good that people talk and think about how to square this circle. Sadly, market forces and human nature (two rather irrepressible forces) will ensure that prostitution goes on. Nonetheless, I suppose it is uplifting and good to carry on with the futile unwinnable fight as the goodness lies in the struggle not in the unreachable victory.

Posted by wet_suit | March 15, 2008 8:07 AM
18

Ultimately, we all prostitute ourselves. Prostitutes just hawk their bodies.

Posted by Gomez | March 15, 2008 11:27 AM
19

Legalizing being a prostitute while making it illegal to purchase their services. . . huh? Is that really good government policy? We want to emulate a totally incoherent legal system?

Prostitution isn't the buying/selling of women, it's the buying/selling of SEX.

And like it or not, people will always do it, so let's stop diverting our public resources to fixing this nonfixable nonproblem.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | March 15, 2008 2:16 PM
20

What would Matisse think of this? Can women get exploited as prostitutes? Yes. Can many women and men (especially the less educated) make far better income as prostitutes than as ... anything else? Shouldn't they have a choice about whether or not they want to pursue that option, given the reality it will ALWAYS be a much-sought service? I don't think anyone demonizing all Johns that create this market much understands male sexuality. It is an intense force which is basically impossible to utterly repress. In the depths of slavery to it, back when I was 17, I was literally going insane (losing my grip on reality to dementia) and masturbating incessantly. Years later that I can see the influence of the hormones for what it was: An altered mind state on par with drugs or alcohol. I never used prostitutes, but I don't see why it should be illegal for a willing person to make good money for providing what our society never will: An safe outlet for a raging beast that lives in most every male brain.
-

Posted by christopher | March 15, 2008 5:09 PM
21

It takes a lot of political will to decriminalise/legalise prostitution. In the absence of that political will, what needs asking is whether it is more reasonable, effective and just for law enforcement to go after the prostitutes or their customers.

In the UK, the tradition has been to go after the 'punters' and the kingpins way up the food chain, which keeps the prostitutes on reasonably good terms with the police so that they hopefully feel able to report crimes against them and to assist with police investigations without fear of being arrested. In New Zealand prior to decriminalization, we traditionally went after the prostitutes. In either case, despite what the law may say, we punish one party for a crime that takes two. I don't have any doubts about which tactic is more unfair. It makes me far angrier to think of streetwalkers having to deal with police harassment on top of what they already deal with from their clients than it does to think of some right upstanding member of society getting a slap on the wrist from the courts for purchasing an illegal service.

If the aim is to stop prostitution, we've more chance of doing that by waking up kerb-crawlers to the consequences of their actions than we have by constantly harassing and imprisoning people who typically have few other options. We don't lock folk up on drugs charges when they show up at rehab centres or AA meetings--it wouldn't be fair, right? If we believe that prostitution is fundamentally harmful to prostitutes, we shouldn't be landing them with criminal convictions, fines, imprisonment because that only tends to make it impossible for them ever to get "legitimate" work. The law should be protecting the vulnerable, and the vulnerable here tend to be the prostitutes, particularly those on the streets and those who have no power to vary their working conditions (those with the worst pimps/bosses, or who don't speak the language, etc)

Of course, either response is pretty unfair. Which leaves ... if we don't believe prostitution is fundamentally harmful to prostitutes, who is it harming and why can't we simply legalise and regulate (and tax!) it so as to provide prostitutes with a relatively safe working environment (ie off the streets)?

Posted by fish | March 16, 2008 9:23 PM
22

Don't forget, Seattle was built on prostitution. And logging. But prostitution was the bigger industry.

Posted by Greg | March 17, 2008 10:23 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).