From the European Women's Lobby, a documentary on prostitution, and why full legalization cannot grant women the agency they deserve in three parts:
Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Like I have said before in the comments section of an earlier post, I do not support the legalization of prostitution because I feel that legal systems would not be interested in women's rights over the market demand or the privacy of the pimp or john. From stories like the D.C. Madam to the normalization of violence against sex workers, it is very clear that the American justice system is not as interested in protecting the extremely vulnerable women in the sex industry as they are demonizing them. With statistics coming out of European countries like Britain's deplorably low rape conviction rate, it looks as if my skepticism for any legal institution is well founded. Like this documentary, I think that the only solution is to criminalize buying sex and decriminalize selling sex like Sweden did. There are hundreds of trafficked women and children in Sweden, compared to the thousands elsewhere. While Sweden's solution is hardly ideal, it seems to be doing a lot of good.
So while I believe that the best policy is always legalization, and I shy away from anything that looks like morality legislation, there are simply too many human rights violations in the market of prostitution that legal systems are not equipped, or willing, to handle. The interest of protecting women from the most grievous harms trumps any right to buy sex. I have never yet seen any argument that is capable of convincing me that the sex trade is so demonstrably important that it must be allowed to flourish even if the majority of women meeting the demand for sex are raped, trafficked, abused, or coerced. As long as we live in a patriarchy unwilling to hold our agency over our own bodies above any wrongly perceived right to abuse, neglect, harm, and fuck, it is shamefully irresponsible to legitimize the deplorable conditions in which the sex trade operates.
Posts
26 comments:
"I think that the only solution is to criminalize buying sex and decriminalize selling sex like Sweden did"
How does one make it illegal to purchase something, but legal to sell it?
I don't understand.
Also, I don't think you can say one person's rights trump another person's rights.
The whole reason we have the laws we have, is to (try to) make certain that no one group has more rights than another.
"As long as we live in a patriarchy unwilling to hold our agency over our own bodies above any wrongly perceived right to abuse, neglect, harm, and fuck, it is shamefully irresponsible to legitimize the deplorable conditions in which the sex trade operates."
Are the majority of women in prostitution in the US truly forced to be there?
By that, I mean, kidnapped and held against their will and forced to be sex workers, not someone who "can't make ends meet", because there is always SOME kind of work.
Would not legitimizing it and placing restrictions and regulations on it make for a safer environment?
I believe Nevada has legal prostitution, and I've not read of any ill conditions found there. I have read that it is heavily regulated, as well.
Would you be less opposed to such things, if it could be provided that there would be regulations, restrictions, and protections placed upon the industry?
Black Thirteen, if you don't mind me responding to just one part of your comment for now before I get back to my final film paper.
"Are the majority of women in prostitution in the US truly forced to be there?
By that, I mean, kidnapped and held against their will and forced to be sex workers, not someone who "can't make ends meet", because there is always SOME kind of work."
I think that it isn't fair to play down the real problem of financial disadvantage that many women face that drives them to sex work. Am I wrong in thinking that it means you think that all sex workers who are not "kidnapped and held against their will" are really into it since you said that "there is always SOME kind of work"? That's just not right.
If you were in desperate need for money (for whatever reason), what would make most sense? Get a job outside of sex work that would mean you'd have to wait for a paycheck, or do some sex work and make a lot of money right away?
I went to several talks about sex workers in Tijuana (just an example), and the speaker said that most of the sex workers were intermittently, just when they find themselves needing extra money, be it for schooling their children, or helping someone out.
What are your thought on that? Was I off in my perceptions of what you said? I'm slightly distracted so please correct me if I missed something.
"I think that it isn't fair to play down the real problem of financial disadvantage that many women face that drives them to sex work. Am I wrong in thinking that it means you think that all sex workers who are not "kidnapped and held against their will" are really into it since you said that "there is always SOME kind of work"? That's just not right."
No, I mean, there's always something someone can do. I don't mean they're "into it", but that they had the ability to make the decision to do it, it wasn't made for them by an outside party.
I mean, if I had severe financial hardship, I could resort to, say, selling drugs, or robbing banks, but financial hardship wouldn't justify those actions.
"If you were in desperate need for money (for whatever reason), what would make most sense? Get a job outside of sex work that would mean you'd have to wait for a paycheck, or do some sex work and make a lot of money right away?"
Well, you can't really say they were doing it against their will. They chose not to wait for a paycheck, chose to go into that.
A lot of people are financially disadvantaged, some much, much worse than others, but they don't all go into sex work, or other things.
I understand that it's an easier, faster route, and that they choose to take that, but that there is still an element of choice involved.
That, and when you say "Get a job", there's really no reason for a person to NOT have a job in the first place. That paycheck they'd have to wait on, I hate to say, they should already be getting them.
Sorry, I guess I just see that as an over-simplification.
The idea of "they had choice" doesn't sit well with me because it is not an equal choice, in my eyes. Men make more money than women, so really, they have more options when it comes to how to support themselves adequately, you know?
Yeah, women may "choose" sex work in that sense, but would they still "choose" it if there was no pay gap? If typical "women's work" was valued as much as typical "men's work?"
Before you could completely convince me of their choice in the matter, we'd have no know the answers to questions like that.
And really, I'm going to work on my paper now.
Still, the pay gap wouldn't be an issue for people that are so poor as to be doing sex work.
You don't go into prostitution if you have a Master's degree, you know?
You also say that as though being a woman automatically means you're more financially disadvantaged than any available male, which is most certainly not the case.
I mean, she could work at a gas station. McDonald's. Wait tables. There are a million things someone with no education and no real marketable skills could do.
It's the same thing as stripping. It's looked to because it's quick money, and it requires nothing more than yourself.
*Sorry, had to re-post*
Still, the pay gap wouldn't be an issue for people that are so poor as to be doing sex work.
You don't go into prostitution if you have a Master's degree, you know?
This confused me. If you are poor, eliminating the pay gap could make a huge difference. For example, many poor families are headed by single mothers. So if a mother is the only person working, and she doesn't make as much as a male could, then wouldn't eliminating the pay gap be beneficial to her?
You also say that as though being a woman automatically means you're more financially disadvantaged than any available male, which is most certainly not the case.
I absolutely did not mean that. If it came off that way it was unintentional. The fact of the matter is, though, that women make less money than men. Does that mean that all women have/make less money than all men? No. But women are more likely to make less money than men in the same field, with the same experience, same background, same education, etc.
I also find it rather simplistic to be so dismissive of those who engage in sex work just because their are other options. There are many reasons that women might enter the field.
The point I was trying to make is that a lot of sex workers are not in it as a career. They are in it for short periods of time when they really need the money. It's not the same as working at McDonalds, or waiting tables because the needs are different: stability vs. a quick help, almost. I don't know for sure if I like that phrasing, but maybe you get my point?
"This confused me. If you are poor, eliminating the pay gap could make a huge difference. For example, many poor families are headed by single mothers. So if a mother is the only person working, and she doesn't make as much as a male could, then wouldn't eliminating the pay gap be beneficial to her?"
No, no, what I'm saying is, the pay gap, as it is, isn't really present in the jobs held by most low income people. You aren't going to find a waiter of equal experience making more on his hourly than a waitress of equal experience.
Or a gas station clerk, or whatever.
If someone had the money and such to get a good college degree, in a field that they wanted to work in, chances are they wouldn't be in a situation that could be called really low income, or that would require prostitution in the first place, and at their income level, the pay gap would exist, but wouldn't be anything that's going to put them in poverty.
Make sense now?
I should have been more clear with that.
"I also find it rather simplistic to be so dismissive of those who engage in sex work just because their are other options. There are many reasons that women might enter the field."
There are. But there has to be some reason they chose it, instead of those other options.
"The point I was trying to make is that a lot of sex workers are not in it as a career. They are in it for short periods of time when they really need the money. It's not the same as working at McDonalds, or waiting tables because the needs are different: stability vs. a quick help, almost. I don't know for sure if I like that phrasing, but maybe you get my point?"
I do, after a fashion. Even still, a trick or two, if you pardon the phrasing, might only net as much money as, say, donating plasma.
Thanks for clarifying.
Also, I don't think it's quite correct to say that only those with extremely low-incomes are going to "require prostitution." I have heard of college-aged girls doing sex work to pay for the exact schooling that you seem to think would keep them from prostitution in the first place.
So that means that there are a lot of financial pressures that might steer women toward sex work.
So maybe the larger picture would require our society to address problems of, for example, cyclical poverty, the pay gap, the high costs of higher education, etc. if the end goal was to end sex work by women who were not engaging in it for pleasure.
Thanks for the conversation. You're helping me think things out.
"Also, I don't think it's quite correct to say that only those with extremely low-incomes are going to "require prostitution." I have heard of college-aged girls doing sex work to pay for the exact schooling that you seem to think would keep them from prostitution in the first place."
While that is, I'm sure, sometimes the truth, I would think a lot of college aged girls would be doing something like stripping, not outright prostitution. Else, the old stereotype of "stripping your way through college" wouldn't be so prevalent.
"So maybe the larger picture would require our society to address problems of, for example, cyclical poverty, the pay gap, the high costs of higher education, etc. if the end goal was to end sex work by women who were not engaging in it for pleasure."
Well, perhaps. Except, and I hate to say this, when it comes to cyclical poverty and/or the high costs of higher education...
Not everyone can be doctors and lawyers and other high paid jobs. Someone has to pump the gas, flip the burgers, and whatever else. It sounds harsh, it sounds classist, but it isn't meant to be.
The way our society is structured, we require different levels of labor. You can't really change it, because people will always want those services, and someone needs to be available and willing to do them.
As for the "engaging in sex work for the pleasure", well, I know a lot of people that don't do their jobs for pleasure.
Most people don't truly enjoy their jobs. I think a more satisfying compromise would be to ensure that women doing sex work were being fairly compensated, had a guaranteed safe environment, and more things in line with other forms of employment.
"Thanks for the conversation. You're helping me think things out."
No problem. It gives me a much needed tool to occupy my mind.
You might be right about the stripping. I don't know for sure, so I can't argue much more than what I already have.
I hate to say this, when it comes to cyclical poverty and/or the high costs of higher education...
Not everyone can be doctors and lawyers and other high paid jobs. Someone has to pump the gas, flip the burgers, and whatever else. It sounds harsh, it sounds classist, but it isn't meant to be.
The way our society is structured, we require different levels of labor. You can't really change it, because people will always want those services, and someone needs to be available and willing to do them.
I understand that our society requires different levels of labor. That is a truth. The problem with what you said is that it assumes that only doctor- and lawyer-types should be paid well. But if our society requires different levels of labor (flipping burgers etc.) shouldn't they be equally well paid? What you said basically boils down to a matter of value. Our society values doctors/lawyers more than people who flip burgers.
This is kind of the same as thinking about "men's" vs. "women's" work. We need both, but men's work is valued more highly and often pays better. And who can more easily get a job doing "women's" work? Women. They would have to struggle and compete with men, even if they had the same qualifications, if they wanted "men's" work. And doesn't that leave them with less options?
Problematic.
"I understand that our society requires different levels of labor. That is a truth. The problem with what you said is that it assumes that only doctor- and lawyer-types should be paid well. But if our society requires different levels of labor (flipping burgers etc.) shouldn't they be equally well paid? What you said basically boils down to a matter of value. Our society values doctors/lawyers more than people who flip burgers."
It's because they provide a stronger service.
Flipping a burger provides someone lunch. Being a doctor provides someone a kidney.
You see what I mean? That, and it takes different levels of education and commitment to do these different jobs. One has to spend years upon years of their life to become a doctor or a lawyer, or a physicist, or what have you, and they are compensated for that with a higher salary.
If you paid fast food employees on the level of a doctor, almost no one would be a doctor. It sounds like a stretch, but American society has proven that it will take the easiest way out at any opportunity.
It's why people eat fast food in the first place. Because it's faster, and easier, and does the same thing as staying in, cooking, and preparing a meal.
There has to be some measure of reward involved for the work required to become a doctor or whatever, which is why they're paid more. Also because the job is infinitely more difficult than that of a fast food worker.
Flipping a burger requires little to no real skill or mental prowess. Cutting open a living human being and doing repairs on their internals requires much more skill, training, concentration, etcetera.
For me, it's not about the pay. It's about the fact, and I see that we are departing from my original point, that women in sex work are extremely vulnerable to rape, violence, and death and the legal system gives them no protection, and no justice if the unthinkable happens.
I think you are both running the risk of looking down on sex workers. Their job isn't "bad", it isn't "wrong". They are selling something that is in demand. Is that so different from any other entrepreneur?
In short, how they got to do what they are doing is inconsequential. Nobody deserves to be beaten, raped, drugged, and abused habitually by clients, who are then protected by the law while she is demonized for daring to sell what they demand. Every statistic I have looked at says that the vast majority of sex workers have been raped, beaten, molested, and abused on the job--more than once--and there is no legal system that would protect them. Hell, the conviction rate for rape of regular women is shockingly low, imagine what the conviction rate is for those that rape sex workers? (I'm guessing zero. I'm also guessing that no cases get heard because the women are afraid to have their name attached to a stigmatized job, no prosecutor would touch such a hopeless case, and the women don't have the time or money in the first place to seek justice).
Our justice system has failed women. It has more than failed sex workers, it has demonized them and excused their suffering.
I can absolutely say that the right of a woman to not be beaten, raped, and abused and then vilified by the press to the point of suicide (example: the D.C. Madam) trumps the right to buy sex. The sex market and the legal system that should protect its workers is broken and disgusting. Until there is real justice for sex workers, until the majority of sex workers don't report being abused habitually at work, then I cannot support the legalization of prostitution.
Even if she entered the trade with full agency, nobody deserves to be mistreated and then swept under the rug.
I understand your points, but I was rather hoping you'd address the questions I asked you in the very first comment I made.
I understand what you're saying, Jen, and I really have no idea how you came up with: "I think you are both running the risk of looking down on sex workers. Their job isn't "bad", it isn't "wrong". They are selling something that is in demand. Is that so different from any other entrepreneur?"
I don't look down upon sex workers. The points I was trying to make were about society's view of them, not my own. Because, let's face it, what you said is a perfect example of how, although our society demands sex work, they don't give an once of respect for the workers.
So...since there are so many sex workers who get abused, wouldn't the points I was trying to make about making sure women have other, equally lucrative job options available to them (without having to worry about being beaten out by a man just because he is a man) be helpful so they don't have to be in a field of work that will most likely be dangerous to them (I am talking about the sex workers who are not held in the work against their will)?
Sorry Amelia, I read your comments in the wrong context; instead of thinking about how you were going along society's stereotypes I was assuming that those were your perceptions. I apologize.
Black Thirteen-
How does one make it illegal to purchase something, but legal to sell it?
Sweden did it. It's obviously possible.
Also, I don't think you can say one person's rights trump another person's rights.
I say that the right of sex workers to equal protection under law and a safe working environment trumps the right to buy sex. If those rights are incompatible, and they are given the current legal system, then the right of women (and men) to not be subjected to gross human rights violations is absolutely more important than someone's right to participate in a market that is often too exploitive to operate cleanly.
Are the majority of women in prostitution in the US truly forced to be there?
Like Amelia has covered, it is very likely that many are not. Estimates say that 17,500 women and children are trafficked into the United States (source) per year. Those demanding to buy sex obviously are not interested in the full agency of women. Even if we legalize prostitution, underground trafficking will continue to flourish in so long as there is a demand for violent abusive sex and children. Also, even if every prostitute in America was there by full and informed choice, that does not excuse the disgusting human rights violations that routinely take place and go unpunished.
Would not legitimizing it and placing restrictions and regulations on it make for a safer environment?
See above. If we legalize only certain kinds of sex and sex work, the demand for illegal kinds will not disappear. People will continue to demand cheap exploitive sex with underage victims, and the sex market will continue to deliver trafficked women. Also, all legalization schemes seem more interested in protecting the health of the consumer than the sex worker (STD screening, for example). That also does not address whether or not our legal system would be equipped or willing to prosecute those that rape and abuse prostitutes, or that those who choose to be sex workers will not be vilified and shamed into silence. As the women in the posted documentary said, legalization will be most successful in legitimizing current abuses and make it even harder to women to seek justice.
Sweden did it. It's obviously possible.
I meant, plainly, that I didn't understand, and was hinting at a brief explanation, or link to a description of how exactly that works.
See above. If we legalize only certain kinds of sex and sex work, the demand for illegal kinds will not disappear.
Well, by that, making all of them illegal won't make any of them go away, either.
That also does not address whether or not our legal system would be equipped or willing to prosecute those that rape and abuse prostitutes, or that those who choose to be sex workers will not be vilified and shamed into silence.
Well, as for the above, I would think something akin to brothels. The women do not leave, or go home with anyone. If you have a secure location, with staff, bouncers, etcetera, someone would have to be incredibly stupid to try anything, and if they did, they wouldn't get far.
I think a lot of the stigma would come off of it, if it were a fully legal profession. It's legal to perform in porn, and while some people find the idea of being an "actor" in porn to be highly distasteful, they don't look on it with the scorn given a criminal act.
Also, yes, abuses go on, but it's like the argument against alcohol. Is it right to ban such a thing because some people are always going to misuse it? There will always be criminals, whether or not prostitution is legal.
Legalizing it and regulating it would at least place a large amount of women in safer situations.
Other than that, you can't make it any more illegal than it already is. It's like those amendments banning gay marriage in states where it was already illegal. You can't make something illegal twice.
Black Thirteen-
Here's a link to a brief explanation of what Sweden did, and what it accomplished.
Even a brothel does not guarentee safety. For instance, the functioning of sex trafficking rings functions much like a brothel. The bouncers are not there to protect the women, but to protect the "merchandise". Holding the very people who profit off their workers to the worker's safety is an exercise in futility. If they can cut as many corners as possible to maximize profits, they will. After all, the HR departments of large corporations isn't enough to stop the exploitation of employees (reference the thousands of suits filed per year against Walmart). Why would I trust that the pimps and madams, some of the most historically abusive people to sex workers, to protect them?
While criminalizing demand will not eliminate all exploitation, it has accomplished what outright legalization has not. Sweden has some of the lowest rates of trafficking and prostitution in the world, whereas in places where prostitution is legal, like the Netherlands, the number of trafficked women has skyrocketed.
Also, I believe that the stigma should be on the johns and pimps, who are most likely to be in violation of human rights norms. Making selling sex legal erases the stigma, but keeping buying sex illegal allows legal authorities to arrest johns and pimps, whereas in places where prostitution is legal (like Nevada), abusing prostitutes is almost never prosecuted because of the persisting stigma of being a sex worker, and the legal morass that our justice system will not touch.
Also, an analogy with prohibition and alcohol forgets one very big relevant difference: human rights violations. Prohibition was mostly a moral legislation, whereas my argument to adopt the Swedish model has always been for the protection of human rights. While drunk driving is risky and dangerous, it is not the kind of gross violation of human decency that human trafficking or abusing sex workers is. Nor is it as widespread, given that the Council of Europe estimates that the human trafficking industry has a global annual market of about $42.5 billion. The US State Department reports that 600,000 to 820,000 are trafficked per year, 70% are women, and around 50% are children.
Human trafficking is a much more persistent and profitable industry than the abuse of alcohol. Also, it is unlikely that human rights violations resulting from alcohol abuse approach anywhere near the scale and horror of the realities of sexual slavery.
When it comes to reducing the number of trafficked people within its borders, the Swedish model has proven to be the most effective because it renders the demand for the abuse illegal. Going after suppliers is futile, because they can always go elsewhere and there are always more suppliers to take their place. They are powerful, well connected, multinational, and dangerous. It is far cheaper and more effective to simply educate the public and simultaneously criminalize demand.
If women are the majority of sex workers being abused, saying they need protection is not sexist.
Also, I did see her say anywhere that MEN should be punished. Simply whoever demands sex workers and helps promote abuse. Nowhere did she say anything about MEN being animals or villains at all.
I felt it was implied.
Men are the majority of the users of prostitutes.
She equated that anyone who uses a prostitute is abusing them, and therefore bad. It's not a leap of logic to make the connection I made.
She also makes the bad call that the government is currently making about drugs.
Since it's easier to catch the users, punish them, instead of the suppliers. The people trafficking cocaine are a lot harder to snag than the people snorting it.
Just because catching johns is easier than catching the traffickers...doesn't stop the traffickers.
I don't pretend that women are completely innocent from being abusive to prostitutes or being an exploitive madam. The majority of johns and pimps, of course, are male. I figure that that point has no bearing on my argument, so I use the term "demand" to mean anyone that demands sex.
No, not all Johns are abusive. Not all pimps and madams are corrupt. However, the vast majority of prostitutes, even legal ones, testify that they were abused at one point or another in their work (see previous links). If it takes disenfranchising every "nice" john to seriously curb the rate of human trafficking and violence against sex workers, as well as provide better means to prosecute those that abuse them and allow those women better support to get out if they want to, I don't mind.
I am fully aware that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. The legal system is not equipped to handle the demands of legalizing prostitution. The multi-billion dollar trafficking industry already flourishes while sex work is illegal. If sex work is legal, then the justice system would have to prove that they have the right to suspect human rights violations before moving in, a costly and time-consuming process. I don't think that this justice system is willing and able to do that, and I also think that if they actually do take the effort to try to nab traffickers on the grounds of abuse they will have moved on long before.
Furthermore, meth users, pot smokers, and crack addicts may be more apt to commit crimes than a non-user, but unlike the cases of sex workers, those that are wronged by an addict can seek legal recourse. A sex worker has no rights in this legal system, and her abusers will go unpunished. Smoking crack is not a human rights violation. Having sex with a trafficked woman is a human rights violation.
Which is why the War on Drugs is grounded upon moral principles foremost. My argument, as I have said repeatedly, is not. It is grounded on pressing human rights concerns.
"No, not all Johns are abusive. Not all pimps and madams are corrupt. However, the vast majority of prostitutes, even legal ones, testify that they were abused at one point or another in their work (see previous links). If it takes disenfranchising every "nice" john to seriously curb the rate of human trafficking and violence against sex workers, as well as provide better means to prosecute those that abuse them and allow those women better support to get out if they want to, I don't mind."
Well, by that logic, you could say "If it takes punishing every man that has sex with a woman, in order to ensure that rapists are punished, I'm okay with that".
It's a very shaky place to be, where you advocate punishing everyone, in order to ensure you catch those that deserve it.
"A sex worker has no rights in this legal system, and her abusers will go unpunished."
Is there a law that says that?
There doesn't have to be a law about something for it to be true in practice, Black Thirteen.
Well, just saying something doesn't make it 100% true, either.
I would think that in most cases, you'd want to avoid using absolutes about anything, when people are involved.
From Duke to the D.C. Madam to the link in my original post, sex workers, if they have the luck of even getting to court, are not receiving justice.
I have yet to hear of any case of a sex worker's abuser or killer or rapist getting what they deserve in a court of law. Because abuse of sex workers is so common, it is criminally negligent that virtually no cases of abuse are ever heard or prosecuted.
So when I say that the abusers, rapists, and killers of prostitutes fall through the crack, I mean that the majority of the time (I don't think it's superfluous to guess around 95% of the time or more) they walk free or receive significantly lower sentences.
With hundreds of thousands of women and children in human trafficking, and many thousands more as legal or illegal "voluntary" (i.e. not trafficked) prostitutes, that's millions of crimes that go unpunished. Millions of rapists, killers, and abusers.
I don't think that drugs and alcohol have nearly that scope. Yet again, to think that someone wouldn't give up their right to buy sex to significantly reduce this massive violation of human rights is sick.
"From Duke to the D.C. Madam to the link in my original post, sex workers, if they have the luck of even getting to court, are not receiving justice."
For one, the Duke boys were innocent. THAT was justice. The woman in question there was lying about what had occured. This is fact, and not open to debate anymore, I'd think. If you imply otherwise, I don't think I'd feel comfortable engaging in discussion with you.
Secondly, the DC Madam wasn't exactly an innocent party.
"(I don't think it's superfluous to guess around 95% of the time or more) "
I'd need something of a statistic or link for that. When someone claims "95%", I usually do.
"I don't think that drugs and alcohol have nearly that scope. Yet again, to think that someone wouldn't give up their right to buy sex to significantly reduce this massive violation of human rights is sick."
All I was saying, was the logic of "punish all to make sure you catch the guilty" isn't a good place to be.
Post a Comment