A Feminist's Argument On How Sex Work Can Benefit Women

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

Okay, so it's not really "news", but a piece published in a online student academic journal. I just wanted to post it here as a counter argument to the recent articles we have discussed from The Globe and Mail. This great piece by a [I]student[/I] is far more researched, articulate, well written and FAIR than any of those other biased national newspaper publications recently written by national columnists who don't have a clue of the subject they are talking about. I hope you agree and enjoy it.


[URL="http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/28/a-feminists-argument-on-how-sex-work-can-benefit-women"]http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/28/a-feminists-argument-on-how-sex-work-can-benefit-women[/URL] (The original article has references and links)

[B]A Feminist's Argument On How Sex Work Can Benefit Women[/B]
[B][I]By Kelly J. Bell[/I][/B]

[QUOTE]
Sex work has long been criticized and stigmatized in our society. While many members of society view sex work as immoral and degrading to women, I argue that sex work is essentially just work, and that it is not necessarily harmful to women. Under circumstances in which sex work is accepted and regulated in society, in which the sex worker is protected and granted the same rights as any other laborer, sex work has the possibility to be beneficial to women. Sex work can be very profitable for women, and many women may enjoy work that allows them to creatively express their sexuality. Sex work can allow human beings a way to safely explore their sexual desires in ways they cannot through the current social norm of heterosexual, monogamous relationships. The sex work industry and its workers need not be chastised by a society that clings to puritan ideals of what is â??moralâ?. I argue prostitution should be legal.

Every human being has the right to make informed decisions about his or her own body, and laws that govern sex work are laws that govern an individualâ??s right to make decisions about her own body. Sex work is illegal because it is largely viewed as immoral and degrading, but morality is objective and societyâ??s opinion on what is â??rightâ? and â??wrongâ? is constantly shifting. Morality provides no sound basis for law, as people governed by laws can not possibly all share the same moral beliefs. My argument is that prostitution should be made legal, sex workers offered the same rights and respect as workers in any other field, and that by doing this sex work can become something that benefits women and humanity in general.

In Carole Patemanâ??s essay, â??What is Wrong With Prostitution?â?, she argues that prostitution is an embodiment of patriarchy (2006). She relates to historical societies in which men had ownership over their wives, and says that while men no longer have complete ownership of women in our society, prostitution provides a way for men to exercise ownership over womenâ??s bodies temporarily. I disagree with this conclusion on prostitution. Men do not own a prostitute when they are paying her for sex any more than a business man owns his factory workers. If prostitutes are given the right to choose their clients and to stop sex at any point in which they feel unsafe or uncomfortable, prostitution is not a question of temporary ownership.

Another point Pateman makes in her essay distinguishes prostitution from other forms of work based on the product being paid for. Pateman argues that in other forms of labor work, the employer is paying for the product of the labor, and not the labor itself. In prostitution, the physical labor itself is the commodity (Pateman, 2006). This argument does not hold up. Workers in any entertainment field, such as stage actors, dancers, or comedians, are paid for their actual labor, not any product which is produced by their labor. In this way, one can view the prostitute as an entertainer; the root of each type of work is essentially the same: to provide a pleasurable experience for a customer.

Finally, Pateman argues that because sexuality is so intertwined with ones personality and identity, to sell sex is to sell oneself (2006). Again, this argument is unconvincing. It is true that prostitutes are paid for exerting one aspect of their personality (their sexuality). However, prostitution is not unique in this sense. Many workers earn a living by exerting a strong aspect of their personality. Managers are paid for their leadership abilities, teachers for their patience, and waiters for their extroversion. Why, then, is it wrong for a prostitute to profit from her sexuality?

Once we recognize that sex work is not inherently exploitative of women, the question becomes: under what conditions can sex work actually benefit women? Before sex work can benefit women, it must first cease to endanger women. I argue that the most essential condition to reduce harm to sex workers is to legalize and legitimize sex work, and provide sex workers with the same rights as other workers. In Priscilla Alexanderâ??s article â??Feminism, Sex Workers, and Human Rightsâ?, she provides an outline of rights that would protect sex workers (1997). She calls first for a distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution. It needs to be recognized that not all sex workers are forced into sex work; that an individual can consciously decide to engage in sex work. In addition to this, forced prostitution and sex trafficking need to be eliminated. Next, Alexander asserts that prostitution needs to be regulated by the same occupational safety and health regulations offered to workers in other labor industries. Sex workers need protection from exploitation by third-party managers. They ask for limits on the proportion of their income that managers can take and for benefits like health insurance and sick days. Sex workers ask for â??clean, safe places to work with the absolute right to refuse to engage in unsafe sex practicesâ? (Alexander, 2007, p. 93).

They need access to training on sexually transmitted diseases, dealing with dangerous clients, and self-defense in case of an attack. Prostitutes should have the right to travel between states and countries just like any other worker. Sex workers need protection by law enforcement officers, to enforce laws against physical and sexual assault, kidnapping, extortion and fraud. Sex workers should have the right to unionize, and should be able to choose whether they work on their own, in groups, or with managers. As presented in the film Live Nude Girls Unite!, sex workers also desire protection against discrimination based on their race (Query, 2000). Even in legal forms of sex work, like exotic dancing, women of color are discriminated against. Workers of color are often given limited hours and do not have access to the most prestigious positions based on their perceived lack of marketability. Anti-discrimination laws should be enforced in the sex industry as they are in any other industry. To summarize, sex work should be legalized, and sex workers offered all the protections offered to workers in other industries. When sex work is recognized and treated as legitimate work, sex work can begin to benefit women.

Another necessary condition for sex work to be made beneficial to women is to de-stigmatize the role of the sex worker in society. Currently, sex workers are viewed as immoral, worthless people by most of society. Sex is a taboo topic in society, and women especially are not supposed to be sexually assertive. In order for sex work to be treated as a legitimate form of work, society needs to step away from our Puritan views on sexuality and human nature. When it is accepted in society that human beings are sexual, and when we are allowed to express and explore our sexuality and sexual desires, sex work will begin to be treated with respect in society.

I have argued that sex work is not necessarily harmful to women, and presented conditions that would reduce risks to sex workers. Now, I can present the ways in which sex work can actually benefit women. In his article, â??Freaks and Queersâ?, Eli Clare relates prostitution to work in a freak show, referencing that prostitution provides a means of income to women who may not have other means available to them (1999). In society today, the majority of sex workers are lower class women and women of color who do not have other viable options. However, sex work does not need to be reduced to a last-resort option. As represented in the film Live Nude Girls Unite!, many women actively choose sex work.

Sex work can offer good pay and flexible hours. It may be an ideal work option for single mothers or college students, who do not have skills or time for a more traditional job. Similar to the hospitality industry, the sex work industry may provide people with a temporary way to raise money while preparing for a career in another field, or it could serve as a valid career choice. Many women who engage in sex work may find enjoyment and empowerment in it. Women who are comfortable with their sexuality may take pleasure in work that allows them to express it on their own terms (Query, 2000).

Carol Leigh advocates for sex work in her essay, â??Inventing Sex Work.â? She acknowledges that sex work is a legitimate form of work (1997). Sex work is a predominantly female trade, and many sex workers are smart, strong women. Women can benefit from working in an industry populated predominantly by women, who can provide each other with friendship and support. Leigh also asserts that sex work can be interesting and fun. She denies the myth that working in the sex industry ruins the experience of sex in ones personal life. She states: â??Sex in my personal life became very exciting. Sex with clients annoyed me sometimes and interested me other times.â? (Leigh, 1997, p. 228 ). This statement by Leigh denies another common argument against sex work: that sex work eliminates the pleasure from sexual activity for the worker and therefore impairs a basic bodily function (Schawzenbach, 2006).

In her chapter, â??Contractarians and Feminists Debate Prostitutionâ?, Sibyl Schwarzenbach presents the idea of sex workers, here specifically referencing prostitutes, as sexual therapists (2006). She asks the reader to imagine a society in which frequent, satisfying sexual experiences between consenting adults is seen as a healthy and necessary part of life. These sexual experiences could be of great variety, between men and women, two men, two women, multiple partners, or any other variation the current sexual norm: a man and a woman in a monogamous relationship. In such society, she claims that sex work would be seen as a valuable profession. Sex workers would be both men and women, who were respected in society for their expertise on human sexual needs and their ability to fulfill these needs as a service to others.

Sex work would not need to conform to the heteronormative, sometimes oppressive model of men paying women for sex. Men and women could hire sex workers of either sex to help fulfill their sexual desires. In this society, sex work could surely be a good career for women and men, as they would be highly respected in society and compensated appropriately for their work. The existence of such a sex work industry would benefit not only those working in the industry, however, but society as a whole. The existence of open and available commercial sex would allow individuals to express and explore more fully their sexuality and sexual desires. As religious and patriarchal beliefs have historically denied women these opportunities, women especially could benefit from the existence of a sex work industry, as it would finally be acceptable for them to embrace and explore their own sexuality.

Apparently, there are many ways in which sex work can be beneficial to women. There is no logical basis for the argument against sex work or the criminalization of the field. I have proven that sex work is not necessarily exploitative of women. Sex workers face a danger of exploitation today only because of the criminalization and stigmatization of sex work in our society. Laws that criminalize prostitution and other forms of sex work are outdated, impractical, and harmful. Laws governing sex work deny women control over their own bodies in the same way that laws governing reproductive rights do. As stated by Riddler & Woll, "When we talk about women's rights, we can get all the rights in the world- the right to vote, the right to go to school- and none of them means a doggone thing if we don't own the flesh we stand inâ? (Chandrachud, 2006). Priscilla Alexander echoes this sentiment: â??I believe that as long as women are arrested for the crime of being sexually assertive, for standing on the street without a socially acceptable purpose or a male chaperone, I am not freeâ? (Alexander, 1997, p. 84).

The right to control our sexuality is as essential to feminism as the right to control our reproduction. Any law that denies a womenâ??s control over her body is a law that labels women as second-class citizens and places them under the control of men. Counter to Carole Patemanâ??s argument that prostitution allows men control of women, I argue that it is not prostitution itself that allows men control of women, but prostitution laws. Were these laws to be eliminated, and sex work placed under the control of those who work in the industry, women could finally begin to claim their sexuality, express and explore their sexual desires, and work legitimately in a field that offers great pay and flexible hours. It is time for feminists everywhere to recognize the potential value in sex work, and to lobby for change in the way sex work is currently perceived in society.
[/QUOTE]

[cyclo 30131]

I think there's a typo in the second paragraph that affects the meaning of the author's argument... which I agree is much better than the average Globe journalist.

The word "subjective" should be substituted for "objective". [I]"Sex work is illegal because it is largely viewed as immoral and degrading, but morality is objective [B][U]subjective [/U][/B] and societyâ??s opinion on what is â??rightâ? and â??wrongâ? is constantly shifting."[/I]

In the recent Supreme Court of Canada hearing for example, the anti prostitution arguments from intervenors in the case were based upon the subjective belief that prostitution is morally wrong. The pro prostitution arguments were based upon objective evidence demonstrating the harm that current prostitution laws have upon the lives of sex workers.

[BrettonWoods 4365]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I recommend the ideas of Camille Paglia. Her careful academic and historical analysis is worthy of study. The only reason she is not better known is simple minded ignorance. Here are a couple of quotes: [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]â??The prostitute is not, as feminists claim, the victim of men, but rather their conqueror, an outlaw, who controls the sexual channels between nature and cultureâ? [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]"Feminists like to quote these absolutely specious statistics, a typical trick of the feminist movement of the last twenty years. For example, they'll say the majority of prostitutes have been sexually abused as children. But there's no evidence for this! The most successful prostitutes are invisible, because the sign of a prostitute's success is her absolute blending with the environment. She's so shrewd, she never becomes visible. She never gets in trouble. She has command of her life, and her clients. The ones who get into the surveys have drug problems or psychological problems. They're the ones who were sexually abused. Feminists are using amateurs to condemn a whole profession. This is appalling!� [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]For more see: [/FONT][/SIZE]
[URL="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL]