Friday, March 14, 2008

Sex and money

I said I wasn't really interested in blogging about the Spitzer scandal, and that's true, but I am interested in blogging about the inevitable corollary to any prostitution scandal: the legalization of prostitution. Or not.

On the face of it, this seems to be a pretty simple equation: sex is legal, selling things is legal, why shouldn't selling sex be legal? And as a starting point, that makes fine sense. Where things get tricky is when we recognize that buying and selling is a social relationship between buyer and seller, and that it entails all of the power dynamics inherent in any social relationship.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, it is said. In many ways, desperation is the force that drives a capitalist economy, the mirror image of profit. Excuse this brief diversion from the salacious sex talk, but I think this is crucial to understand. Those that already own capital (or more broadly, that have money) make money by having other people work for them. Those that don't own capital (or money) make money by working. The workers have no choice but to work for the very means of subsistence. Through the lottery of education, ability, and random chance, they may get better or worse pay for their work, but they must do it. Furthermore, capitalism relies on a certain amount of unemployment to keep up a demand for work. The real reason Republicans and Libertarians are so opposed to social welfare is not the "free rider" problem, but because if people could subsist without being forced to accept low wages, their profits would fall.

I say all this because prostitution is, like many types of work, pyramidal in structure. There are a few high-end call-girls, a few more middle-class college students making quick cash, and then a larger number of poor women whose alternative for money would be a minimum wage job. It can be said that the higher up the prostitution pay scale, the more certain we can be that the people involved are doing it truly consensually. But at the lower end, even leaving aside the actual problem of sexual slavery, how many prostitutes are doing it because that's what they want to do, and how many are doing it because it's one of few jobs they're qualified for, and one that pays relatively well?

Simply legalizing prostitution does little to change this situation. If every streetwalker in the country were plying their trade legally, that would not mean they are doing it because they want to. It might still simply be a convenient job for someone without more marketable skills. So the first problem with prostitution isn't a problem with prostitution at all, but a problem with capitalism. In a competitive market for labor, people are forced by necessity to do things they don't want to do, sometimes even things they are disgusted by.

There is another problem with prostitution, of course: misogyny. This manifests itself in two ways. First, in the social stigma attached to sex workers of all stripes, but especially to whores. Second, in the actual treatment of prostitutes by their johns.

I think the social stigma is a reflection of a rather fucked-up societal view of sex, and women's role in sex, overall. In a society where virginity is considered a virtue, and people with multiple partners are sluts, is it any surprise that people who have the audacity to not only have a lot of sex but to earn a living doing so are thought of negatively?

This is a problem with the view we have developed that sex is special. Don't get me wrong, here. I am not saying that sex isn't different from other bodily functions. But society has decided that that difference entitles everyone to form judgments about people on its basis in a way that doesn't apply to any other activity. We think that having or not having sex says something relevant about the people involved, when in fact, it merely says that they had sex. And why shouldn't they have? Sex is fun.

So I don't think that legalization, or not, has anything to do with the stigma attached to sex work. That stigma can only be combatted by changing our cultural attitudes toward sex in a more healthy direction.

In a similar way, that many prostitutes are subjected to what most people would considered "degrading" treatment, or actual violence, is not something that depends on its legal status per se. Many men get off on treating women badly, or by demonstrating their dominance over them. This is because our social construction of masculinity is built around dominance and competition and hierarchy, and a strict distinction between the agency of men as virile conquerors and the passivity of women as receptacles or mere things. The mistreatment of prostitutes is a uglier version of the same line of reasoning that makes a confrontational man in the office ambitious and a confrontational woman a bitch.

In other words, we have to change what it means to be a "real man" in our society before we can expect some men to not act as we have trained them to act: like domineering brutes. Whether or not the woman the man wants to brutally dominate is receiving money for the domination is irrelevant.

Ultimately, the question of prostitution is a question of labor. It is a question that asks: are there some things that we do not believe are "jobs?" As long as prostitution is illegal, society is claiming that the women doing sex work are not actually working, and don't deserve the protections of society that workers are entitled to. This is true regardless of the nature of the work in question.

I don't think we can, or should, make that claim. Prostitutes are clearly working, and they should receive all of the same benefits other workers should receive. The legalization of prostitution is ultimately an extension of the same impulses that give rise to minimum wage laws, the right to union organization, and all other labor regulation. Regardless of our comfort with the work in question, there should be no question that prostitutes are working people, and deserve the same treatment as other working people.

The problems of prostitution — coercion, stigma, and abuse — are symptoms of a sick society, not problems inherent in the simple provision of sexual services. They must be overcome not just for the prostitutes, but for women everywhere, and cannot be used as an argument against legalization.

Clearly, legalization has many benefits. The eradication of the private pimp, the recourse to police for abusive clients, and health care are obvious. Whether or not legal prostitution eliminates underground prostitution or sex slavery is beside the point, just as nobody would claim that because one can download illegal music, legal music ought to be outlawed as well. Whether or not legal prostitution eliminates the sexist ethical problems of it is also beside the point.

Workers deserve support and protection, even when their trade is sex.

7 comments:

  1. Great post. Adding to this, a recent survey of prostitutes showed that 95% would rather be doing something else. That's very telling -- and I think your post touched upon some of the reasons why, including negative social perceptions.

    I've also wanted to post about this case, but from the perspective of cultural norms as they pertain to monogamy and the imposition this imposes on those men and women who would prefer more polyamorous arrangements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The legalization of prostitution would simply legitimize the exploitation of women- a huge social injustice.

    As a libertarian, I once held the view that consensual sex between adults is a civil liberty. In principle, that makes sense, but in reality, prostitution is more coercive than consensual.

    Did you know that somewhere between 60-80% of sex workers are survivors of childhood sexual abuse? They work in the industry to exert some sort of control over sex that was taken from them- they reenact their trauma in order (common PTSD) and being exploited feels normal to them. Being degraded feels like home. This is exploitation, as much as you desire to act like it's a business transaction.

    Let's also look at a study of strippers (not prostitutes, mind you, but still considered sex workers and LEGAL, like you suggest prostitution should be). Studies show that mental illness is prevalent. 55% of strippers have borderline personality disorder, 35% have multiple personality disorder and 60% have major depressive episodes. I think we'd agree that buying sex from a women with mental retardation is rape. How is buying sex from a mentally ill woman not rape as well?

    Let's also look at the damage legal sex work does to women involved- 100% of strippers reported some abuse on the job, physical or verbal. 70% report being followed home and 42% admit being stalked. Bouncers may protect women at the club, but not at home- They are vulnerable to rape. And with the case of prostition- would raping prostitutes be rape or theft? It's rape of course, but this is why sex can't be a business transaction- just the same a surrogate motherhood or egg donation. All the above exploit women.

    Moreover, as much as we like to think prositution is high-end male escorts and pricey courtesans, the reality is that many women choose this lifestyles as an alternative to homelessness or starvation. The use it to support a self-destructive substance abuse habit (around 40% admit abusing drugs and alcohol). If a woman has to choose between going hungry or having sex with a stranger (possibly acquirring a disease), how is that not exploiting her poverty? These women deserve help not regulation of their exploitation.

    Although in principle and pragmatically, legalization looks like a good idea, like social workers protect children from abuse, shouldn't we extend some real help to women, helping them escape exploitation rather than making exploitation slightly more pleasant?

    That's why I can't agree- Women deserve better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't help but wonder if you actually read my post, since I said pretty much the same thing you did despite coming to the opposite conclusion. My view is that any problems with prostitution (such as financial necessity, coercion, and abuse) are equally real whether the work is legal or not, a reflection of the structure and character of society -- and therefore, there is no reason to add the additional burden of criminality on top of the other issues facing sex workers. We can still help sex workers in the very ways you favor without additionally throwing them in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't help but wonder if you actually read my post, since I said pretty much the same thing you did despite coming to the opposite conclusion.

    Nope- I read it. I don't think our positions are similar at all, but fundamentally different. I don't think abusing women is a capitalist ideal, that stigmatized sex is the issue (many, many folks that have very liberal views on sex wouldn't consider selling their bodies- it's a sign of desperation in most cases), or that women are subjected to abuse in other forms of work- I'm a statistician, and I've never been physically assaulted, verbally degraded with terms like "bitch" and "whore" in any of my workplaces. Even if I were relatively unskilled and working at a Denny's, I doubt customers would regularly try to grab my breasts and call out horrible epithets. I think the issues women in the sex industry deal with are unique to the sex industry and they are inherent, legal or not (hence my example with stripping). I think this very much is the argument against prostitution- it hurts those directly involved, especially the most vulnerable.

    We can still help sex workers in the very ways you favor without additionally throwing them in jail.

    I agree! But not without legitimizing and expanding the exploitation. That's the key difference and it's a big one.
    You recognize to a degree that these women are exploited- but you favor making the exploitation a bit easier to swallow. That's like saying, "Let's not give women equal pay for equal work, but we'll give them safer, more comfortable workplaces." It's still unjust. Prostitution is inherently unjust.

    I don't support throwing sex workers in jail. I support offering sex workers alternatives. You can rightly argue that this makes laws against prostitution arbitrary, but these laws are to protect women from predators that would exploit them and their situations. I don't think these laws are to punish men for buying sex but protect women from selling themselves when they feel no other alternatives exist. Yes, these laws need work, but they don't need repealing.

    I hate that the current law begets conditions as they are- and that prostitutes can't seek help from police officers without fear of prosecution- much like female illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. We agree that women deserve protection regardless of what they do and where they're from- but this protection can be extended without legitimizing and thus expanding exploitation. Maybe if prostitution is legalized, the women will be exploited in safer conditions---but many more women will be exploited and many more men will believe that since it is legal, that it's somehow okay to exploit women. Making prostitution legal doesn't protect prostitutes at all, but only assures that their will be more of the coercion and abuse since more of the activity is going on and it's government sanctioned.

    If prostitution were like drugs and people of both genders were exploiting each other equally left and right, yep- legalize it. I don't have to agree with the moral rightness of it, since they are only hurting themselves. But prostitution victimizes women disportionately, women who are already victims. I can't let that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't support throwing sex workers in jail.

    If you don't support jailing sex workers, but you think sex work should remain illegal, just what legal penalty should sex workers face? Fines?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you don't support jailing sex workers, but you think sex work should remain illegal, just what legal penalty should sex workers face? Fines?

    Perhaps you didn't read it when I said, "I support offering sex workers alternatives. You can rightly argue that this makes laws against prostitution arbitrary, but these laws are to protect women from predators that would exploit them and their situations. I don't think these laws are to punish men for buying sex but protect women from selling themselves when they feel no other alternatives exist. Yes, these laws need work, but they don't need repealing."

    Yes, illegal prostitution laws need reform. What reform, I don't know, but repealing them would do more harm than good. Prostitution laws suck for all the reasons we've collectively mentioned, but an absence of laws only give us more exploited women in marginally-nicer environments with the bonus of men thinking that exploiting women this way is acceptable- "Hey, teenage girl who just ran away from home- I know that you're hungry. I'll give you 20 bucks for sex, and then you can eat."

    I have some flawed reform suggestions, but I'm afraid you'd pick it apart to be argumentative rather than make improvements. If you'll agree to suspend the desire to debunk my ideology or win a debate, I'll offer them.

    Bottom line, this issue has been around for thousands of years. While the details differ, I know undoubtably that repealing laws against prostitution and thus legitimizing and expanding it will do more harm than good for women.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have some flawed reform suggestions, but I'm afraid you'd pick it apart to be argumentative rather than make improvements. If you'll agree to suspend the desire to debunk my ideology or win a debate, I'll offer them.

    Just so we're clear, you're saying that you want the freedom to debunk my arguments and win a debate while denying me the opportunity to do the same. On my own personal blog. I'm afraid I can't in good conscience agree not to argue when I think you're in error, but I would sincerely love to hear your suggestions. In particular, I'm still very interested in learning what consequences you want to give criminals convicted of prostitution, since you oppose imprisonment and (apparently) fines. You said you want to offer them "alternatives," which I agree is a laudable goal, but if an act doesn't have legal consequences, I don't really understand in what sense it can be said to be illegal at all.

    ReplyDelete