"It's Wrong to Pay for Sex"
"It's Wrong to Pay for Sex", or is it? This is the title of a debate scheduled in NYC on April 21 by Intelligence Squared. It is actually the second debate on this topic that they have held, the first one being in London, UK on November 11 2008. The motion was soundly defeated, 449: 203. While we don't know how the speakers were chosen, the gendering is of interest. In the UK, each team consisted of one male and two females. The US debate will feature three women for the motion and one woman and two men against the motion. Is this significant? Maybe. While paying for or selling sex is not the sole property of any gender, it is the frame into which the dominant discourse has been forced that is highly gendered.
Given the track record of two of the speakers for the motion, Farley and Mackinnon, formidable prohibitionists (only Janice Raymond is missing from the line up), the debate is likely to be highly gendered, and will exploit the gender balance of the teams. It has been asked - are there no strong women to argue against the motion? The answer is naturally, of course there are. Theoretically the gender of the speakers should be irelevant, but in a debate that will likely be framed in a way to avoid any consideration of sexual exchange other than men purchasing sex from women, it will be interpreted as highly relevant.
The dominant discourse has succesfully reframed sexual exchange as one of patriachal oppression, sexual violence against women and sexual slavery, and co-opted feminism to position the eradication of exchange as pivotal to the achievement of equality. So naturally no woman would speak against this - right? Wrong. The prohibitionists have cleverly portrayed this as a central feminist struggle, conceptually marginalising the large number of feminists who think otherwise. A feminist analysis of this, taking into account our understanding of relational autonomy and consent, might point out that it is the very marginalising of women who sell sex, and the denial of their agency, voice and rights, that actually betrays the very roots of feminisms and undermines equality. Furthermore, the protectionist vocabulary of prohibitionism is far more patriarchal than that of dominant feminist thinking, as is that of perpetuating a binary image of women (good girl/bad girl, or more dramatically Madonna/Whore). Finally, feminisms are betrayed by the essentialist arguments that deny women their sexuality and sexual pleasure in the most reductionist of prohibitionary language - sex work as 'paid rape'.
Politically, prohibitionism has been marketed to fundamentalist party ideology in the moral panic of the resurgent White Slave Trade, and under the 2000-8 Republican Administation in the US, the State department became a major agent of the policy goals of groups like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Therefore it is refreshing to see some rethinking of this in the reforming fervour of the new Democratic Adminstration. The Institute for Policy Studies has attacked what it sees as the fallacy of the trafficking arguments and called for an end to this crusade. It is unclear to what extent these arguments will find voice in the upcoming debate.
Let us look more carefully at the question - It's wrong to pay for sex. While one might argue that everyone pays for sex, in one way or another, in this case the pivotal word is 'wrong'. This implies a moral universalism. While some moral values are relatively universally held, few around sexuality are. The question of what might be considered 'wrong' or 'right' has and does vary temporally and geographically, and often reflects membership of a particular cultural group. Many things that have been at various times considered 'wrong' about the expression of our sexuality, and even criminalised, such as homosexuality or oral sex are now relatively mainstream. While many people may conclude in the affirmative and vote in support of the motion, the question does not and most probably will not stop there. The real question is to what extent does the fact that some groups within a society disapprove of an action justify the intervention of the state? Many feminist legal theorists such as Mary Childs would say that there are strong arguments for not doing so, despite the strongly held views of some groups that see the state and its laws as the gatekeeper of national morality, and hence social order.
If you can't attend, you can still vote, there is a poll where you can Vote Online, which is still open. If you care about these issues, go there and vote now. Interestingly, although on-line polls clearly have limitations, the vote on the motion as of going to press was 25:71%, with the remainder undecided. It wil be of interest to follow this poll, which may largely reflect how the different schools of thought on this question mobilise their followers.
Bibliography
Mary Childs "Commercial Sex and Criminal Law", in L.Bibbings and D. Nicolson, eds, Feminist Perspectives on Criminal Law . (London: Cavendish, 2000)
Suzanne Jenkins "Expoitation: The role of law in regulating prostitution", in SD Sclater et al., eds, Regulating Autonomy: Sex, Reproduction and Family . (Oxford: Hart, 2009)
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""It's Wrong to Pay for Sex"\""){kind=small}
"It's Wrong to Pay for Sex"
Once again, I see the debate/discussion "It's wrong to pay for sex" as a multi-layered issue. One aspect which is absolute is this: sex work is work, consequently the individual who is offering the service should be paid. I suspect discomfort with sex and sexuality is the on-going under current to this argument.
Whether it is wrong to pay for sex, or whether we all pay for sex in someway or another is another discussion. I cannot see how it is wrong to pay a service provider for their service, alternatively, I find it rather cynical to state we all pay for sex in someway or another.
As an individual with a feminist perspective I recognize the oppression which exists within our society. There are many groups who experience marginalization due to their life style, beliefs, skin color, sexuality, ultimately the list is potentially endless. Sex workers are marginalized because dominant society is uncomfortable with sex and sexuality.
We have each discovered in our live's that it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time and this is at the root of all marginalization. There are many within our society who like to believe they know what is best for everyone and those who move into positions of power and influence attempt to bring the "herd" around to their belief system. Power and privilege breed influence.
When the subject of sex work is discussed, all too often, the discussion seems to center around females in sex work, rather than acknowledging both genders are involved and, potentially, vulnerable to abuse. I know individuals who are sex workers by choice; I also know individuals who have been pressured into sex work. Debating the laws which affect sex workers would, in my opinion, be a more effective discussion.
Feminists who may equate sex work to "paid rape" are not looking at the whole picture. Sex work may well be "paid rape" if the sex worker was coerced into the transaction. In the event the sex worker chose of his/her free will to be involved it becomes an expression which is offensive to those who have experienced sexual assault.
A feminist perspective should empower women (and men) to embrace their sexuality. Being sexual should not be about the old "good girl/bad girl" descriptor, even though, as I have noted in my own blog this myth seems to live on in our teen society. I am not sure I believe sex work is about the providers' own sexuality, as by definition it is work. The sex worker's sexuality then becomes secondary to the discussion, e.g. I am currently a special education educator, this does not mean I have a learning disability, it means I have an understanding of the impact of an l.d. on the individual, this is my work, I need to understand in order to do my job well.
Our society's beliefs on sexuality, power, privilege and oppression will ultimately influence the results of this debate. This debate's title should probably be "Sex Work is Wrong" as this is probably more what the debate will focus upon( I actually came up with a couple of good alternatives, but if one doesn't share my sense of humor they might not be appreciated).
Thanks for posting about this
I read about this as well and it strikes me how severely mismatched this debate is, to the point where it makes me wonder whether the debate organizers deliberately set it up this way to make it easy for Farley and MacKinnon to win (and note that is an old-fashion win-lose debate). Basically, you have, on one side, Melissa Farley and Catherine MacKinnon, two anti-sex industry firebrands, with the interesting addition of "modesty" maven Wendy Shalit (who's positions are a great deal more congruent with those of Farley and MacKinnon than either of them would care to admit – it will be interesting to see if they try to distance their arguments from Shalit's or not). On the other, you have Lionel Tiger, an MRA-ish evolutionary psychologist, Tyler Cown, a libertarian economist, and Sydney Barrows, "The Mayflower Madame".
Its pretty obvious that Farley and MacKinnon will have a pretty easy time painting the other side as regressive men with dated sexist attitudes and a woman who's a "pimp" and profiteer. Add to this the fact that Farley and MacKinnon are at the forefront of the current debate on prostitution, while Barrows has not written about the subject in years (and has never been active on the subject of sex worker's rights, as far as I know), and the other two have hardly written about prostitution at all. In fact, Tyler Cowen posts on his blog here that he needs to do some reading on the subject, which hardly gives me confidence that he'll be able to debate the subject well. (My comments and suggestions for reading can be found here .) I don't think any of them is familiar with Farley and her distorted statistics, so Farley will be able to score some cheap debate points with these. MacKinnon's arguments are likely to go over their head, making MacKinnon look like the smartest person in the room. I think Wendy Shalit is the only one who the other side is likely to "balance", and that only by offering some very traditional "masculinist" views as a counter to her ultra-traditional views on women.
What really ticks me off is that this is far from the best the organzers could do. The abscence of anybody who's a current advocate for sex worker's rights is absolutely glaring. There are plenty of engaging and articulate sex worker right's advocates that come to mind – Audacia Ray, Nina Hartley, Renegade Evolution, and Starchild come to mind immediately. And also many pro-sex worker academics – Michael Goodyear, of course, Laura Agustin, Barbara Brents, and Ron Weitzer, among others, who could certainly act as effective counters to MacKinnon and Farley. Why nobody from this list was sought out for the debate speaks to either ineptitude or downright malice on the part of the debate organizers.
Debating sexuality
This is not a particularly easy topic to debate, since its ramifications are vast and are poorly defined and understood, opinions entrenched, and the discourses occur mainly on the backs of working women, as Annette Jolin has observed. Usually such debates are tangential to the real issues at stake. Numerous discourses on inter-net sites, such as responses to media articles and blogs are witness to these tired stereotypes and concepts. Interestingly the 'against vote' on line is now at 74%, long before the event.
The comment about 'everyone' paying for sex arises from both studies of intimacy, and evolutionary psychology (which appears likely to be introduced into the actual debate). It refers to the fact that sexual exchange is frequently the object of some degree of bartering within relationships in the dominant culture. It may be as subtle as who pays for a meal on a date, however it has been found to be widespread and preserved from the animal kingdom (penguins exchanging rocks for sex being one of the more widely cited examples).
Geminigirl is correct that virtually all debates are heavily gendered, and perhaps more fundamentally that laws entrench attitudes. In this case the framing of laws around sexual exchange, both in construction and application, perpetuate stereotypes of gender roles (e.g. predatory males and helpless females) are protectionist, further disempowering women, and reinforce the hegemonic division of women into 'Good' and 'Bad'. A central tenet of the self-styled radical feminist position favoured by Dworkinites such as Farley and Mackinnon, is that prostitution degrades all women and subverts the struggle for equality. The fundamental flaw in this position is that it is actually laws and their associated stigmatisation that disenfranchise all women. The Good/Bad dichotomy is divisive and and an appropriation of female sexuality in that it entrenches dominant norms of expectant behaviour - the fate of of the 'bad' woman is a threat to all other women not to challenge the patriarchal structure. The denial of both agency and voice for sex workers by Dworkinism infantilises women, which is then compounded by conflating them with children in the conventional debates. Male aggression and 'sexual slavery' are inevitably framed as violence against women and girls, to reinforce the disempowerment of women.
Another argument likely to be advanced is coercion. All work involves varying levels of control over our environment, including sex work, and it is empowering the worker, not disempowering them by coercive laws that will lead them to improving their lot. Their is nothing unique about sex work in these considerations, and is demonstrated in the writings of Wendy Chapkis and the detailed studies of Kate Shannon.
Count down
Tonight
Result - motion narrowly defeated
Online vote:
For 23.03 %
Against 74.34 % 
Undecided 2.63 %
Live audience vote:
TOTALBefore the debate: 20% for, 50% against, 30% undecided
After the debate: 45% for, 46% against, 9% undecided
Women in the audience voted:
Before the debate: 25% for, 41% against, 34% undecided
After the debate: 58% for, 34% against, 8% undecided
Men in the audience voted:
Before the debate: 13% for, 61% against, 26% undecided
After the debate: 27% for, 66% against, 7% undecided
Yikes
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
it's on youtube, too bad
it's on youtube, too bad they have not posted the debate from England also
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=IntelligenceSquared&view=videos&query=it%27s+wrong+to+pay+for+sex
Post new comment