The mainstream debate about sex work legislation seems to have hotted up lately, and strangely, what I’ve seen hasn’t made me as frustrated and angry as it usually does. I’m not saying that the legislature will do anything sensible in Britain any time soon, but I’ve seen some encouraging signs that the decriminalisation argument is gradually growing wings.
Firstly, I was startled by these tube adverts the other week, from the Economist:
“Typical,” I thought. “Why are these ‘controversial’ issues always framed in such a way that it affirms right-wing ideals? It claims to be provoking debate but in the meantime, there are big ads everywhere saying prostitution is a crime, not a business – surely that’s got to have an effect on people.”
It wasn’t until I went back through the same station on my way home that I noticed the advert next to it for the first time:
So much for leaping to conclusions! That’s nowhere near as bad as I feared – both arguments laid out in a reasonably balanced way. I mean, it’s simplistic and they aren’t the arguments I’d necessarily have chosen, but as a debate it’s certainly presented more neutrally than I at first assumed.
For reference, here are my answers to the points on the “crime, not a business” ad:
1. It exploits vulnerable people, so society should not condone it.
‘Prostitution’ doesn’t exploit anyone, just as or ‘nursing’ or ‘data entry’ or any other profession doesn’t exploit anyone. People exploit people – and by definition, exploitation is done by people with power to people they have power over. People are are intrinsically no more likely to exploit vulnerable people in the sex industries than in any other industry. Arguably vulnerable people are more likely to end up in sex work than other lines of work, but one of the things that enables exploitation is the fact that sex work is criminalised. If sex workers enjoyed the same legal protections as other workers, they would be at far less risk of exploitation.
2. If sex has a price, it loses its value.
Again, I can only unravel this one by looking at other lines of work. If a teacher is paid to teach, does that mean that the time and energy they put into bringing up their own children is worthless? If a cleaner is paid to clean, does that mean that it’s worthless if they voluntarily do some housework for their partner? Of course not. The existence of sex work does not suddenly make all sex innately transactional. It can still be given for free, and is worth just as much as it always was to the person I’m sharing it with. If I have sex at work, it doesn’t devalue the sex I have in my leisure time, just as being paid to appear in spanking films doesn’t devalue the play I enjoy in private.
In addition, it’s arguable that most sex is transactional, but in a less explicitly negotiated way – people have sex in exchange for all sorts of things, be it nice dinners, intimacy, someone to talk to or anything else. There’s nothing wrong with that; a healthy human is inevitably selfish in many ways and most people make choices on the basis of what will benefit them. Arguably, a sex worker is more ethical than, say, a person who puts out in order to manipulate someone into doing something they want, because the transaction is explicitly negotiated and consensual. (This obviously only applies to consensual sex work, but forcing someone to have sex against their will is called rape, and there’s already a law against that which has nothing to do with sex work legislation.)
3. If Britain legalised brothels, it would become a centre for seedy sex tourism. London can do without its own version of Amsterdam’s red light district.
This is transparent NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). London is already a global centre for sex tourism, it’s just mostly underground rather than officially sanctioned. This means that the workers enjoy far less protection and security. People who argue for criminalisation are essentially saying that they would rather enjoy a surface a veneer of ‘morality’ than make sex workers safe. No person with a shred of compassion should give this argument any credence.
I think the arguments given for ‘prostitution as a business’ are reasonably sound, if again inevitably simplistic. The only comment I would make is about the first one:
1. People should be allowed to buy or sell whatever they like, including their own bodies.
This stems from the association of liberatarian attitudes to decriminalisation of prostitution with libertarian attitudes to the decriminalisation of drugs. While many people, including myself, support both measures, I don’t think you have to accept the latter to accept the former, and entangling them like this helps neither debate.
Mostly, though, this is simply an inaccurate description of prostitution. Sex work is not selling your body – it is hiring it out, for a pre-agreed time period and under strict terms and conditions. Selling your body would mean voluntarily selling yourself into slavery, and as far as I know no-one does that – even BDSM practitioners who enter slavery usually have time periods and terms written into their contracts. Selling someone else into slavery is a wholly different thing, and is a revolting human rights violation regardless of whether they are subsequently used as sex slaves or any other type of slave labourer. So “selling yourself” is, in fact, impossible. If we want this to be a rational debate, let’s stop using language which is distracting and inaccurate.
–
In my next post in this mini-series, I’ll talk a little more about the libertarian contribution to the debate, with reference to the most recent meeting of the Westminster Sceptics.
Posted in 
Tags: 
I look forward to part 2. Did you read my most recent contribution, about the use of language by the different sides of the debate – also in response to the WS meeting? Worthwhile, if nothing else, for some high level comments by people who know a lot more than me about the subject, including Laura Agustin and Dr Magnanti herself. I was going to do a follow-up, but other things got in the way.
As you say, the debate seems to be hotting up – though I've yet to see much evidence of minds being changed on either side. You raise some interesting points. I was struck, first of all, by your characterisation of the "prostitution is crime" argument as "right wing". Perhaps that's just an all-purpose boo word for you. Surely, however, most of the anti-liberalisation running in recent years has been made by people who consider themselves part of the left. It's those pesky right-wing libertarians who have been defending the right of consenting adults to "sell their bodies".
(Like you, I don't like that phrase – though not for your reason, that the sex worker is "hiring it out". I'd say that what she (or he) is selling is her time and her skill. You've just got to look at the manner in which escorts advertise their services to realise that. They don't say "Root around in my vag for half an hour while I lie back", but "I'm sensual, fun to be with, give great bjs, etc". Don't worry, this is just my research showing!)
You're right about exploitation, of course. Parts of the food and clothing industries are extremely exploitative. On the "value" of sex and whether it's transactional, we seem to be straying into slightly Stephen Fry territory here. One of the things I've noticed, though, is when anti-prostitution campaigners start coming out with this one they sound unrealistically Mills and Boonish about the whole thing – as though the only sex that counts is the deeply committed, loving, fulfilling kind. Whereas of course sex comes in many flavours, some of which might be transactional, others less so. What I don't get is why SOME people having "transactional" or meaningless or even just plain bad sex should ruin it for the people who are having wonderful sex anyway – which is what the "it cheapens sex" argument seems to imply.
Of coarse some things should be illegal, Theft for example. But the difference between theft and prostitution is that one of the parties involved with theft is non consenting. Prostitution is a matter between two consenting adults and therefor a whole different matter and I can certainly see no reason for criminalizing it.
The best way of combating the bad side of prostitution, such as people trafficking is by having registered legal prostitutes with their ear to the ground, for being unfairly undercut, cooperating with the police who in turn can offer the normal legal protections to prostitutes as the honest working tax payers that they should be. Legal or illegal prostitution is not going to go away, it is better when it is properly regulated.
It is refreshing to see the Economist promoting both sides of the argument though. I get so used to seeing the UK press being one sided that it gets easy to be cynical about it. I think that the Economist deserves a tick and a smiley face for this attitude.
Prefectdt
You make excellent arguments, Pandora. I don't see it as "selling your body" either. I think if one can look at it rationally, past the stigma, it's just a service. How strange, really, that a person being paid to touch another person to give them pleasure is to be considered a criminal. And what about other activities where people are paid and physical contact is involved? Are they selling their body?
Here in the U.S. much of the energy behind making or keeping prostitution illegal is from the religious right, and Puritan ideas about sex in general. People who hold these beliefs are not going to be compelled by reason, and they're not interested in protection for sinners. Like with so many issues, holding a position is easy if one can cobble together a little twisted rationale, or simply not listen to what they don't want to hear. And then if God is speaking to them, our mere mortal opinions are never going to be worthy.
I think some people are concerned that if prostitution is legalised and respect is enforced by law, other workers will be demanding respect be enforced by law on the grounds that prostitutes aren't treated as badly as fruit packers in this country.
Good thinking Pandora, as always. I too look forward to Part 2.
I think any ideologically unbiased review of the situation in countries like Germany or the Netherlands, where more liberal policies towards sex work are in place than in the UK, will have to come to the conclusion that decriminalisation is the right way to go. If you truly want to prevent exploitation, you will obviously have a much better chance of success by providing an open and legal framework for sex workers than by forcing them underground.
The stupidity and hypocrisy of the anti-prostitution arguments never ceases to amaze me. I think you have dealt with them very well, I would have written exactly the same replies for the most part. The pro-prostitution arguments presented in this case are simplistic as well, but I guess that is the nature of tube adverts.
The one thing where I have to disagree with you, like The Heresiarch, is your "right-wing ideals" remark. In my experience, people from the left side of the political spectrum can be just as viciosly anti-prostitution and anti-porn as people from the right, and they use the same simplistic arguments. Some of the most vocal and aggressive "Sex work is slavery!" crusades in Germany and elsewhere have been lead by feminists from the social democratic or green parties. And the British "extreme porn" law, as far as I know, is the brainchild of New Labour, not of evil right-wingers.
I recently listened to an interesting interview with Norbert Bolz, professor for media studies at the TU Berlin, where he argues that the political left, not the political right, has become the dominant power today in "creating taboos" and "censoring public debate". Personally, I think he is right, certainly as far as Germany is concerned.
The sad truth is that, in this day and age, the values of freedom, tolerance and openness are as likely to come under attack from the (new) left as they are to come under attack from the right…
Heresiarch and Ludwig – Thanks for calling me on that use of "right-wing", you're correct that my meaning was unclear. What I was referring to was a pattern I've noticed whereby "provocative" or "debate-stimulating" adverts, especially on public transport, tend far more often to present the conservative point of view than the progressive one. The campaign for BritainThinks.com (which now seems to have been taken offline) is an example. But I'm totally willing to be told this pattern isn't representative – I don't have the statistics to be sure, it's just an impression.
Heresiarch – I hadn't noticed your post, but thankyou for pointing me at it – some excellent analysis and discussion.
You're also correct that describing sex workers as service providers is much more accurate than even "hiring" one's body. It's very rarely a passive activity, which is what the latter phrase would suggest.
As for your last paragraph, I'm reminded of the saying – "Sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth, and you should save it for someone you love."
Prefectdt – The bottom line is consent for me, too. But the law doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of consent, especially as it applies to sex and sex work.
Agreed that the Economist deserves a tick for this, even if their presentation of the arguments is still problematic. It's so rare to see any balance at all in the mainstream press that I'm inclined to applaud it when I do!
Brett: And what about other activities where people are paid and physical contact is involved? Are they selling their body?
Exactly! I paid a physiotherapist this week to work on my back. It was a painful but very rewarding experience for me. It seems ridiculous that that, tattoos and so on should be legal but sexual services not. I absolutely agree that it's mostly a hangover from Puritanism. We'll outgrow it, we just need to educate the younger generations and wait for the old 'uns to die.
Michael – interesting argument. Are you talking about the UK or the US? The UK already has fairly strict laws regulating work – anyone managing to break them is probably operating under the radar anyway, e.g. by hiring illegal migrants.