Different societies have viewed prostitution in widely divergent ways.
Some cultures stoned whores to death. In ancient Greece, however, prostitutes
were an integral part of religious rites. In Napoleonic France, courtesans
were educated and talented women. They were not simply respected: they
were adored and often eagerly sought out as wives. Other societies have
grudgingly tolerated prostitution as a safeguard for the family. It was
deemed to prevent rape and to shield virtuous wives from the unsavory sexual
appetites of their husbands.
The feminist movement has also expressed different opinions on the issue
of prostitution. The pioneering 18th century British feminist Mary Wollstonecraft
considered street prostitution to be a more honest pursuit than marriage,
which she called 'legal prostitution.' Over a century later, the American
socialist feminist Emma Goldman maintained "it is merely a question of
degree whether [a woman] sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage,
or to many men."
Still other 19th century feminists, who were involved in the purity
crusades that characterized the Progressive Era, vilified prostitution.
In her essay Not Repeating History, the contemporary advocate for
prostitutes' rights Gail Pheterson reflects on the advice offered by Josephine
Butler. Butler was a 19th century British radical who championed the rights
of prostitutes:
"In 1897, Butler warned her political associates to '...beware of purity
workers (who are)...ready to accept and endorse any amount of coercive
and degrading treatment of their fellow creatures in the fatuous belief
that you can oblige human beings to be moral by force."
Controversy over the issue of prostitution has clouded feminist movements
throughout history. It is a controversy that often reveals more about the
ideology of the movement at that time -- or of a faction within the movement
-- than it does about prostitution itself. The modern debate reveals deep
and fundamental ideological conflicts.
Liberal feminism is divided on the issue. Old fashioned liberals, who
remember the slogan "a woman's body, a woman's right," tend to favor prostitutes'
rights. Still riding the wave of tolerance that swept the '60s and '70s,
these liberals tend to view prostitution as a victimless crime: that is,
an activity in which all parties are consenting adults, an activity that
is a crime only because it offends the moral sensibilities of uninvolved
and uninjured third parties. Some liberals carry tolerance one step farther
into advocacy. They defend prostitution as an extension of the right of
consenting adults to perform whatever sexual acts they wish.
Individualist feminists, arguing from the principle of self-ownership,
also advocate the rights of prostitutes. To them, prostitution is the reverse
of rape during which a woman's body is taken without her consent. In prostitution,
a woman fully consents to sex and often initiates it. If society respects
a woman's right to say 'no' to sex, they argue that society must also respect
her right to say 'yes'.
There is a difference, of course, between prostitution and straight
consensual sex. Prostitution is not merely an exchange of sexual favors;
it is a financial exchange. At this point, individualist feminists rise
to defend the free market as well as a woman's self-ownership. This is
expressed by the question: "Prostitution is a combination of sex and the
free market. Which one are you against?"
Both '60s liberal and individualist feminism view prostitutes as women
in control of their own sexuality...that is, prostitutes set the price,
the timing and circumstances of the sexual exchange. So what's the problem?
Isn't Camille Paglia correct when she states 'the prostitute is not, as
feminists claim, the victim of men, but rather their conqueror...?'
Paglia sees the real problem with prostitution arising from the hypocrisy
and double standards of society. The current second-class citizen status
of prostitutes is a reflection of American Puritanism more than anything
inherent in the profession. Our society tells women to 'marry well', to
get things from men, and to use flirtation to gain favors. Advertising
presents sex as a commodity, as part of the medium of exchange. Prostitution
is just the logical extension of this societal attitude. But, because prostitutes
flagrantly reveal attitudes that are usually left unstated, they are reviled.
To a point, gender (or radical) feminists agree: society is to blame,
not the prostitutes. More specifically, male-dominated society -- as expressed
through capitalism and patriarchy -- is to blame. But this realization
does not sway them toward advocating the rights of prostitutes. Quite the
contrary. Gender feminists seek to eliminate the oldest profession because
it is a creation of patriarchy and, thus, an inherent act of violence against
women as a class.
In her essay, "Prostitution in Contemporary American Society" JoAnn
L. Miller explains how a seemingly voluntary exchange is actually an act
of force:
"Prostitution involves one gender's taking advantage of its superior
social status and manipulating the other gender...Because members of this
less powerful group are compelled or forced, physically or psychologically
to engage in a sexual act, prostitution is fundamentally coercive and exploitative."
Prostitution, it is claimed, legitimizes the social attitudes that subjugate
women as a class. Thus, prostitutes have a moral and political obligation
to stop selling their bodies because these transactions fortify the cultural
assumptions that damage women. These assumptions are said to have dire
consequences. Specifically, prostitution is said to lead to rape. Thus,
prostitutes are contributing to the rape culture.
In her pioneering book Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller insists:
"The case against toleration of prostitution [is] central to the fight
against rape, and if it angers a large part of the liberal population to
be so informed, then I would question in turn the political understanding
of such liberals and their true concern for the rights of women."
What Should be the Legal Status of Prostitution?
The starting point of any debate should be to define the key terms of
the discussion so that everyone understands what is being said. The key
terms of the this particular debate are 'abolition,' 'legalization,' and
'decriminalization.'
1. Abolition (or suppression): government attempts to prohibit all acts
of prostitution, as well as the activities that promote it, such as keeping
a brothel. Abolition -- or absolute criminalization -- is often considered
to be the extreme opposite of legalizing prostitution. Actually, it is
the ultimate in state control of that profession. Abolitionists call for
all forms of prostitution to be considered a criminal offense and suppressed
by force of law.
2. Legalization (or regulation): government has registered prostitutes
with the police and subjected them to rules meant to protect health and
public decency. Legalization refers to some form of state controlled prostitution.
It often includes mandatory medical exams, special taxes, licensing, or
the creation of red light districts. It always includes a government record
of who is a prostitute, information which is commonly used for other government
purposes. For example, some countries in Europe indicate whether a person
is a prostitute on his or her passport. This restricts that person's ability
to travel since many countries will automatically refuse entry on that
basis. Controlling legalized prostitution usually falls to the police.
3. Decriminalization (or tolerance): all laws against prostitution have
been abolished. It refers to the removal of all laws against prostitution,
including laws against pimping. Almost all prostitutes' rights groups in
North America call for the decriminalization of consensual adult sex on
the grounds that laws against such sex violate civil liberties, such as
the freedom of association.
The individualist feminist approach to prostitution is to advocate decriminalization:
that is, the abolition of all laws against selling sex. There are several
reasons for this:
1. Laws against prostitution have historically been used to harass and
oppress women in the sex industry, not the men who are customers. This
means that laws against prostitution almost amount to de facto laws
against women.
Even laws against pimps (assumed to be men) add to the persecution of
prostitutes. This is because pimping is defined in economic terms; a pimp
is merely an associate of a prostitute who receives any of her earnings.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the woman is forced to perform
sex. This definition of a pimp is so broad it includes roommates, lovers,
male adult children, and friends. The associates of prostitutes are often
rounded up under the charge of pimping. This violates the prostitute's
right of free association.
Moreover, since pimps are almost defined as 'those habitually in the
company of prostitutes', anti-pimping laws interfere with the prostitute's
right to marry. A husband would automatically open himself up to charges
of pimping.
2. Laws against activities associated with prostitution also become
de facto laws against women. For example, laws against running a
brothel... In 1949, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted
a legal guideline, ostensibly meant to protect prostitutes. The document
entitled "Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and
of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others". It read, in part:
"The parties to the present convention further agree to punish any person
who:
Keeps or manages, or knowingly finances or takes part in the financing
of a brothel;
Knowingly lets or rents a building or other place or any part thereof
for the purpose of the prostitution of others."
Such laws effectively deny prostitutes the right to work indoors in
a warm, safe, and clean place. They also make it difficult for women to
band together for safety because those work in tandem could be charged
with running a brothel. Anti-brothel laws make prostitutes isolated and
vulnerable.
3. Anti-prostitution laws ensure that prostitutes will be unable to
report violence committed against them to the police. Because the complaints
come from criminals, they are next to never taken seriously or pursued.
Even the murder of a prostitute is often ignored. On the contrary, prostitutes
who complain to the police are likely to be further abused. Margo St. James
claims that 20% of violence against prostitutes comes from pimps, 20% from
police, and 60% from clients...about whom prostitutes cannot go to the
police.
Prostitutes receive no protection from the state, even though they give
a fortune to it by paying off fines.
4. Criminalizing prostitution has driven the profession underground
and resulted in horrible working conditions for the women involved. Moreover,
its black market nature attracts other illegal activities to the trade.
This, in turn, creates a vicious cycle. For example, the stigma and awful
working conditions of prostitution drive women toward drugs, which are
then cited as a reason to strengthen laws against prostitution. Yet drug
addiction is a problem that can be linked to many professions, not the
least of all the medical profession. Only in the case of prostitution are
laws enacted against the profession itself.
5. Anti-prostitution laws function as a form of censorship against women,
because they keep prostitutes from speaking up for fear of being targeted
by police. In Europe, for example, many countries stamp the passports of
prostitutes to identify them as such. Other countries may refuse to admit
them. This serves to restrict the prostitute's travel and activities.
To avoid being branded, prostitutes lie about what they do and keep
silent. Speaking out might result in losing custody of their children and
opening up lovers and friends to charges of pimping. In some countries,
everything a prostitute owns can be taken away from her as the proceeds
of illegal activity. Such repression also hinders the ability of prostitutes
to organize politically.
6. To the extent that prostitution creates a public nuisance, laws already
exist to prevent these problems. The most commonly cited public nuisances
include: children may have to walk by prostitutes and, so, suffer psychological
trauma; prostitutes may destroy the image and safety of a neighborhood;
they cause noise and fights during the night; non-prostitutes may be more
vulnerable to harassment due to the presence of whores.
Feminists should realize that public nuisance arguments for anti-prostitute
laws are smoke screens. These laws are not aimed at removing a nuisance
-- namely, what prostitutes do, e.g. cause noise or disturbances. They
are aimed at removing what prostitutes are -- women who sell sex.
This is clear from the many anti-prostitute ordinances that require no
evidence of bad behavior for a charge to be brought. After all, any real
nuisance that a prostitute creates could be dealt with under existing public
order laws that make it illegal to publicly hurl threats, abuse or obscenity.
The purpose of anti-prostitution laws is to target a specific category
of women for persecution.
As for straight women who are afraid to be out at night...the real problem
lies not with the prostitutes, but with the men who harass and/or physically
abuse any category of woman. Male violence cannot be blamed on prostitutes,
any more than domestic violence can be blamed on wives.
If gender feminists are concerned with the safety and dignity of women,
they should join hands with prostitutes and help them to walk out of the
shadows in which they now live and work. They should cease to feel sorry
for prostitutes and start talking to them as equals. Feminists need the
insights of prostitutes as much as prostitutes need the political clout
of feminists.
Feminists of all stripes should speak with one voice to demand the safety
of these women by granting them the same protection as any other woman
can expect. Only decriminalization can provide this.
