MOTION #75: THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALISE PROSTITUTION
The exchange of
personal sexual services for economic rewards has a long history. It is
important to distinguish different kinds of markets in sexual services in order
to determine the appropriate societal response. For example, markets in sexual
services that involve coerced sex, children, fraud and deception, and, in
general, non-consensual and egregiously exploitative sexual or labor practices,
are immoral and should be restricted. Theorists often use the terms “human
trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” or “sexual slavery” to describe such
practices, and the service providers in these practices have the status of a
victim or slave.
There are markets in
sexual services that do not appear to involve forced labor or sex, and in which
the workers seem reasonably well compensated. Debates over prostitution often
focus on the issue of whether genuinely voluntary markets can exist or whether
markets in sexual services are inherently coercive, oppressive, and harmful to
the individuals who participate, as well as to non-involved third parties.
Prostitutes are highly
stigmatized for the work they do, and those who condemn this work believe that
it is shameful and immoral, and has no place in a just social order. Others
believe it is a necessary evil, in that if men (primarily) could not satisfy
their sexual urges through some form of commoditized sexual service, these
urges would find a more socially disruptive outlet. Some feminists argue that prostitution is a
relic from older patriarchal societies in which men’s access to the bodies of
subordinates was a privilege and expression of men’s social power. Many
contemporary “sex workers” (a term coined by prostitutes’ rights activists)
report that their clients have various motives, but primarily to seek relief
from loneliness or to have uncomplicated sex. These sex workers believe that
they are providing a valuable and morally permissible service to their clients
and, by earning a living doing valuable work, they are making a contribution to
their societies. In short, women (and men) who offer their labor in various
types of sex trades believe that the stigma that attaches to them and their
work is unfair and undeserved.
The appropriate
societal response to human trafficking and slavery is abolition. The
abolitionist approach criminalizes only the activities of the client and others
who profit from sex trafficking, but not the provider of sexual services. Providers
are treated as victims whom others exploit by luring them into sex trades. For
sex markets not involving forced labor or sex, there are three standard
approaches: prohibition, legalisation, and decriminalisation. The
prohibitionist approach criminalizes the activities of the provider, client,
and other persons who profit from sex market transactions. The legalization
approach tolerates sex markets and businesses, but restricts them in ways that
are specific to this industry. Regulations may include mandatory STD testing or
condom use, zoning restrictions, special licencing requirements for businesses,
government registration of workers, restrictions on advertising, and minimum
age restrictions for providers and customers. The decriminalization approach
seeks to remove both criminal and special regulatory restrictions and to
regulate markets in sex in ways that are common for non-sex businesses.
The abolitionist approach collapses sex trafficking and prostitution
together, as proponents generally believe that few workers enter sex markets
voluntarily, and those who do are not acting in their best interest. The decriminalization approach typically
recognizes the need for some special regulation (at least those appropriate to
adult businesses, such as liquor stores), but proponents often oppose the
regulatory schemes currently in use (especially, registration and mandatory
health exams for workers). For the sake
of argument, this debate assumes that some service providers enter sex markets
voluntarily and with a rational assessment of their interests, and that some
special regulation is necessary even if we have not yet come up with the best
scheme. Therefore this debate will focus
on legalization verses prohibition.
Pros
|
Cons
|
Prohibition does more harm than good. Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual
services does not protect those who sell or buy such services, but rather
pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual
services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded
when such markets are prohibited. When
selling and buying sex is illegal, those participating in these exchanges
cannot, or simply do not, seek the protection of the law when their rights
are violated. Because crimes against
sex workers or their clients are often unreported, and when reported often
not investigated, predators and rights violators can take advantage of others
without fear of arrest and punishment.
Moreover, because criminalization forces sex work into remote and
invisible corners of society, sellers and buyers are less able to insure
their safety and protection. For these
reasons, laws criminalizing sex markets amplify the risks sellers and buyers
face when they participate in sex market transactions.
The main purpose of criminalizing sex markets is to
protect those who enter such markets from harm. Yet the harms of paying or accepting money
for a good that can be legally exchanged for free are far less than the harms
that result from the rights violations that often occur (robbery, battery,
sexual assault, murder) when sex markets are pushed underground.
|
The fact that
prohibition cannot prevent prostitution is not an argument against
prohibition. We have laws prohibiting
murder, and yet murders happen. Our
laws deter some murders and they express our society’s moral outrage
regarding murder.
Similarly, laws prohibiting prostitution deter some
prostitution and express our society’s moral condemnation of sex for
hire. These laws do not create harms,
rather prostitution itself creates harms, by robbing those who participate of
self-respect, and contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases. It is inevitable that laws prohibiting prostitution will make it
riskier to engage in prostitution, as this is the purpose of such laws: to
provide disincentives to those who might otherwise engage in this activity.
|
Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs. While many societies have attempted to restrict sex to
marriage, few (if any) have succeeded.
In contemporary, secular liberal societies, adults are no longer
punished for pursuing sex outside of marriage. Many adults find non-marital
sex satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling, whether it occurs in the context of
an ongoing romantic relationship, a casual friendship, or a market
exchange. While many people will never
seek the services of a sex worker, those who do are often seeking sensual
comfort, companionship, entertainment, and fantasy fulfilment. While the latter goods are often obtainable
in non-market relationships, some people prefer the convenience and
efficiency of market mechanisms for securing these goods.
In a liberal society, individuals are free to pursue
their own vision of happiness, as long as they respect the moral and civil
rights of others. Markets that provide
sexual services enable some individuals to secure goods essential to their
happiness. Those who provide services
to these individuals can do so in a manner that respects their rights and
dignity, if the markets are legal and well regulated.
|
Market mechanisms
are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically
needed bodily substances or organs, and sex.
These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate
these goods for payment. Instead, the
terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all involved.
While sexual relationships serve legitimate needs, it
does not follow that we should be able to purchase them. Having children serves legitimate needs, but
we do not think that people should be able to buy children. Buying sex robs the provider of dignity and
the right to sexual autonomy.
Moreover, people are not entitled to some goods simply because they
have money. If we allow money to
determine who can have children, donated organs, or sexual intimacy, then
this will lead to unfair distributions.
Market mechanisms may eclipse other forms of exchange, and deprive
those without significant wealth of the means to happiness.
|
Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy. Sexual autonomy means being able to control when,
where, and with whom one has sexual relations. It also means that, at any moment, one may
withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter.
Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to
sexual autonomy. If an adult chooses
to engage in sex with other adults who offer material benefits, her right to
sexual autonomy is respected as long as she has control over when, where, and
with which clients she has sexual relations, and as long as she is mentally
competent and is allowed to terminate the agreement at any time.
If markets in sex were to become legal, the rights of
providers (and clients) to sexual autonomy would need to be respected. This means that sex workers would maintain
the right to refuse service to any customer, and to discontinue service or
employment at any time and for any reason.
Like other workers, sexual service providers would have the right to a
safe and healthy work place. Workers
who are drug dependent, or otherwise incompetent or highly vulnerable in the
work place, would need to be provided treatment and time off work until they
were capable of protecting themselves and others.
|
No person would sell
sex unless they were desperate. To
have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, desire, and
affection is repulsive to any sane and mentally competent adult.
People who sell sex are not exercising sexual autonomy,
but are giving up their right to sexual autonomy in order to support
themselves and their families. Instead
of legalizing sex markets, societies should provide other means of employment
and a basic standard of living to all members, so that no one has to resort
to prostitution to survive.
|
Legalization has benefits for society. Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase
of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect
participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially
beneficial. In particular, sex
enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the
communities in which they operated. By
allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers, clients, and business
owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their
communities. Sex businesses and
workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees. Business owners would be expected to comply
with standard business laws and regulations.
Moreover, the government could enact special regulations appropriate
to this industry, such as age restrictions on workers and clients, and
mandatory condom use.
The resources that are currently allocated to arrest,
prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and clients could be reallocated for
better uses. For example, these
resources could be used to better address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual
assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and the many public and
individual needs that go unmet.
|
Legalizing
prostitution would unleash forces that exploit vulnerable women and men for
profit. People with the means to buy
sexual access to others would be able to exploit those who are poor, young,
or inexperienced. By legalizing
prostitution, society endorses impersonal and promiscuous sexual relations
that damage individuals and families.
The resources we allocate to protect vulnerable
citizens from sexual exploitation, and to uphold the values of sexual
commitment, loyalty, and responsibility, are well spent, and the foundation
of a healthy social order.
|
Legalization would free up resources that could be
devoted to eliminating sex trafficking. Some markets in sex
should be blocked. Markets that
involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention,
should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should
be prosecuted. As with any service, it
is critically important that no one is forced to work or to continue working,
either through the threat of harm or through fraud and deception. It is also critically important that
children are protected from sexual predators, and are excluded from all
aspects of sex businesses. Forced
labor and child sexual abuse involve violations of basic human rights that
all societies are expected to protect.
Voluntary, adult sex work is significantly different
from trafficking, and law enforcers need to distinguish market exchanges
involving consensual sex among adults from market exchanges involving forced
sex among adults or involving minors.
By legalizing voluntary, adult sex work, law enforcers and rights
protectors could focus their efforts on eliminating markets that involve the
sexual abuse of adults or children.
Additionally, clients of sex business would have the choice of
patronizing legal business, and therefore would be less likely to patronize
inadvertently a business that relies on forced or child labor.
|
While some sex
market transactions are more consensual than others, all sex markets treat
people like objects to be used and exploited by others. Sex should not be turned into work or a
business from which some people profit, even when the labor is allegedly
voluntary.
Moreover, it is not evident that the proliferation of
legal sex businesses would involve the proliferation of sex businesses that
acted ethically and responsibly. If
sex businesses could operate in a more lax and permissive environment, many
abuses would go undetected. Because of
the already noxious aspects of this industry, abuses such as fraud,
deception, and coercion are intolerable.
|
Sex exchanged for money may not have the same value and
meaning as sex exchanged as a gift among lovers. Yet, it does not follow from this that
paid sex is without value. The value
of paid sex is clearly subjective, and may be derived from its ability to
provide sensual pleasure, sex education, and relief from stress, boredom, or
loneliness. It may be less meaningful
and enjoyable than sex with a romantic companion, but when the latter is not
an option, paid sex may be an acceptable substitute. Since people have different expectations
from paid sex than non-market romantic sex, they are not likely to suffer
emotional and psychological damage from the former.
Individuals who are not in monogamous relationships,
and who have multiple sexual partners must take special precautions to
protect their physical health, whether money is exchanged or not. Sex work does not pose additional health
risks that are not otherwise faced by sexually active but non-monogamous
individuals. There are precautions
that all sexually active people can take to protect their health, such as
rigorous condom use and regular health exams.
Moreover, societies can promote education about STDs and how they are
transmitted and detected, so that all sexually active individuals can learn
how protect themselves.
Markets in sex do not in themselves precipitate harms
or pose a public health threat, rather ignorance about sex and STDs, and
barriers to health care and prophylactics such as condoms, are responsible
for the harms of sex.
|
Prohibition prevents
harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex. The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is
bartered. Taking or offering money
cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many
on the open market diminishes its value.
Moreover, while the benefits of commoditized sex are questionable, the
harms are significant. Those who
engage in such exchanges diminish their capacity for genuine sexual intimacy,
while damaging their physical, emotional, and mental health. Moreover, the harms of market sexual transactions
often affect non-involved third parties, such as the spouses or lovers of
sellers and buyers.
Because the harms of market sex are long lasting,
though sometimes distant, it is appropriate for society to intervene to
prevent these harms. Markets in sex
pose a public health threat, just like markets in dangerous drugs. Prohibition will reduce the number of
people who engage in market sexual transactions, and for those who do
participate, there are ways to minimize violations of their rights.
|
People who engage in market sexual relationships and
other forms of casual sex can treat their partners with dignity and
respect. This involves respecting the
boundaries that sexual partners communicate to each other, regarding what
parts of their lives and themselves they are willing to share. With different sexual partners we open up
in different ways, and people who engage in casual, market sexual
relationships might draw different emotional and sexual boundaries in these
relationships than in others. While
casual sexual relationships are unlikely to involve commitments of fidelity
and exclusivity, they are compatible with the decent and respectful treatment
of others if persons in these relationships respect their partners’ rights to
privacy, autonomy, and other basic interests.
|
Markets in sexual
services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty. Sexual relationships involve crossing ordinary social
boundaries that exist between people, and exposing aspects of ourselves that
normally remain private. This aspect
of sexual relationships renders the parties vulnerable emotionally and
socially, and therefore sexual partners often extract commitments from each
other of sexual fidelity and exclusivity.
These commitments allow people to engage in sexual relationships while
treating each other with decency and respect.
Markets are public and involve exchanges among
strangers. In markets, goods are
exchanged with the highest bidders and not with those to whom we are
committed and loyal. For this reason, markets
in sex undermine the ideals of sexual commitment, loyalty, or exclusivity,
which makes decent and respectful sexual relationships possible. Markets are for exchanging shoes and cars,
or services that we can separate from ourselves without leaving us
emotionally and socially vulnerable or exposed. Sexual relationships require commitments of
fidelity and exclusivity so we don’t lose part of ourselves in the exchange.
|
In market sexual transactions, each party pursues the
satisfaction of her/his desires. The
service provider is typically pursuing her desire for income, while the
client is typically pursuing his desire for sensual enjoyment and intimate
companionship. As long as each party
respects the terms of the exchange, they are treating each other as beings
with ends of their own, and therefore morally.
|
Moral sex requires
more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values. Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a
means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own. This means that we are morally required to
consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish
desires. In market sexual
transactions, the client merely pursues the satisfaction of his own desires,
and therefore treats the service provider as a means to his own ends.
Because prostitution inevitably involves the
instrumental and immoral treatment of others, toleration of prostitution
involves the toleration of immoral behaviour.
Society should uphold moral values by banning prostitution.
|
Consumers can access the healing capacities of health
care providers without coming to regard the people who provide health care as
replaceable market goods rather than unique human subjects. Consumers can access the cooking talents of
chefs without coming to regard the people who provide good food as
replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects. Sex markets may differ in that the position
of consumer and provider is often shaped by gender and other social
markers. But if this is what causes
the degradation of the provider into a replaceable and exploitable good, then
what needs to change is how positions in this market are shaped by one’s
social identity, rather than eliminating sex markets.
All markets are structured by social hierarchies. As
illegitimate social hierarchies based on gender, race, class, and so on, are
dismantled, then this will have beneficial effects on all markets and not
just sex markets.
|
Markets in sex would
corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into
commodities. Markets in sex are shaped by
values that differ from non-market sexual relationships. Market sexual transactions are not
structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social
intimates, but rather by the ends of profit maximization and mutual benefit
among strangers. The goods exchanged in a market are interchangeable with
other goods, in ways that maximize profit and mutual benefit. When these
goods include sexual services, the sexual services of one provider will be interchangeable
with those of another.
The position of seller or buyer in a particular market
is often determined by one’s gender, class, race, and nationality. In sex markets, sellers are typically
female, and buyers are typically male.
Race, class, and other social hierarchies also shape one’s position in
a sex market. Because the sellers in
sex markets are often people who are disadvantaged by their gender, class,
race, or nationality, the existence of markets in their sexual services will
promote the idea that the sexual capacities of women (and other disadvantaged
groups) are goods that are interchangeable and exploitable. The idea that the sexual capacities of
women (and girls) can be accessed as market goods or commodities will shape
attitudes toward women and girls who do not enter sex markets as
providers. In this way, the values
that structure markets in sex will spill over into non-market sexual
relationships, and lead men to regard women as replaceable goods rather than
unique human subjects.
|
0 Comments