Feminist views on prostitution

These feminists argue that, in most cases, prostitution is not a conscious and calculated choice. They say that most women who become prostitutes do so because they were forced or coerced by a pimp or by human trafficking, or, when it is an independent decision, it is generally the result of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, or of serious underlying problems, such as drug addiction, past trauma (such as child sexual abuse) and other unfortunate circumstances.

These feminists point out that women from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women, women with a low level of education, women from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in prostitution all over the world; as stated by Catherine MacKinnon: "If prostitution is a free choice, why are the women with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?".[10][11] A large percentage of prostitutes polled in one study of 475 people involved in prostitution reported that they were in a difficult period of their lives and most wanted to leave the occupation.[12] Catharine MacKinnon argues that "In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with. The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape."[13]

Some anti-prostitution scholars hold that true consent in prostitution is not possible. Barbara Sullivan says, "In the academic literature on prostitution there are very few authors who argue that valid consent to prostitution is possible. Most suggest that consent to prostitution is impossible or at least unlikely.".[14] "(...) most authors suggest that consent to prostitution is deeply problematic if not impossible (...) most authors have argued that consent to prostitution is impossible. For radical feminists this is because prostitution is always a coercive sexual practice. Others simply suggest that economic coercion makes the sexual consent of sex workers highly problematic if not impossible...".[15]

Finally, abolitionists believe no person can be said to truly consent to their own oppression and no people should have the right to consent to the oppression of others. In the words of Kathleen Barry, consent is not a “good divining rod as to the existence of oppression, and consent to violation is a fact of oppression. Oppression cannot effectively be gauged according to the degree of 'consent,' since even in slavery there was some consent, if consent is defined as inability to see any alternative."[16]

Anti-prostitution feminists argue that prostitution is a practice which leads to serious negative long-term effects for the prostitutes, such as trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug use, eating disorders and a greater risk for self-harm and suicide, as they say prostitution is an exploitative practice, which involves a woman who has sex with customers to whom she is not attracted, and which also routinely exposes the women to psychological, physical and sexual violence.[17][18][19]

Andrea Dworkin stated her opinions as: "Prostitution in and of itself is an abuse of a woman's body. Those of us who say this are accused of being simple-minded. But prostitution is very simple. (…) In prostitution, no woman stays whole. It is impossible to use a human body in the way women's bodies are used in prostitution and to have a whole human being at the end of it, or in the middle of it, or close to the beginning of it. It's impossible. And no woman gets whole again later, after.”[20]

Anti-prostitution feminists are extremely critical of sex-positive perspectives, wherein prostitution by choice is said to be part of the sexual liberation of women, that it can be empowering for women, etc. Some feminists who oppose prostitution agree that sexual liberation for women outside of prostitution is important in the fight for gender equality, but they say it is crucial that society does not replace one patriarchal view on female sexuality - e.g., that women should not have sex outside marriage/a relationship and that casual sex is shameful for a woman, etc. - with another similarly oppressive and patriarchal view - acceptance of prostitution, a sexual practice which is based on a highly patriarchal construct of sexuality: that the sexual pleasure of a woman is irrelevant, that her only role during sex is to submit to the man's sexual demands and to do what he tells her, that sex should be controlled by the man and that the woman's response and satisfaction are irrelevant. These feminists argue that sexual liberation for women cannot be achieved as long as we normalize unequal sexual practices where a man dominates a woman.[21]

Such feminists see prostitution as a form of male dominance over women, as the client has sex with a woman who does not enjoy it and who may be making a tremendous psychological effort to mentally dissociate herself from the client. They say that the act of prostitution is not a mutual and equal sex act as it puts the woman in a subordinate position, reducing her to a mere instrument of sexual pleasure for the client. These feminists believe that many clients use the services of prostitutes because they enjoy the "power trip" they derive from the act and the control they have over the woman during the sexual activity. Catharine MacKinnon argues that prostitution "isn't sex only, it’s you do what I say, sex."[22]

Prostitution is seen by these feminists as the result of a patriarchal societal order which subordinates women to men and where the inequality between genders is present in all aspects of life. These feminists believe that prostitution is very harmful to society as it reinforces the idea that women are sex objects which exist for men's enjoyment, which can be "bought" and which can be "used" solely for men's sexual gratification. Anti-prostitution feminists argue that when a society accepts prostitution it sends the message that it is irrelevant how the woman feels during sex or what the consequences of sex will be for her, and that it is acceptable for a man to engage in sexual activity with a woman who does not enjoy it and who could be mentally and emotionally forcing herself in order to be able to cope; the normalization of such one sided sexual encounters might negatively affect the way men relate to women in general and might increase sexual violence against women.

These feminists see prostitution as a form of slavery, and say that, far from decreasing rape rates, prostitution leads to a sharp increase in sexual violence against women, by sending the message that it is acceptable for a man to treat a woman as a sexual instrument over which he has total control. Melissa Farley argues that Nevada's high rape rate is connected to legal prostitution because Nevada is the only US state which allows legal brothels and is ranked 4th out of the 50 U.S. states for sexual assault crimes,[23] saying, "Nevada's rape rate is higher than the U.S. average and way higher than the rape rate in California, New York and New Jersey. Why is this? Legal prostitution creates an atmosphere in this state in which women are not humans equal to them, are disrespected by men, and which then sets the stage of increased violence against women."[24]

Some feminists, including many who identify as supporting the abolition of prostitution, see the selling of sex as a potential after effect of violence against women. Those who support this position cite studies of violence experienced by women in prostitution prior to entering prostitution. Most (60% to 70%) were sexually abused as children[25] 65% have been raped, most before the age of 15,[26] and that many young women and girls enter prostitution directly from state care, at least in England, Norway, Australia and Canada.[27]

Prostitution abolitionists also object to the high rates of violence against women in the sex industry. Studies of women in prostitution show an extremely high level of violence is perpetrated against women in prostitution. Figures vary across studies. One representative study showed 82% of respondents had been physically assaulted since entering prostitution, 55% of those by clients. Additionally, 80% had been physically threatened while in prostitution, 83% of those with a weapon. 8% reported physical attacks by pimps and clients of a nature that resulted in serious injury, for example gunshot wounds and knife wounds. 68% reported having been raped since entering prostitution, 48% more than five times and 46% reporting rapes committed by clients. Finally, 49% reported pornography was made of them while they were in prostitution and 32% had been upset by an attempt to make them do what clients had seen in pornography.[28] Women in indoor and outdoor prostitution both report high levels of violence and constant need for vigilance and fear. Many brothels have installed panic buttons because of the ongoing threat of violence indoors.

Beyond the individual instances of violence or the history of violence suffered by most women in prostitution, prostitution abolitionists see prostitution itself as a form of male violence against women and children.[28][29][30] This understanding is the major theoretical root of calls to decriminalize prostitution(mostly women), but continue to criminalize those who prostitute them, including clients, pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Prostitution abolitionists also cite similarities between prostitution and violence against women. Farley, Lynne and Cotton (2005) argue the prostitution is most like battery because it similarly involves a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour (by pimps, procurers and traffickers as well as clients) that results in the control of the women in prostitution.[31] Research conducted by Giobbe (1993) found similarities in the behaviour of pimps and batterers, in particular, through their use of enforced social isolation, threats, intimidation, verbal and sexual abuse, attitudes of ownership, and extreme physical violence.[32] Some prostitutes argue prostitution has similarities to rape because it is a form of sexuality that is entirely controlled by the client, as rape is a form of sexuality in which the rapist controls the interaction, disregarding the desires, physical well-being or emotional pain of the victim.[33]

Prostitution abolitionists often look at the factors of class and race when forming their arguments against prostitution in order to assess the power held by the client[34] That is, they see prostitution as compelled by multiple forms of oppressive social power, not just sexism against women. Some analysts on human rights issues surrounding prostitution, such as Sigma Huda in her report for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, also adopt this approach:

“The act of prostitution by definition joins together two forms of social power (sex and money) in one interaction. In both realms (sexuality and economics) men hold substantial and systematic power over women. In prostitution, these power disparities merge in an act which both assigns and reaffirms the dominant social status of men over the subordinated social status of women.”[35]

“The demand for commercial sex is often further grounded in social power disparities of race, nationality, caste and colour.”[35]

Abolitionists attribute prostitution to women's comparative lack of economic resources. Globalisation and neoliberalism have exacerbated already unequal economic relations, including by cutting back social spending in Northern and formerly socialist countries, and increasing the demand for cheap labour, including in prostitution, in both Southern and Northern countries.[36] Combined with sex discrimination in wages and job type, sexual harassment in the workplace, and an undue burden of caring for children, the elderly and the ill, women are at a significant economic disadvantage in the current economic structure. Poverty is the single greatest “push” factor making women vulnerable to accepting prostitution as a means of subsistence.[30][37]

In addition, racism shapes women's entry into prostitution, both because it makes women more vulnerable to prostitution and because clients demand racialized women in prostitution. Racism in education, economic and political systems affect the choices of women of colour. Additionally, racist sexualisation, through pornography in particular, of Black and Asian women as over-sexed and submissive or otherwise available for prostitution contributes to the demand for specifically racialized women.[38] Massage parlours, strip clubs and other prostitution businesses are often located in poor and racialized neighbourhoods, encouraging clients to troll those neighbourhoods for women, making all women in those neighbourhoods vulnerable to prostitution-related harassment and women in those neighbourhoods more likely to accept their use in prostitution as normal.[38]

Indigenous women around the world are particularly targeted for prostitution. In Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, and Taiwan, studies have shown that indigenous women are at the bottom of the race and class hierarchy of prostitution, often subjected to the worst conditions, most violent demands and sold at the lowest price.[31] It is common for indigenous women to be over-represented in prostitution when compared with their total population. This is as a result of the combined forces of colonialism, physical displacement from ancestral lands, destruction of indigenous social and cultural order, misogyny, globalization/neoliberalism, race discrimination and extremely high levels of violence perpetrated against them.[31] The Aboriginal Women's Action Network, an abolitionist organization in Canada, has specifically noted that because the prostitution of Aboriginal women results from and reinforces such extreme hatred of Aboriginal women, no regime of legalisation (which will expand the industry and entrap more women) can be safer for Aboriginal women. Prostitution can only further harm Aboriginal women.[29]

In 1999, Sweden became the first country to make it illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute). Similar laws were passed in Norway (in 2009)[39] and in Iceland (in 2009).[40] In February 2014, the members of the European Parliament voted in a non-binding resolution, (adopted by 343 votes to 139; with 105 abstentions), in favor of the 'Swedish Model' of criminalizing the buying, but not the selling of sex.[41] In 2014, the Council of Europe has made a similar recommendation, stating that "While each system presents advantages and disadvantages, policies prohibiting the purchase of sexual services are those that are more likely to have a positive impact on reducing trafficking in human beings".[42][43]

During 2011, the newly elected government of Denmark began discussing the possibility of banning the buying of sexual services.[44] while during 2009, there is lobbying taking place for such a law in Hungary.[45]

These laws are a natural extension of the views of the feminists who oppose prostitution. These feminists reject the idea that prostitution can be reformed, and oppose any harm reduction approach. Trisha Baptie, a Canadian former prostitute, who now opposes the industry, and lobbies for the outlawing of buying sexual services, wrote: "Harm reduction ? You can’t make prostitution "safer"; prostitution is violence in itself. It is rape, the money only appeases men's guilt,[46] " "One of the most “sex-positive” things you can do is make sure men cannot buy sex, because the buying of sex is violence against women and is a direct deterrent to women’s equality.[47] "

These feminists see prostitution as a form of violence against women and vehemently condemn the common pro-legalization argument that "prostitution has always existed and will never go away", arguing that other violent acts such as murder, rape and child sexual abuse have also always existed and will never be eradicated either, and that is not a reason to legalize them. These feminists argue that the idea of legalizing prostitution in order to control it and "make it a little better" and reduce harm is no different from the idea of legalizing domestic violence in order to control it and "make it a little better" and reduce harm.[48]

Activists and scholars who are proponents of the pro-sex work position include: Margo St. James, Norma Jean Almodovar,[49] Kamala Kempadoo,[50] Laura María Agustín, Annie Sprinkle, Carol Leigh (also known as Scarlot Harlot), Carol Queen, Amin Yacoub, and Audacia Ray.

To assist women not involved in traditional “woman’s work,” pro-sex work formed to create a helpful environment for sex workers. Social activist groups like The Red Thread, founded in 1985, seek to educate the public, provide legal and medical assistance to sex workers, and help organize sex workers into groups in order to better protect themselves and to become advocates.[51] Liberal feminists and groups such as The Red Thread, The International Committee for Prostitutes (ICPR) and COYOTE seek to ensure that sex work is seen as a valid choice that women may make without overtly oppressive forces.

One view is that sex work not only empowers women, but it provides women with greater opportunities for financial advancement.[52] There are liberal and radical feminist proponents of female empowerment through sex work.[53] Liberal feminists view prostitution as the sale of sex solely for economic gain, and thus it cannot be differentiated from any other sale of goods. The selling of sex ultimately consists of a buyer and a seller trying to negotiate for the best deal.[54] Interfering in this sale of goods could not only be interfering with the rights of the buyer, but also of the seller. Women who have chosen to enter the field should not be looked down upon and should not have their choice considered to be lesser than another type of socially accepted employment. Liberal feminists argue that while prostitution and sex work may not be the ideal job for many women, it can provide a way of life and prosperity that would be otherwise unattainable.[54] Sex work can be seen as a better alternative to working for minimum wage or working in a field that that society decided is “woman’s work.”

To conclude that all sex workers partake in the industry because of oppression, past sexual abuse, and lack of opportunity, creates a critical division in feminism and equality. Assuming that all women who chose to partake in sex work are victims of oppression violates their ability to make an autonomous choice. The autonomy theory of feminism seeks to instill in women the right to “stand on their own, make their own decisions, and pursue their own notion of a life lived well.”[55] It cannot be ignored that some women freely chose to become sex workers not because of oppression, but because of their love for sex and desire for power.

Sex work can also create a sense of independence for women.[54] Rather than relying on a husband or a partner, sex work allows women to make choices completely free from pressure or influence. While women are socialized to hide their sexuality, sex workers are free to explore their sexuality and to openly choose their sexual partners. Sex workers, whether they work on the streets or in hotels, have the freedom to accept or to reject clients. They are free to accept or to decline any sexual advance. This stands in direct opposition to the married housewife who does not have the sexual autonomy of the sex worker.[56]

Whereas radical feminists consider sex workers to be victims of circumstances and false consciousness,[57] the liberal feminists and women who chose to participate in sex work do not consider themselves to be victims of any sort. Instead, they consider their actions to be liberating and providing them with a sense of control.[58]

Sex work and prostitution have often been compared to a marriage in which the man is the breadwinner, while the woman stays at home and cares for the family. There does not appear to be a distinction between the woman who has devoted her body to her husband in exchange for his promise to take care of her, and the sex worker who has chosen to sell sexual acts in exchange for payment.[54] Those who are opposed to prostitution will state that marriage and monogamy cannot be compared to prostitution because a marriage is beyond a contract, and a marriage does not advocate for the dominance of the man over the woman.[59] However, the difference goes beyond dominance but to choice. The true difference between the dependent spouse and the sex worker is that the independent sex worker does not belong to one man; in fact, she does not belong to anyone but herself.

Liberal feminists argue that the patriarchal and moralistic view of sex as the ultimate expression of a woman's love must be changed in order for society to truly understand the sexual nature of women.[60] A pro sex worker stance is inextricably linked to the idea of women finally not being forced to view romantic sex as the only type of sex.[54] Notions of “proper womanhood and conventional sexuality”[61] cannot be linked to a woman's choice in one sexual partner or multiple, or a woman's choice to engage in sexual intercourse in exchange for love or for money. Proper woman is a term that has its definition rooted in socialization and not fact. Prostitution and sex work are about more than the female sexual experience. Sex work can provide female empowerment and instill “a sense of self worth, self-confidence, and self esteem".[62]

Feminists who support the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution argue that one of the significant flaws with the radical anti-prostitution feminist view is that a majority of its arguments are premised on the assumption that prostitution itself is inherently laced with sexism, classism and other unbalanced power relations. The institution of prostitution itself is seen by abolitionists as resting on these conditions and therefore they believe legalization or decriminalization will only lead to the reinforcement of these conditions. Pro-sex-work feminists argue that this assumption is flawed, and that while prostitution, as it currently exists in our society, can be misogynist or degrading in some manifestations, there is a grave danger in attributing these conditions to prostitution itself. They argue that targeting prostitution as a whole unduly focuses attention on this single institution in our society, rather than looking at society at large and the social institutions, laws and practices that lead to the subordination and oppression of women.[63][64] There has been much debate over the last few decades amongst feminists about how laws relating to prostitution should be reformed. Most liberal feminists who look at prostitution from a capitalist perspective support some form of either decriminalization or legalization.

Decriminalization is the removal of all penalties for prostitution itself and for all the activities necessary for prostitutes to do their work, such as advertising, communicating with clients, etc. It does not mean the reversal of all laws relating to prostitution, for example laws that exist against forcing someone into prostitution. For the purposes of decriminalization, Feminists for Free Expression defines the word “prostitution” to mean any consensual sexual activity between adults where compensation is involved; nonconsensual sex acts or sex acts perpetrated against minors are not prostitution, in their view. Instead they prefer the term "criminal sexual acts".[65]

The term 'legalization', on the other hand, is usually used in the context of prostitution to refer to the use of criminal laws to regulate prostitution by determining the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization can mean anything from rigid controls under a state-controlled system to merely defining the operation of a privatized sex industry. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for anyone who operates outside the legally defined framework.[66] With legalization there may be rules about where prostitution can take place (for example only in state licensed brothels), what prostitutes can do, mandatory registry/licensing and frequent mandatory health exams.[67]

Some pro-sex-worker feminists support decriminalization and some support legalization, for different reasons. Proponents of decriminalization believe that all people, including sex workers, are entitled to the same rights regarding safety, health and human rights, and that outdated criminal laws need to be reformed in order to improve the living and working conditions of sex workers. They argue that decriminalization is better for the workers than legalization and that both criminalization and heavily regulated legalization infringe on the workers' safety and human rights.[68] Many feminists who support sex workers favor decriminalization because it allows prostitutes to go into business for themselves and self-determination is a tenet of feminist politics.[65] They believe decriminalization fosters responsibility, empowerment, self-esteem and self-care, all important feminist values. The goal in decriminalizing sex work is that anyone doing any type of sex work would be treated the same way, with the same rights and responsibilities, as any other self-employed person.[67] Whether they support decriminalization or some form of legalization, pro-sex work feminists believe that the current laws that exist surrounding prostitution in many countries need to be changed and are harmful to the people who work in the industry.

Pro-sex work advocates also point out that many men and non-binary individuals also willingly engage in sex work for a variety of reasons. Gay and bisexual men, for example, often view sex work as a profitable extension of their normal sex lives, sometimes using sex work to supplement their regular incomes. These sex workers argue that anti-sex work advocates harm them by passing anti-sex work laws and reducing state-run social services.[69]

When discussing prostitution and theorizing about prostitution, sex workers are often assumed to be cisgender women. In the writings of abolitionist feminists like Catharine MacKinnon, the language used is in reference to women who are prostitutes, as she writes “Not only is prostitution overwhemingly done to women by men, but every aspect of the condition has defined gender female as such and as inferior for centuries”.[10] Foundational feminists texts covering prostitution also cite prostitution as being created on the basis of the exploitation of women, for example being described as “at its core a manifestation of male violence against women”.[33] There is not much research on non-cisgender women sex workers, and more recent gender scholars have theorized about transgender and non-binary individuals who have performed sex work/labor. These theorists have found that, in regards to gender diversity in feminist literature, that “all trans sex workers are women, and all male sex workers are assumed to be cisgender”.[70] As a whole, abolitionists feminists who are against prostitution do not comment on sex workers who are not cisgender women, while those who are in favor of the legalization of sex work also rarely address transgender sex workers and see those who are transgender and gender non-binary as a “special interest” group rather than part of the discourse surrounding prostitution.[70]

In 1997, Thailand had an estimated two hundred thousand women and children that were involved in prostitution.[73] An estimated 11 percent of the country's gross domestic income is from prostitution. This means that prostitution has become a necessary source of revenue. This contradiction in the country arises because they are stuck in between traditional and modern views because the amount of gross national income prostitution brings into the country. - uncertain data -[74]

A large number of women and children are trafficked from Africa to other parts of the world. Many of the women are trafficked to work as prostitutes. It has been suggested that the scale of the trafficking may be in part due to many Africans having no birth registration and hence no official nationality, making them easier to transport across borders. It is also argued that the significant negative economic impact on Africa resulting from this trafficking combines with the continent's existing high levels of poverty and low educational attainment to further expand the supply for human traffickers.[75]