SEX work is back in the news. Having hardly been broached in
polite conversation since the State Government's "tolerance zone"
policy for street sex work went down in flames five years ago, the
West Australian Government's decision to decriminalise and regulate
indoor prostitution has refocused minds around the country on the
best way to manage the oldest profession.
As a feminist academic and long-time St Kilda resident, I've
been thinking about these issues for a long time. Only recently,
however, have I arrived at what I think is a fair and sensible
approach, one that recognises women as moral agents capable of
accepting both the rights and responsibilities associated with
selling sex.
It looks like this. Advocates and opponents of decriminalisation
adopt extreme characterisations of women to justify their
positions. On one side are the decriminalisation advocates โ
self-proclaimed unions or advocacy groups for prostitutes โ
who contend that sex work is a job like any other, that women have
a right to perform this "work" whenever and wherever they like and
that society is obliged to regulate to protect sex-sellers from the
risks associated with having serial sex with unknown men.
In the opposing corner are the radical feminists and members of
the religious right. For this unholy alliance, prostitution is
always a violent and exploitative encounter that, by definition, no
competent woman would ever choose to participate in. As two
Norwegian scientists put it, "no one wants to rent out her vagina
as a garbage can for hordes of anonymous men's ejaculations".
Dismissing with an imperious hand-wave the claims of some
prostitutes that they freely choose to sell their bodies, real and
pseudo radical feminists and religious wowsers persist in
describing all sex-sellers as victims whom they must protect by
enforcing no-tolerance policies.
The victim approach to managing street prostitution is
objectionable on a number of grounds. These include its obnoxious
paternalism and the disingenuous way in which political agitation
designed to impose the agitator's view of what is best on everyone
else is dressed up as selfless "feminist" advocacy on behalf of
women. But most offensive is the way in which the argument itself
victimises sex-sellers by denying their experience and stripping
them of their agency.
Abandoning the all-or-nothing approach and recognising the
indisputable fact that some women do choose to sell sex, while
others don't, incarnates a realistic and fair approach for the
management of indoor and outdoor sex in liberal democracies. A
position where sex-sellers are moral agents worthy of respect
โ instead of pitiable victims in need of paternalistic
protection โ who have rights and responsibilities on how they
ply their trade. Competent adult women (and men) should be free to
sell their bodies, however strongly some in the community object.
However, like other choosers, when the consequences of the selling
choice restricts the capacity of fellow citizens to exercise their
freedoms, the state is obligated to restrict their activity.
A focus on autonomous choice also justifies state intervention
where sex workers lack the capacity โ because they are too
young, mentally ill, sexually or physically abused or drug addicted
โ to make choices about selling sex.
What this cashes out to are policies that decriminalise and
constructively regulate indoor prostitution and prohibit street
solicitation and sex. Behind this approach is a rebuttable
presumption that adult women who sell sex are autonomous and that
communities affected by street sex suffer an unjustified loss of
amenity and security. Such policies address the real potential for
exploitation and coercion in the sex trade by offering sex-sellers
opportunities to exit, such as income support, places in drug
rehabilitation programs and police intervention in violent
relationships at regular intervals at their "workplaces" and each
time they have contact with the law. The availability of such
programs to women working indoors should give us confidence that
sellers are choosing this way of life, while offering street
prostitutes โ when combined with fines and jail terms for
punters โ a real opportunity to either move inside or to exit
the trade.
Women who are truly moral agents must accept both the rights and
responsibilities that accompany their choices. I think it vital
that public language and policy concerning women โ
particularly as sexual and reproductive beings โ validate us
as citizens capable of both making choices and living with their
consequences. Autonomous adult women have a right to sell provided
they go about it in ways that don't unfairly burden the community
of which they are a part, though as a community we have a positive
obligation to ensure that at every stage of what is potentially a
violent, exploitative and coercive game, a woman's freedom to say
"no" is protected.
This is why allowing brothels to operate in a regulated fashion
is a good idea, but street sex work can never be tolerated. Not
just because a disproportionate number of street prostitutes are
too young, too drug-addicted, too psychologically scarred or cowed
by violence or abuse to make an autonomous choice to sell
themselves, but because the cost to the community of their
behaviour, even if theirs is a choice worthy of the name, is far
too high.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/helping-women-make-cho ices-on-prostitution/2007/09/30/1191090938867.html?page=2
comment:
p_commentcount