The Price of Sex for Money

Well, that column about Victor Malarek's book and the decriminalization of the sex trade continues to reverb with readers.

Most of the reaction has been positive. I've heard from cab drivers who chauffeur call girls to their jobs, university students who plan to graduate debt-free because of their sex work and several men who, for some heart-breaking reasons, rely on paying women for their time and attention.

And as regulars here have seen, even the usual anti-Antonia suspects have agreed with the gist of what I wrote.

Which makes me wonder ... hmmm ... maybe I got it wrong?

Nope -- because so many feminists I respect, including Vancouver NDP MP Libby Davies, completely agree with me.

But, in fairness, I thought I would post this contrarian opinion, from the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter. (I have edited out the writer's email address, as well as a certain sex act.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Vancouver Rape Relief
Sent: Thu 5/14/2009 10:23 PM
To: Zerbisias, Antonia
Subject: In support of Malarek

Dear Antonia,

Assuming that prostitution will be with us forever avoids important ethical questions like should sex be connected to money, should sex be consumed and is it possible to consume sex without consuming a woman's autonomy?

Ironically, if a man can purchase a woman's sexual autonomy it ceases to exist.  A marker of sexual autonomy is its independence from another person 19s control.  When men purchase sex they control a large part of the act.  Prostitution is offensive because men put a price on something priceless and in doing so destroy it.

There is a prevailing notion that feminists cannot speak against the institution of prostitution because some prostitutes insist they want the choice.  However, the real issue with prostitution is the unchallenged notion of men's entitlement to women's sexuality whenever and however they want it.  Men are doing most of the choosing.  When columnists like yourself, use a willing exception to a majority reality they use individuality to argue against a common good.  Why can't Ginger just have sex?  Why is money and sex, in the context of women's global inequality so rampant?

The reason feminists favor the Swedish model, which criminalizes men for purchasing or attempting to purchase sex, is because the Swedish government is challenging men's expectation to bxxx-jxxs on demand.   This government acknowledges that the type of sex that prostitutes perform for johns rarely expresses their entire humanity.  The type of sex feminists have in mind, be it in a one night-stand or committed relationship must include women's yearning for freedom and equality.  That type of sex presupposes women's economic security.  That type of sex is dependant on mutual respect.   That type of sex is free and freely given.

Victor Malarek took a great risk by attacking men for their attitudes and behaviors regarding prostitution.  Surely he is receiving hate mail and other attacks.  He dared to be a traitor to his gender because he had good conscience.  He deserves more consideration, because his ideas go after fundamental beliefs about gender, race and class and your column evades that.

Sincerely,

Tamar Eylon
--
Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter
www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca

And my reply:

Hi Tamar,

Thanks for your letter with which I disagree on so many levels.

Leaving aside the very real issues of trafficking, child prostitution, sex tourism etc., your perspective totally robs women of their autonomy and hands it over to men. Sorry, I don't buy it.

For one thing, when it comes to sex, women hold the upper hand. Always have. That's why men have, for thousands of years, attempted to control women and their sexuality.

For another, I am astounded that you believe that, when a woman enters into a contractual and consensual sexual act, fully protected by the law, that she bestows entitlement.

Ginger -- and many other women I know, including dozens of university students who will graduate debt free -- are not having ''sex.'' They are performing a service for good money. They can quit when they please.

The notion that sex is ''priceless'' is positively Victorian in my view. Economic security will never come by abolishing sex work. And men will always expect bxxx-jxxs on demand.

Victor should have done more research, and written something more than a polemic.

That's my opinion and I ain't budging from it.

For more from feminists who see it the way I do, check out FIRST and Libby Davies.

 

Comments

[neko]

I have to ask... why do we assume, in regards to prostitution, that Men are buying sex from Women and that is the whole problem/debate? What about Men who buy from Men? Women who buy from Men? Women who buy from Women? Surely prostitution is when two consenting adults (regardless of who is what gender) enter into a business transaction regarding sex acts?

Antonia, have you heard from any Men who work in the industry and how they feel about it?

[Paul]

I swear, everyone, I'm not blogging from Antionia's PC. Seriously Antonia, kudos to you for presenting that view, and for your thoughtful response, which, I think - goes *against* the current dominant gender discourse, contrary to Eylon's claim.

I'll take my "usual anti-Antonia suspect" lumps (it is YOUR blog), and I recognize it must be hard to sympathize with someone who contantly audits your every claim when you are trying to make a living , fer cryin' out loud, but I want you to know that my points here are very much intended for the benefit of women and equality (even if that means criticizing their own advocacy industry). As such, I not only agree with the content of your reply to Eylon, but I also sympathize with the peculiar irony of the situation: schooling a feminist rape-victim advocate about promoting a chivalric view of sexuality, and doing so under a feminist banner. Gee, that sounds like MY gig. So, do you think Eylon was convinced?

[Dominique]

The concern I have with society-wide acceptance of prostitution is a spreading of what happened to strippers when patrons started expecting lap dances as part of the performance. Those strippers who were uncomfortable with the touching got fired. What will happen to women who work in the entertainment industry or the service industry, especially as hostesses or in similar roles, when prostitution is fully legit? Selling themselves for money may become part of their job description. And there won't be anything they can do about it. It's a backdoor way of making sexual harassment legal and required.

[Michael Goodyear]

There are a number of problems with Tamar Eylon and Rape Relief's position. The central one is the assumptions that reduce complex issues to simple ones. There is no intention to avoid important ethical questions. Ethicists have been debating these issues for centuries, without consensus. This does not alter the pragmatic policy position that exchanging sex is innate. A more important and overlooked ethical question is how a society can continue to deny women and men social citizenship based on their sexual expression, with considerable resultant harm, both to the individuals and society. Exchanging sex lies at the heart of many relationships, and even has an evolutionary history.

The premise seems to be that one can purchase and consume another's autonomy, which is highly problematic. One can certainly constrain it, and many would argue that it is the position of Malarek and Eylon that infringes people's autonomy and denies them moral agency. All autonomy is restricted - we cannot all do exactly what we want, no matter our desires, but one cannot say an individual's autonomy can be extinguished.

The approach here is very gendered, it assumes only men have agency and all human sexuality lies under the control of men. Worse than this is the co-option of feminisms. Rape Relief continues to appropriate feminist thinking as if it has a unique perspective that only they can see. Nobody is challenging the position that entitlement constrains autonomy, but they are challenging the idea that sexual exchange somehow conveys entitlement. It is interesting how Eylon can instinctively know the 'real' issue in something so complex. This is an ideological position. It has been said that if an opinion on the state of marriage in the nation were based on a survey of women's shelters, it would be as inaccurate as Rape Relief's perspective of sex, just as they assume they have a unique understanding of the 'common good'.

No matter what Eylon may believe, there is no evidence that men feel an entitlement to sex 'whenever and wherever they want it'.

It is incorrect to say that feminists favour Swedish law, even Swedish feminists are divided on this, no matter how attractive it may seem in reversing the double standard. Unfortunately for Eylon the evidence is that the laws in Sweden are still being applied in a discriminatory manner, and violence against women has not decreased, nor have attitudes appreciably changed. Perhaps more important is that the Swedish law did not work - that is achieve its aims in eradicating sex work, it just changed the venue.

The portrayal of feminisms here is one that many of us would have great difficulty identifying with. Perhaps most telling is Eylon's description of Malarek - 'dared to be a traitor to his gender', which reveals a stark unidimensional non-redemptory vision of the relationship between genders (and ignores all sexual exchange other that women selling to men). This is the classic Dworkin vision that is perhaps more ethically problematic than all of the issues raised by Eylon.

[Antonia]

Thanks for your comments.

Michael, I agree with you.

Dominique, you touch on the essential difference between legalization and decriminalization. It's subtle but essential. http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html
Decriminalization leaves women in control of their bodies.
legalization gives control to the state or others.

Also, there is a huge difference between running a nightclub and being a one-woman show. Strippers/lapdancers need a venue, a liquor license, bouncers, etc. Hookers just need themselves, and a safe place (like home) to work. A sex worker would continue to call the shots.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Again, a note of complete agreement. I'd just like to add that
"legalisation" with licences, etc., would imply SPECIAL TAXATION, and once you get "sex work" as a cash cow (!!!), imagine the possibilities - and the discussions in Parliament - GST, PST, maybe the municipalities could get in on the act (!!!). "Boggles the mind" isn't enough to capture the thought of any politician announcing an tax increase on sex .....

Under "decrimininalisation" any money earned could be declared under "other income".

Thanks for inspiring my laugh of the day

Meanwhile, "the Swedish model" may not be with us much longer, we might even see it end in our lifetimes . . . . .

I don't have to quote the sites, except that Bruce Bawer has a new book out on that, and related topics ... . ...

[Michael Goodyear]

Lets try and untangle the decriminalisation-legalisation story, because it is usually poorly understood. Criminalisation and decriminalisation - the inclusion or removal of sanctions against an action in the Criminal Code, are relatively straightforward terms. Legalisation is more a construct and is therefore not a precise term and causes much confusion. Countries criminalise sexual exchange to varying degrees, but when decriminalisation occurs it is rarely complete. For instance sanctions may persist for sex with a minor, with a person who has been coerced, and for illegal immigrants who sell sex.

When a commercial activity is removed from the Criminal Code, that is it becomes legal, it then falls under civil and administrative law, including employment standards, occupational health and safety, licensing and zoning of businesses, and taxation.

The term 'legalisation' is most commonly used within the sex industry to indicate the unfair and discriminatory application of civil law to sexual exchange. This might mean exorbitant licensing fees and regulations that are disproportionate to other businesses, and restrictions on sex workers such as mandatory medical examinations (which are pointless and discriminatory).

An activity only becomes 'normalised' when it is treated like any other form of commercial activity. Since sex workers tend to be 'resistant' workers, that is opting to work relatively independently and not in menial conventional 9-5 service industry positions, over-regulation becomes counter-productive. The Netherlands is one example where brothels were decriminalised, but over-regulated, encouraging a two-tier system of legal and illegal underground sex work. Although not perfect, New Zealand is an example of a decriminalised industry with minimal regulation.

In the link Antonia provides, another confusing term - 'abolitionism', appears. This is misleading and has changed its meaning several times over the years. Originally it meant abolition of highly intrusive and discriminatory laws and regulations in the nineteenth century, which actually led to increasing criminalisation. More recently it has tried to co-opt the positive connotations of the abolition of slavery by depicting sex workers as slaves. A more accurate term is 'prohibition' - the attempt to eradicate a market activity that some members of the community deem to be a 'vice' based on their personal morality. The prohibition of alcohol provides a useful model, and was frequently linked to attempts to eradicate commercial sex. The failure of that movement and the widespread social ills that followed demonstrate parallels with the crusade against sex work. Another failed crusade has been the war against drugs, and some sex workers may find themselves caught in the sights of both sets of laws, destroying their lives further.