Perhaps the most controversial portion of the previous guest video was the assertion
that sex work is often dangerous and harmful to women, in contrast to certain testimonials
that suggest it is a relatively mundane profession.
The backlash to this claim has been swift, fierce, and thoroughly informative.
Along with assorted criticism of the idea that prostitution is itself a problem, the
most common response was that the decriminalization of buying and selling sex would reduce the
harms associated with prostitution.
All of these views are certainly worth examining.
One of the first objections to arise was the suggestion that you shouldn't talk about sex
workers at all if you aren't a sex worker yourself or if you haven't spoken to sex workers.
First of all, people often discuss topics that they may not be personally involved in,
and while firsthand experience can provide unique and valuable insight, it does not necessarily
make you any more correct on a given point.
Furthermore, to assume that someone's position on sex work must mean that they've never spoken
with any sex workers implies that doing so will reliably alter someone's views and induce
them to adopt a particular stance on the subject.
It suggests that it would be outright impossible for them to maintain their present position
after, or even because of, speaking to sex workers.
For anyone to insinuate that the experiences of sex workers will invariably support their
own stance seems very overreaching.
Others pointed out that sex worker rights advocates are often also involving in fighting
for causes such as immigration reform and transgender rights.
This is indeed a praiseworthy endeavor, but the validity of these causes does not make
the remainder of their positions correct by contagion.
Conversely, many noted that prostitution is also seen as harmful by fundamentalist Christians
and certain severely transphobic feminists, as if to say that anyone who shares this view
is just as bad as these groups.
But the wisdom or idiocy of someone who holds a certain stance does not change the validity,
truth value, or factual support of the position itself.
The Catholic Church may oppose the death penalty as a matter of official policy, but this obviously
doesn't mean that this view is inherently linked to them or forever contaminated by
its association with them.
Further, some drew attention to the fact that various so-called "rescue" groups seeking
to help sex workers leave prostitution are often run by evangelical Christians who frequently
engage in religious indoctrination, and are otherwise insensitive to the actual needs
of sex workers.
This is clearly a problem, as is the invasion of religion into a multitude of charity and
assistance roles in society.
But just as with feeding the hungry, it does not mean that the very idea of helping sex
workers who want to leave the trade is irredeemably flawed - only that its execution has often
been compromised by ignorance and blind dogma, and this needs to change.
It's also been mentioned that studies by anti-prostitution researchers such as Melissa Farley and Janice
Raymond often contain methodological flaws which severely undermine their validity.
But regardless of the nature of these errors, the flaws in studies purportedly showing that
prostitution is dangerous do not mean that it must therefore be safe, just as flaws in
a study showing it to be safe would not mean it was harmful.
Instead, it indicates that the study in question simply does not tell us anything useful about
the facts of prostitution.
Many people also seemed to suggest that claiming prostitution is harmful must mean passing
some kind of moral judgment upon sex workers themselves for their activities.
Finding this unacceptable, they concluded that it must therefore be wrong to say that
prostitution is harmful.
But regarding prostitution as harmful does not necessitate condemning sex workers.
After all, many people have cited the dangerous working conditions for sex workers as a reason
why criminalization is an inadequate and harmful policy.
Passing judgment on workers would require some kind of ethical theory beyond the factual
question of whether prostitution is dangerous, and I personally do not see the condemnation
of sex workers as warranted or appropriate in any way.
On a related note, some people seemed imply that to criticize testimonial ads such as
those from Turn Off the Blue Light in Ireland is tantamount to supporting social stigma
against sex workers.
Apparently, since these ads aim to diminish the stigma against sex workers, then taking
issue with these ads must mean endorsing that stigma.
But this doesn't follow, and holding to such logic only serves as a way of using one's
well-intentioned motives to preclude any criticism of the actual results.
While it may not have been their goal, these posters neglect to mention the very real dangers
faced by many sex workers as part of their job.
In doing so, they give the impression that it's not much different from any other profession
- that it's a safe, uneventful, and thoroughly ordinary way to make a living, chosen freely
and on its own merits rather than due to a lack of alternatives.
But for many sex workers, it is not a job that suits their needs, in terms of workplace
safety, a living wage, freedom from exploitation, and, yes, not wanting to have to sleep with
paying customers just to survive.
Instead, these posters depict sex work as a satisfying, voluntary and harmless job like
any other.
That may be the case for some sex workers, but certainly not for many others.
And unless misleadingly portraying such circumstances as typical of sex work is actually the only
way to reduce stigma, no one is opposing such efforts by simply objecting to this approach.
Many people did say that prostitution shouldn't be seen as different from any other job, in
that many people are forced to hold unpleasant jobs because there are no better alternatives
and they need money.
But prostitution is different: it frequently comes with an inordinate risk of assault,
robbery, sexual harassment, rape, and murder, unlike that of practically any other job.
Workplace safety is often lacking, if not absent entirely.
For this, workers receive no hazard pay whatsoever.
Given the conditions under which many of them work, it's plainly inaccurate to say that
there's no more coercion in choosing prostitution than there is in any other undesirable job.
Such circumstances do not tend to attract willing employees.
Sex workers themselves have attested to this.
In a commonly cited study by the Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver, many workers said that
prostitution should not be a job that anyone could be required to take as part of a search
for work in order to receive income assistance.
Quote: "Well I should say sex work, being in the sex trade is not an option; it's just
like a survival thing.
I mean...
it's usually...
not by choice....
If someone were forcing you to go back, ...that's like a pimp, that's kind of saying, oh you
have to go risk your life."
"I don't think they should be forced into the trade because of things that could happen
in the industry as being a sex worker – harmful to the mind like bad dates and drug use..."
"Because not everybody has the emotional control to be a sex worker, or detachment.
Detachment to be a sex worker."
"I believe that it is a very hard job to do, you are basically a sexual surrogate... and
I agree that it takes a certain...
personality type to do that kind of job.
It's a very, very specialized occupation."
"There's a difference between selling your ass and selling a hamburger.
The hamburger's not personal."
If listening to sex workers is key, then it would seem that even sex workers consider
prostitution to be different in kind from other types of employment.
People have often claimed that the hazards of prostitution arise from the criminalization
of selling or buying sexual services, operating brothels, procuring and soliciting, and that
many of these risks would be ameliorated if all of this were decriminalized and treated
like any other fully legal profession.
And there is quite a lot to be said for this position.
When prostitution is against the law, this discourages workers from reporting any crimes
against them for fear of prosecution, leaving them extremely vulnerable to abuse.
It also leaves their jobs completely outside the realm of any kind of workplace safety
regulations, and their employers aren't required to operate within the applicable labor laws,
creating an environment where exploitation flourishes.
In theory, decriminalization would remedy most if not all of these issues, and prostitution
finally would become a job chosen because it suits people's needs, with no more coercion
than any other.
But has this actually happened?
New Zealand is often upheld as a model for full decriminalization, yet in a five-year
review of the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act, many workers reported having experienced assault,
violent threats, being held against their will, theft, refusal to pay, and even rape.
Few of them reported this to the police, and most who were surveyed felt that the Reform
Act "could do little about the violence that occurred."
"Less than a quarter...
felt there had been an improvement."
While there seem to be very few studies comparing the general well-being and safety of sex workers
before and after this kind of reform, decriminalization does not appear to have been enough to prevent
workers in New Zealand from continuing to experience violent abuse and mistreatment,
especially those working at street level.
If prostitution should be treated like any other job, then it's worth considering that
we wouldn't accept such unsafe conditions in any other job.
Most people don't have a problem with recognizing that some working conditions are simply too
dangerous to be allowed, and such businesses are regulated or prohibited accordingly.
Yet many advocates for decriminalization claim that too much legal regulation would only
drive the sex trade underground once more and leave workers unprotected again.
Clearly, determining the proper stringency of regulation is a challenging and delicate
task, and the actual impact of a policy on workers should be the bottom line.
But to suggest that anything which could conceivably impede the transaction must be done away with
for fear of fueling the black market is simply negligent.
Having the law look the other way on this does not make sex workers any more safe.
If decriminalization does actually improve the safety and welfare of sex workers, then
this is a great start.
If it doesn't, and their working conditions remain just as dangerous, then other options
are worth considering.
Many advocates for decriminalization approach this issue with a goal of harm reduction,
and so do I. And if these unacceptable dangers are simply inherent to prostitution (or a
certain variety of it) and cannot be minimized while leaving the profession itself intact,
then reducing the harm of prostitution requires reducing prostitution itself.
We can agree that certain legal regimes have been shown to be unsuccessful at accomplishing
this, and even harmful to sex workers without addressing their needs, but it does not mean
that this can't be a valid goal.
It shouldn't be outside the bounds of acceptable discourse to believe that nobody should be
exposed to such hazards in the course of employment.
This does not have to imply an unbending adherence to any particular policy, whether it's full
criminalization, criminalization of clients, full decriminalization, or legal regulation.
Many people contend that all efforts at reducing prostitution have failed, but just as with
any other problem we're faced with, past failures are no reason to stop developing new strategies.
Finally, some people pointed out that because prostitution is often the only option for
sex workers, then working to eliminate prostitution would be taking their only option away from
them.
That may be the case, but there are a plethora of circumstances where people are deprived
of income because something is too dangerous or inhumane to be legally allowed, such as
child labor and sweatshops.
Even if someone claimed that they had a wonderful experience working at an unsafe coal mine,
and wanted no legal interference in this arrangement, such conditions would still not be permitted.
The answer is not to remove the laws which prohibit these kinds of employment, but to
remedy the lack of options which is forcing people into unsafe jobs such as prostitution.
Sex workers have often attested to the inadequate social support they receive, which leaves
them with nowhere else to turn.
If nobody ever had to enter sex work, then it seems likely that fewer people would.
The question of which legal framework is most effective for dealing with prostitution is
far from resolved, but full decriminalization appears to fall short of being the panacea
that many have presented it as.
The presumptuousness of people who expect and then demand complete support for this
policy position is vastly out of proportion to the actual evidence of its efficacy.
Contrary to prevailing opinion, it has not been established as a proven fact that would
be as foolish to question as evolution.
There is room for disagreement here, and recognizing that prostitution remains a dangerous field
does not constitute a blemish upon one's rationality.