New article on the National Post, nothing new
Societies have long held an interest in sex. As long as governments have existed, sexual behaviour has been managed — specifically, with whom we have sex, where we have sex and how it is negotiated. Most recently, prostitution has created a boundary dilemma for radical (ideologically driven) feminists who feel that the most effective way of curbing commercial sex is by adopting the Nordic model popularized in Sweden — a model in which the buyers of sex (mostly heterosexual men) are punished, while the suppliers of sex (mostly heterosexual women) are offered exit strategies.
Hence, the Nordic approach has been packaged as “progressive” and “woman-friendly.” However, it is completely untenable on three grounds: first, the evidence of Sweden’s “success” at stopping prostitution is deeply suspect; second, the dangers to women’s health and well-being are ignored; and third, “gender equality” becomes an imposition on people’s rights, namely, those established through contractual agreements.
Implemented in 1999, the Swedish Sex Purchase Act promotes the idea that selling sex for money is intrinsically wrong, irrespective of context. Its supporters argue that prostitution is a form of male violence against women, that is reinforces the belief that women’s bodies are commodities for male consumption and that no woman would sell sex voluntarily. Prohibitionists have lauded the act’s achievements, claiming that it has reduced prostitution and trafficking for sexual purposes, deterred male clients and changed societal attitudes toward prostitution.
In reality, however, sex workers in Sweden have begun using other means to find clients, and vice versa. For instance, sex workers give out their cell phone numbers to potential customers on the street, or they make contact via the Internet, forms of networking that have taken over from the traditional face-to-face contact of street prostitution. To avoid further detection by authorities, sex workers and clients more frequently meet in bars, restaurants and hotels. Therefore, Sweden’s claim of “successfully” decreasing the demand for sexual services appears highly unlikely since it is impossible to monitor every transaction or sexual encounter.
Second, the Nordic model sidesteps the continuing dangers facing street prostitutes. As the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged, criminalizing prostitution harms out-call sex workers who are not permitted to hire bodyguards, managers or drivers — all of which would enhance their safety and security. Moreover, since it is illegal to communicate the sale of sex for money, prostitutes are forced to screen clients under duress. Negotiations often take place in insolation — on side streets, in back alleys, cars or industrial areas, all situations that benefit the perpetrators of violence. This is why the Ontario Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada both came to the same conclusion: the present law supporting prohibition increases violence against out-call prostitutes.
Where prostitution is legal, the results for women’s health are dramatically different. Sociologist Ronald Weitzer notes how in legal brothels in the U.S., such as those in Nevada, worker safety and job satisfaction have been greatly enhanced. Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Justice found that the “vast majority” of sex workers in Dutch brothels, clubs and window units report that they “often” or “always feel safe.” In Queensland, Australia, an evaluation of major brothels there found that “licenced brothels provide the safest working environment for sex workers” and provide a “sustainable model for a healthy, crime-free and safe legal licenced brothel industry.” This may be why, when asked if “there should be laws that protect the rights of sex workers,” 90 per cent of prostitutes in a San Francisco study said yes.
Lastly, the assumption that money in exchange for sex demeans and objectifies women is a rhetorical strategy used by some radical feminists who seek to impose equality on the rights of both men and women. To override a woman’s right to liberty, radical feminists base their version of oppression on a very narrow concept of sexual autonomy, meaning that an act counts as sexually autonomous only if it is sexually “self-expressive.” Put simply, a prostitute’s motive for sex must solely rest on her desire to seek it — an end in itself, so to speak. If her motives are tainted by marketplace ideals — for instance, sex as a means to greater income — then sex work cannot be considered a free choice.
However, this essentialized view of autonomy is unworkable. First, it suggests that we ought to police individual motives pertaining to sexual behaviour; and second, it insists that “unworthy” motives deserve punishment. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean shutting down the entire commercial sex industry — including strip clubs, massage parlors and online pornography — since it is infused with market values. One’s liberty now becomes micro-managed by those who sit in judgement over the purity of a woman’s (or man’s) motivation for sex or sexual expression.
If we are to take liberty seriously, public policy should not be shaped by the ideologically motivated agenda of radical feminism. Instead, Canadians should embrace a more modest strategy: the use of credible empirical data to inform public policy on prostitution; the establishment of safeguards that prevent further harm to sex workers; the prevention of child exploitation and human trafficking; and a greater respect for the rights of consenting adults. It may not be a perfect resolution, but it is a far more efficient way of dealing with the reality of sex work.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...stitution-is-not-the-solution-its-the-problem
Societies have long held an interest in sex. As long as governments have existed, sexual behaviour has been managed — specifically, with whom we have sex, where we have sex and how it is negotiated. Most recently, prostitution has created a boundary dilemma for radical (ideologically driven) feminists who feel that the most effective way of curbing commercial sex is by adopting the Nordic model popularized in Sweden — a model in which the buyers of sex (mostly heterosexual men) are punished, while the suppliers of sex (mostly heterosexual women) are offered exit strategies.
Hence, the Nordic approach has been packaged as “progressive” and “woman-friendly.” However, it is completely untenable on three grounds: first, the evidence of Sweden’s “success” at stopping prostitution is deeply suspect; second, the dangers to women’s health and well-being are ignored; and third, “gender equality” becomes an imposition on people’s rights, namely, those established through contractual agreements.
Implemented in 1999, the Swedish Sex Purchase Act promotes the idea that selling sex for money is intrinsically wrong, irrespective of context. Its supporters argue that prostitution is a form of male violence against women, that is reinforces the belief that women’s bodies are commodities for male consumption and that no woman would sell sex voluntarily. Prohibitionists have lauded the act’s achievements, claiming that it has reduced prostitution and trafficking for sexual purposes, deterred male clients and changed societal attitudes toward prostitution.
In reality, however, sex workers in Sweden have begun using other means to find clients, and vice versa. For instance, sex workers give out their cell phone numbers to potential customers on the street, or they make contact via the Internet, forms of networking that have taken over from the traditional face-to-face contact of street prostitution. To avoid further detection by authorities, sex workers and clients more frequently meet in bars, restaurants and hotels. Therefore, Sweden’s claim of “successfully” decreasing the demand for sexual services appears highly unlikely since it is impossible to monitor every transaction or sexual encounter.
Second, the Nordic model sidesteps the continuing dangers facing street prostitutes. As the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged, criminalizing prostitution harms out-call sex workers who are not permitted to hire bodyguards, managers or drivers — all of which would enhance their safety and security. Moreover, since it is illegal to communicate the sale of sex for money, prostitutes are forced to screen clients under duress. Negotiations often take place in insolation — on side streets, in back alleys, cars or industrial areas, all situations that benefit the perpetrators of violence. This is why the Ontario Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada both came to the same conclusion: the present law supporting prohibition increases violence against out-call prostitutes.
Where prostitution is legal, the results for women’s health are dramatically different. Sociologist Ronald Weitzer notes how in legal brothels in the U.S., such as those in Nevada, worker safety and job satisfaction have been greatly enhanced. Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Justice found that the “vast majority” of sex workers in Dutch brothels, clubs and window units report that they “often” or “always feel safe.” In Queensland, Australia, an evaluation of major brothels there found that “licenced brothels provide the safest working environment for sex workers” and provide a “sustainable model for a healthy, crime-free and safe legal licenced brothel industry.” This may be why, when asked if “there should be laws that protect the rights of sex workers,” 90 per cent of prostitutes in a San Francisco study said yes.
Lastly, the assumption that money in exchange for sex demeans and objectifies women is a rhetorical strategy used by some radical feminists who seek to impose equality on the rights of both men and women. To override a woman’s right to liberty, radical feminists base their version of oppression on a very narrow concept of sexual autonomy, meaning that an act counts as sexually autonomous only if it is sexually “self-expressive.” Put simply, a prostitute’s motive for sex must solely rest on her desire to seek it — an end in itself, so to speak. If her motives are tainted by marketplace ideals — for instance, sex as a means to greater income — then sex work cannot be considered a free choice.
However, this essentialized view of autonomy is unworkable. First, it suggests that we ought to police individual motives pertaining to sexual behaviour; and second, it insists that “unworthy” motives deserve punishment. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean shutting down the entire commercial sex industry — including strip clubs, massage parlors and online pornography — since it is infused with market values. One’s liberty now becomes micro-managed by those who sit in judgement over the purity of a woman’s (or man’s) motivation for sex or sexual expression.
If we are to take liberty seriously, public policy should not be shaped by the ideologically motivated agenda of radical feminism. Instead, Canadians should embrace a more modest strategy: the use of credible empirical data to inform public policy on prostitution; the establishment of safeguards that prevent further harm to sex workers; the prevention of child exploitation and human trafficking; and a greater respect for the rights of consenting adults. It may not be a perfect resolution, but it is a far more efficient way of dealing with the reality of sex work.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...stitution-is-not-the-solution-its-the-problem
