Make Prostitution Legal Essay Example For Students

Make Prostitution Legal Essay Prostitution Theory 101by Yvonne Abraham with Sarah McNaughtFew things have divided feminists as much as the sex industry. Theoristswho agree on a vast swath of issues economic equality, affirmativeaction, even sexual liberation often find themselves bitterly opposed overpornography and prostitution. Most 19th-century feminists opposed prostitution and considered prostitutesto be victims of male exploitation. But just as the suffragette andtemperance movements were bound together at the turn of the century, sotoo were feminist and contemporary moral objections to prostitution. Women, the argument went, were repositories of moral virtue, andprostitution tainted their purity: the sale of sex was, like alcohol, both causeand symptom of the decadence into which society had sunk. By the 1960s and 70s, when Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer assertedthat sexual liberation was integral to womens liberation, feminists werereluctant to oppose prostitution on moral grounds. Traditional morality, Greerargued, had helped to repress women sexually, had made their needssecondary to mens. That sexual subordination compounded womenseconomic and political subordination. Today, some feminists see hooking as a form of sexual slavery; others, as aroute to sexual self-determination. And in between are those who seeprostitution as a form of work that, like it or not, is here to stay. Radical feminists such as lawyer Catharine MacKinnon andantipornography theorist Andrea Dworkin oppose sex work in any form. By the 1960s and 70s, when Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer asserted that sexual liberation was integral to womens liberation, feminists were reluctant to oppose prostitution on moral grounds. Traditional morality, Greer argued, had helped to repress women sexually, had made their needs secondary to mens. That sexual subordination compounded womens economic and political subordination. Today, some feminists see hooking as a form of sexual slavery; others, as a route to sexual self-determination. And in between are those who see prostitution as a form of work that, like it or not, is here to stay. Radical feminists such as lawyer Catharine MacKinnon and antipornography theorist Andrea Dworkin oppose sex work in any form. They argue that it exploits women and reinforces their status as sexual objects, undoing many of the gains women have made over the past century. Others detect in this attitude a strain of neo-Victorianism, a condescending belief that prostitutes dont know what theyre doing and need somebody with more education to protect them. Some women, these dissenters point out, actually choose the profession. Feminists who question the antiprostitution radicals also point out that Dworkin and MacKinnon sometimes sound eerily like their nemeses on the religious right. Phyllis Schlafly, a rabid family-values crusader, has even cited Dworkin in her antipornography promotional materials. This kind of thing has not improved the radicals image among feminists. At the other extreme from Dworkin and MacKinnon are sex-radical feminists like Susie Bright and Pat Califia. They argue that sex work can be a good thing: a bold form of liberation for women, a way for some to take control of their lives. The problem there, though, is that the life of a prostitute is often more Leaving Las Vegas than Pretty Woman (see Pop Many feminists fall somewhere in between the rad-fem and sex-radical poles. Wendy Chapkis, professor of sociology and womens studies at the University of Southern Maine and the author of the Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor (Routledge, 1997), is one of them. For nine years, Chapkis studied prostitution in California and the Netherlands, as well as in Britain and Finland, and conducted interviews with 50 sex workers. Chapkis says she sees the profession as it is: many of her interviews confirmed much of the ugliness that radical feminists abhor, as well as the empowerment that sex radicals perceive. I dont think prostitution is the ultimate in womens liberation, she says. But I think its better understood as work than as inevitably a form of sexual violence. What prostitutes need, she argues, is not a bunch of goody-goodies looking down on them, but decent working conditions. Chapkis believes prostitution should be decriminalized. Just because it can be lousy work doesnt mean it should be stamped out, she argues. After all, she says, there are lots of jobs in which women are underpaid, underappreciated, and exploited. Criminalizing the profession just exacerbates prostitutes problems by isolating them from the law and leaving them vulnerable to abusive pimps and johns. In a profession where women traditionally are not treated well, arent empowered, and should be able to go to the police for protection and assistance, she says, we make the police an extra obstacle, another threat. In the Netherlands, by contrast, where prostitution is decriminalized, police and prostitutes are on the same side: hookers speak at police academies to educate the officers about their work, and Chapkis says the communication pays off in safer working conditions for the women. But what .