This is exactly how I weighed this issue until recently, when I fell down the rabbit hole of sex trafficking, the truth (horrors) of legalised brothels, and the declining value of women and girls/rising sexual assault stats in the most "sex-positive" countries with legal brothels. The fringe "empowered/personal choice/just a job" narrative (women who enjoy it/are paid well) has twisted the rule of the majority (sex-trafficked or otherwise choiceless women and girls) to their horrendous cost. I do believe in freedom and choice. But when a movement pushes for the rights and freedoms of the relatively priviledged (as in, they are choosing) fringe, at the cost (and legitimisation) of the majority, who's freedom are we fighting for?
The only true winners here are the men. In Germany, a common 'coming of age' activity is a drive-in brothel where father and son can order from a list of sex-acts along with burger and fries.
What does it do to a boys mind growing up in a society where access to woman's holes are legally (and entirely normally) sold at a drive-in? What does it say to girls?
I dont much care about making those who choose this life feel better about it. If they have a choice, they are not in need of my opinion and I have no judgement against them. I do jugde the normalising, defending, rewriting and romanticising the reality of prostitution - especially as it has resulted in the legalising/marketing or the comodification of human bodies - which IS fuelling the ongoing elevation of sex trafficking - human slavery. They, and the countless other choiceless women and girls are my concern. But they continue to pay the price for those with a voice and a choice who demand acceptance.
First of all, I want to thank our host for a pragmatical, well reasoned article. I wish more people had a similar attitude.
Regarding your comment, it prompted a thought in me, but I'm not accusing you of anything nor I mean to abscribe to you a particular policy preference, it simply something I'd like to point out.
I think it is wrong to put legalization and prohibitionism as the only two alternatives possible. It is similar to the false opposition of empowering/degrading.
In Italy there is a very old law (1958), brought about by a female socialist senator after consulting many prostitutes, that makes brothels illegal, prostitution by oneself possible but not regulated, on the condition that no-third party can benefit from it. It is an old law and likely not perfect, but to the day it seems to me that it strikes the right balance, given the constraints in which it has to operate.
Trafficking is illegal for all purposes, for prostitution as for other form of exploitation (thinking of tomatoes field where immigrants literally die because of the hot temperature). When it is not policed sufficiently, it's not the law that needs change, but enforcement. With that I mean that even without the nordic model, exploitation is already illegal and yet trafficking and exploitation still exist, so I very much doubt that changing the law would be pragmatically useful. It sounds more like feeling better and more moral without changing anything, in a mirrored way as those arguing for the empowerment camp.
I'm just pointing out that we should perhaps ask why the pleas of exploited women are not top priority when police and the law should already be able to act.
I strongly agree with one point you made. No one should be able to earn "passive income" from a prostitute earnings - in other words no pimps allowed. That gets more complicated when evaluating other forms of sex work - strippers and porn actors for example.
One thing to add. In countries that cannot or will not have adequate social safety nets and economic regulation (like mine USA-a will not country) maybe the Nordic model of prohibition is best. I'm just referring to prostitution here.
We need better morals - plus harm reduction - plus better social support systems - plus a fair and just system of economic regulation - these problems do not exist in vacums.
Helen, your comment about mistaking personality for political belief rings true for me, but in the opposite direction! As someone who primarily sees sex as a subsidiary to the deeper purpose of love, rather than a fun leisure activity, I am naturally extremely disdainful of the notion that sex can be bought and sold, even if the whole point of liberalism is that political decisions shouldn't be guided by our own personal preferences and we should be able to trust individuals to make their own decisions better than we can on their behalf.
I've gotten over my inclination to judge the sellers. We all have to earn a living. But my contempt for the buyers remains.
This article came right when I was thinking very deeply on this topic and re-examining my priors and considering writing on it. Thanks for your contribution to my mental elasticity and growth.
Thank you for complicating sex work narratives so lucidly. For me, the key sentence, which helps us understand why many issues are so vexing, is: "I fell into the trap of mistaking my personality for my politics." I immediately thought of an essay by Helen Dale about her realization that her libertarian politics have often reflected her own characteristics and preferences. How much more productive our debates would be if we could think about the personal and the political in these ways!
Alex: I just skimmed that again and like it for the way she highlights the utility of disagreeableness. There may be another too. It's such an important insight, so I'm always delighted to see it!
In wishing to describe my personal experience of reading this excellent post, I hesitate to use the word ‘stimulating’ in isolation, just in case, in this particular context, it gives the wrong impression. Consequently, allow me to qualify that adjective and say, thank you very much for this ‘MENTALLY stimulating’ read. 🙂
I don't have a problem with sex work as long as no one "needs" to do it. Those who wish to engage in sex work to obtain luxuries - well I have no problem with that. It's the survival-based prostitution that bothers me. The solution is to have a generous welfare state and a well-regulated economy that ensures no one has to do it. I feel much the same way about military service.
In a world with a good social safety net, though, do you think people would still engage in prostitution for reasons other than the very intentional pursuit of luxuries? I have recently begun to think so.
I used to think there were the oppressed subjugated prostitutes (the majority) and the rare ostensibly happy Aella sort.
I now think that all sorts of terrible priorities (by my standards) and personality flaws (like laziness, to name just one) are in play, too. I started thinking of this when I kept seeing behavior from women in my orbit that I found baffling, until I re-examined my priors.
Respectfully, Hellen, I feel as though you have a blind spot to who is really harmed by potentially “normalizing” sex work. The desires of the small minority of people who actually are choosing to do this work should not be prioritized ahead of the safety and well being of vulnerable women who make up vast majority of the sex trade. Normalizing sex work is a luxury belief that has extremely harmful downstream effects for more vulnerable populations and society at large. This is often the blind spot of liberalism that typically prioritizes “autonomy” above all else. But is “autonomy” the only moral good in society worth protecting? What about health? Justice? Dignity? Well-being? And when there is such inequality, whose autonomy is actually being advanced? Often times the whims and desires of privileged elites are what is centered and the actual needs and well-being of other people are missed. I’m certainly not claiming this is your intent, Hellen, or the intent of other people who promote liberalism. This is just my view of one of the very real tradeoffs of pure liberalism (which I do support many aspects of, but still find it flawed).
I didn’t make an argument for normalising sex work. I said that arguments that it’s just work ignore hard-wired intuitions and women suffering with mental illness and addiction. I specifically argued against prioritising the needs of those who choose sex work and said that we need to focus on the most vulnerable women. Maybe read it again?
I will definitely take a re-read. I thought at the end, you were essentially saying that sex work could be accepted, hence more normalized (my word not necessarily yours) for the smaller group of people who are actually choosing to do it by way of respecting of their “autonomy”. And then we could not normalize it for the vulnerable people who do it more so out of desperation, rather than as an act of their free will and best interest. Am I misunderstanding?
And I suppose where I should have clarified is that on a societal/political level, I don’t it’s possible to do that. I think normalizing for one group will have many very negative downstream effects for the most vulnerable group of women, which is who I’m most concerned about. Maybe you just meant on how we understand each person on an individual/personal level, we can see how some people are impacted differently by sex work? Which if that is what you meant, I do have some agreement with you there. I saw you discussed and acknowledged the reality of sex work during your times working or being at hospitals, which I deeply appreciated. I think I just disagreed with your conclusion when considering it from a more social/political level. I respect you trying to be thoughtful and maybe if we were speaking in person about this we would agree much more than we disagree.
Whether or not anybody finds sex work acceptable or not will come down to their own ethics. We can respect people's autonomy without respecting what they do with it. My point was that trying to apply any one narrative to all women is just factually wrong and gets in the way of supporting the vulnerable ones.
To me, the problem with sex work is when it is coerced or when people are forced into it to stay afloat because they cannot access the support they need. It's much like how I believe marriage is OK if chosen but very wrong if literally coerced or if society is set up in such a way that women can't survive unless they do it. It would not help women at risk of forced marriages or desperation marriages to be against marriage generally.
For people who believe that sex should be regarded as a very personal and intimate thing and/or that there is a specific 'sexual morality' that differs from normal morality expectations of non-harmfulness, consent, honesty etc. this won't be adequate. I am not one of those people.
Its OK for us to disagree on this! I expect we agree on much more! I'm sorry if I sounded terse.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and response. I appreciate the conversation and think I understand more clearly what you’re getting at.
While we are in total agreement on being against forced marriage, I don’t think sex work is comparable to marriage, even in the “best case scenario” in terms of its social and cultural impact. I think marriage, when socially encouraged but not forced, has many positive and healthy impacts on individuals, communities and society. (Even though I would absolutely grant it is not a perfect institution.) I don’t think the same can be said for sex work if it were to be normalized and encouraged to the extent marriage is or has been, particularly in its more modern iterations. Maybe you do not agree with that assessment. It’s obviously fine if we don’t fully see eye to eye.
I believe you’re thinking about these topics more so on the individual level and how people make decisions about their own lives (while still acknowledging some of the societal circumstances that make you uncomfortable with sex work or marriage), which is absolutely valid. My knee jerk reaction is to think about this issue on a social level and how cultural and political norms impact everyone, but especially vulnerable communities. That is not to say you don’t care about that as well, it is just a different focal point.
Thanks, again, for taking time to consider my thoughts!
You have outlined the most respectable liberal defence of legal sexual services. One of the assumptions here not made explicit is that law and ethics are two different things. There are a range of activities that are not illegal but the ethics of which are left to whatever confession one professes. But that raises the more basic issue of whether we liberals are missing something in our world view with our prizing of autonomy. Certain issues seem to make people question the fundamentals of the world view, I'm thinking of certain life long liberal leftists who seem to have reached a limit when faced with surrogacy, and euthanasia . Certain ideas of dignity, undefined, seem to be in play. Yes men are different, and on a spectrum too. Male 2 male anonymous sex is basically available on tap. But many gay men are revolted by that scene and thrive on emotionally intimate sex.
I feel compelled to go off topic since you mentioned euthanasia and surrogacy.
The classical liberal view admits that certain "things" are outside the scope of "free" exchange and that your autonomy is limited for the sake of other people autonomy. For example, you are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery. So what's the difference between prostitution, surrogacy and organ selling? I'm afraid it's not clear cut, but a case can be made that while prostitution is not irreversible, organ selling and surrogacy are (the latter also impacting on the rights of the newborn). As for euthanasia, it's even more irreversible, and I suggest you buy Kathleen Stock's latest "do not go gently" (which I haven't finished yet) for the case about being ok with the principle but the practical considerations changing almost everything
Years behind a bar in Germany put me in sustained contact with a fair number of sex workers, men and women both. Not as a researcher — as someone people talk to at the end of a night.
Among those working independently, the distribution matched your taxonomy pretty closely. Roughly 60-70% in the it's a job camp — showing up, doing the work, going home. Around 20% in the preferable to shift work category, and a smaller fraction who were genuinely strategic about it, building toward early retirement with some discipline.
That picture changes almost completely when a third party is managing the arrangement. The "it's a job" crowd largely disappears. What replaces it isn't a different attitude toward the work — it's the near-total absence of attitude, which is its own answer.
Agency, it turns out, is less about the work than about who controls the conditions of it. Which is probably the sentence your whole piece was building toward without quite saying it.
I don't disagree with anything you say here Helen. It's a fair-minded liberal view. I don't really care if someone chooses to prostitute for a living. It is their right, but I refuse to call it sex work and dignify it. That is my right. You share a lot of personal stories and possible scenarios in the post. But I highly doubt you can show me a little girl or boy who says, " Mommy, I want to be a sex worker when I grow up." I'm hard-pressed to think it's anyone's aspiration or dream job. It is a consolation prize at best.
Well, you’d certainly hope not. That’s very much an adult thing. I think some people are genuinely interested in making a career in sex, but they’d be at the top end of the possibilities. For more people, it’d be like a lot of jobs “I don’t mind it and it pays the bills.”
There are children's books about some of the occupations which children could consider and some of them have sections on "sex work", describing its supposedly favorable characteristics. These are for prepubescent children who do not as yet have any idea what sexual feelings are or the range of activities that comprise sexual expression. I saw one several years ago in a bookstore. It had colorful illustrations, although nothing "explicit".
So there may actually be children who have read such books and gotten the idea that "sex work" would be a good thing to aspire to.
I agree. Especially with the last paragraph. It isn't morality so much as seeing the iatrogenic harm legalised commodification of female bodies. Individual autonomous women choosing this privately is one thing. The wholesale, casual sale of largely female bodies, the dubious supply mechanisms to meet ever-increasing/sickening 'service' demands harms all females everywhere. When the mainstream legitimises bodies as holes/organs 'for sale', some men will realise this only applies to 'some bodies', not all. But not all. And for many boys (and girls) raised with this mindset, it isn't hyperbole to see how that line will blur.
The ratio of investment per copulation is different for men and women, due to women being the bearers of children. This has a lot of downstream effects.
Yes, the female risk and investment is MUCH larger, which is why Woman is the CEO of the species and the arbiter of human life itself. Risk and investment = founder = gets deferred to.
How do you get from (1) child-bearing is done by women to (2) evolution has not equally favored the offspring of choosy males who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes? Why would evolution not favor the offspring of males who require commitment, or why would males not pass on choosy or cautious genes?
David Buss is the evolutionary psychologist who has written most about this. The way it's usually expressed is "Eggs are expensive. Sperm is cheap." Men can best maximise their biological fitness by having many sexual partners. Some offspring will survive and likely more than if he sticks with one woman. Women cannot do this. Their offspring survive best when they have a committed partner who sticks around.
This is the scientific explanation for male/female sexual relations. I think this of course matters, but I mostly think about the economic side of things - which is the central point of your article - if I am not mistaken.
I don’t know what you mean. The economics of sex work are on a different level to the reasons women typically regard sex as in a different category to other physical labour they can earn money for performing.
I respect how you feel, but I compared sex work to military service in a certain way - survival prostitution and survival military service, I see a connection there. Sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making. As for non-survival-based sex work, well biology and culture do matter.
I never claimed 2, nor did Helen. The key claim was women are more choosy than men. Yes the mix of sexual and natural selection is complicated. And Helen is using a broad brush metaphor here, but it's basically parental investment theory.
Without (2), her claim “evolution has favoured the offspring of choosy females who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes” would be irrelevant. If evolution favored choosy males and females equally, she might as well not have mentioned evolution favoring choosiness while trying to show that women are choosier.
“The key claim was women are more choosy than men.”
She attempted to substantiate that claim, but her attempt failed. Unsubstantiated claims do not always reflect reality. They instead can stem from misinformation, ignorance, indoctrination, confusion, wishful thinking, fantasies, fables, myths, rumors, old wives’ tales, conspiracy theories, lying, and delusions. Claims substantiated by no evidence persuade no intelligent people: https://biard.substack.com/p/claims-substantiated-by-no-evidence.
“Yes the mix of sexual and natural selection is complicated.”
It is not too complicated for me. I am a capable scientist. The issue is rather that Pluckrose failed to substantiate her claim with anything besides an unsound argument.
“It's basically parental investment theory.”
Pluckrose cited no such thing.
Pluckrose’s argument has been debunked. That is how peer-review and falsification work.
I didn't try to substantiate it. I assumed people know that men can maximise their biological fitness by having sex with lots of women while women cannot do this but maximise theirs by selecting a mate who will stick around to provide and protect.
Human social evolution has favored prostitution in one form or another. Perhaps you should consider that. Christian teachings tell us to treat each other well. Marx tells us to be fair in our economic relations. If you have a higher authority on these matters - please share them with us.
Thanks for this clear-headed dive into a controversial issue. Indeed, there is no single, simplistic narrative that gives an adequate picture of what sex work is or isn't. As often is the case, I find myself in agreement with most of Helen's points.
“ Sex work”makes prostitution seem just like any other job when it’s basically degrading of those engaging in it. Many girls are forced into it and into a life of slavery with pimps getting most of the money.
I can see no defense whatsoever in using one’s body for making money because an 8 hour day is just too long and arduous!
Prostitution is a dirty business and those engaging in it are used women ( or men)and calling it “sex work”, a euphemism for whoring , doesn’t clean it up.
I cringe when I hear the words “sex work.” Selling my body wasn’t a livelihood. There was no resemblance to ordinary employment in the ritual degradation of strangers’ using my body to satiate their urges. I was doubly exploited — by those who pimped me and those who bought me.
From a young girl who was pushed into prostitution. I agree that the euphemism “ sex work” is demeaning… by making it sound so innocent!
I agree with your rejecting prostitution as a form of productive labor. I am also sorry that you suffered from this. Please believe me when I say that I sympathize with your previous situation.
Sounds very judgmental, but I get your point. "No defense whatsoever" well I don't judge those who sell sex and I don't judge those who pay for it (those making money from above is another matter). I do judge the conditions that make that happen.
…….”The term “sex work” whitewashes the economic constraints, family ruptures and often sordid circumstances that drive many women to sell themselves. It flips the nature of the transaction in question: It enables sex buyers to justify their role, allowing the purchase of women’s bodies for their own sexual pleasure and violent urges to feel as lightly transactional as the purchase of packaged meat from the supermarket.”
It is mostly an awful business - I agree with that. But sometimes people find each other and sex is transactional and voluntary. Not a common example - as far as I know - and I admit I don't know much about it first-hand.
I would suspect that it’s extremely unlikely to be transactional, but even so, prostitution is degrading and calling it” sex work” is simply whitewashing it!
There is a good article in the New York Times on this subject and the attempt of some” progressives” to make it seem just like any paying job.
I agree it is awful in most cases. The term “Sex work is work” is problematic to me. How do we define “work”. Lots of people making money - but not all “work”. My concern with this issue is the least among us.
No, that is just your agenda, nothing substantiated by evidence. I am a scientist, not an ideologue like you. You are totally wasting your time replying to my posts. I am buying none of your nonsense.
It depends on why they do it. For some, quitting prostitution means quitting eating and quitting have a roof over their heads. Best not to judge - not very "Christlike"
Our in-jest back and forth on goblin sharks led me to this piece.
I believe in full autonomy. The reasons why a person would or would not want to do sex work (gender, social attitudes, etc) are mostly immaterial - provided, and this is crucial- there is no coercion or dire circumstance forcing them to do so. That would not be freedom, that would be use and abuse. I also believe the sex industry is rather horrific and predatory, and that while there is free agency to be found, it’s often used to mask the existence of much worse situations.
In other words, I approve of the idea of sex work in theory, but I have serious ethical qualms with how it’s happening in the real world. Can it just be work? Yes. Is it always, or even usually? That I don’t know.
For the record, I’ve never partaken of a sex worker’s services. I’ve never been to a strip club. The knowledge that the person is merely performing for my money and not for me ruins it. And that’s just my personal take.
(Deleted and reposted a more complete version because I got cut off and couldn’t edit.)
This is exactly how I weighed this issue until recently, when I fell down the rabbit hole of sex trafficking, the truth (horrors) of legalised brothels, and the declining value of women and girls/rising sexual assault stats in the most "sex-positive" countries with legal brothels. The fringe "empowered/personal choice/just a job" narrative (women who enjoy it/are paid well) has twisted the rule of the majority (sex-trafficked or otherwise choiceless women and girls) to their horrendous cost. I do believe in freedom and choice. But when a movement pushes for the rights and freedoms of the relatively priviledged (as in, they are choosing) fringe, at the cost (and legitimisation) of the majority, who's freedom are we fighting for?
The only true winners here are the men. In Germany, a common 'coming of age' activity is a drive-in brothel where father and son can order from a list of sex-acts along with burger and fries.
What does it do to a boys mind growing up in a society where access to woman's holes are legally (and entirely normally) sold at a drive-in? What does it say to girls?
I dont much care about making those who choose this life feel better about it. If they have a choice, they are not in need of my opinion and I have no judgement against them. I do jugde the normalising, defending, rewriting and romanticising the reality of prostitution - especially as it has resulted in the legalising/marketing or the comodification of human bodies - which IS fuelling the ongoing elevation of sex trafficking - human slavery. They, and the countless other choiceless women and girls are my concern. But they continue to pay the price for those with a voice and a choice who demand acceptance.
Can a man weigh in?
First of all, I want to thank our host for a pragmatical, well reasoned article. I wish more people had a similar attitude.
Regarding your comment, it prompted a thought in me, but I'm not accusing you of anything nor I mean to abscribe to you a particular policy preference, it simply something I'd like to point out.
I think it is wrong to put legalization and prohibitionism as the only two alternatives possible. It is similar to the false opposition of empowering/degrading.
In Italy there is a very old law (1958), brought about by a female socialist senator after consulting many prostitutes, that makes brothels illegal, prostitution by oneself possible but not regulated, on the condition that no-third party can benefit from it. It is an old law and likely not perfect, but to the day it seems to me that it strikes the right balance, given the constraints in which it has to operate.
Trafficking is illegal for all purposes, for prostitution as for other form of exploitation (thinking of tomatoes field where immigrants literally die because of the hot temperature). When it is not policed sufficiently, it's not the law that needs change, but enforcement. With that I mean that even without the nordic model, exploitation is already illegal and yet trafficking and exploitation still exist, so I very much doubt that changing the law would be pragmatically useful. It sounds more like feeling better and more moral without changing anything, in a mirrored way as those arguing for the empowerment camp.
I'm just pointing out that we should perhaps ask why the pleas of exploited women are not top priority when police and the law should already be able to act.
I strongly agree with one point you made. No one should be able to earn "passive income" from a prostitute earnings - in other words no pimps allowed. That gets more complicated when evaluating other forms of sex work - strippers and porn actors for example.
One thing to add. In countries that cannot or will not have adequate social safety nets and economic regulation (like mine USA-a will not country) maybe the Nordic model of prohibition is best. I'm just referring to prostitution here.
As for the countries that "cannot" well God bless them all.
We need better morals - plus harm reduction - plus better social support systems - plus a fair and just system of economic regulation - these problems do not exist in vacums.
I need to clarify that "The problem of sex work does not exist in a vacuum".
Helen, your comment about mistaking personality for political belief rings true for me, but in the opposite direction! As someone who primarily sees sex as a subsidiary to the deeper purpose of love, rather than a fun leisure activity, I am naturally extremely disdainful of the notion that sex can be bought and sold, even if the whole point of liberalism is that political decisions shouldn't be guided by our own personal preferences and we should be able to trust individuals to make their own decisions better than we can on their behalf.
I've gotten over my inclination to judge the sellers. We all have to earn a living. But my contempt for the buyers remains.
This article came right when I was thinking very deeply on this topic and re-examining my priors and considering writing on it. Thanks for your contribution to my mental elasticity and growth.
We tend to do this, I find!
Thank you for complicating sex work narratives so lucidly. For me, the key sentence, which helps us understand why many issues are so vexing, is: "I fell into the trap of mistaking my personality for my politics." I immediately thought of an essay by Helen Dale about her realization that her libertarian politics have often reflected her own characteristics and preferences. How much more productive our debates would be if we could think about the personal and the political in these ways!
Oh, yes, that essay was a banger! "People unlike me", I think it was called. Must go back and reread.
Alex: I just skimmed that again and like it for the way she highlights the utility of disagreeableness. There may be another too. It's such an important insight, so I'm always delighted to see it!
In wishing to describe my personal experience of reading this excellent post, I hesitate to use the word ‘stimulating’ in isolation, just in case, in this particular context, it gives the wrong impression. Consequently, allow me to qualify that adjective and say, thank you very much for this ‘MENTALLY stimulating’ read. 🙂
I don't have a problem with sex work as long as no one "needs" to do it. Those who wish to engage in sex work to obtain luxuries - well I have no problem with that. It's the survival-based prostitution that bothers me. The solution is to have a generous welfare state and a well-regulated economy that ensures no one has to do it. I feel much the same way about military service.
Very good article. Thank you for writing it.
In a world with a good social safety net, though, do you think people would still engage in prostitution for reasons other than the very intentional pursuit of luxuries? I have recently begun to think so.
I used to think there were the oppressed subjugated prostitutes (the majority) and the rare ostensibly happy Aella sort.
I now think that all sorts of terrible priorities (by my standards) and personality flaws (like laziness, to name just one) are in play, too. I started thinking of this when I kept seeing behavior from women in my orbit that I found baffling, until I re-examined my priors.
I understand what you mean. I went to nursing school with lots of nice Christian girls - many referred to their vaginas as their “money maker” lol.
They need to be respected, treated kindly and fairly - like everyone else.
It is a complicated problem. Harm reduction is ok - if done right.
Respectfully, Hellen, I feel as though you have a blind spot to who is really harmed by potentially “normalizing” sex work. The desires of the small minority of people who actually are choosing to do this work should not be prioritized ahead of the safety and well being of vulnerable women who make up vast majority of the sex trade. Normalizing sex work is a luxury belief that has extremely harmful downstream effects for more vulnerable populations and society at large. This is often the blind spot of liberalism that typically prioritizes “autonomy” above all else. But is “autonomy” the only moral good in society worth protecting? What about health? Justice? Dignity? Well-being? And when there is such inequality, whose autonomy is actually being advanced? Often times the whims and desires of privileged elites are what is centered and the actual needs and well-being of other people are missed. I’m certainly not claiming this is your intent, Hellen, or the intent of other people who promote liberalism. This is just my view of one of the very real tradeoffs of pure liberalism (which I do support many aspects of, but still find it flawed).
I didn’t make an argument for normalising sex work. I said that arguments that it’s just work ignore hard-wired intuitions and women suffering with mental illness and addiction. I specifically argued against prioritising the needs of those who choose sex work and said that we need to focus on the most vulnerable women. Maybe read it again?
I will definitely take a re-read. I thought at the end, you were essentially saying that sex work could be accepted, hence more normalized (my word not necessarily yours) for the smaller group of people who are actually choosing to do it by way of respecting of their “autonomy”. And then we could not normalize it for the vulnerable people who do it more so out of desperation, rather than as an act of their free will and best interest. Am I misunderstanding?
And I suppose where I should have clarified is that on a societal/political level, I don’t it’s possible to do that. I think normalizing for one group will have many very negative downstream effects for the most vulnerable group of women, which is who I’m most concerned about. Maybe you just meant on how we understand each person on an individual/personal level, we can see how some people are impacted differently by sex work? Which if that is what you meant, I do have some agreement with you there. I saw you discussed and acknowledged the reality of sex work during your times working or being at hospitals, which I deeply appreciated. I think I just disagreed with your conclusion when considering it from a more social/political level. I respect you trying to be thoughtful and maybe if we were speaking in person about this we would agree much more than we disagree.
Whether or not anybody finds sex work acceptable or not will come down to their own ethics. We can respect people's autonomy without respecting what they do with it. My point was that trying to apply any one narrative to all women is just factually wrong and gets in the way of supporting the vulnerable ones.
To me, the problem with sex work is when it is coerced or when people are forced into it to stay afloat because they cannot access the support they need. It's much like how I believe marriage is OK if chosen but very wrong if literally coerced or if society is set up in such a way that women can't survive unless they do it. It would not help women at risk of forced marriages or desperation marriages to be against marriage generally.
For people who believe that sex should be regarded as a very personal and intimate thing and/or that there is a specific 'sexual morality' that differs from normal morality expectations of non-harmfulness, consent, honesty etc. this won't be adequate. I am not one of those people.
Its OK for us to disagree on this! I expect we agree on much more! I'm sorry if I sounded terse.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and response. I appreciate the conversation and think I understand more clearly what you’re getting at.
While we are in total agreement on being against forced marriage, I don’t think sex work is comparable to marriage, even in the “best case scenario” in terms of its social and cultural impact. I think marriage, when socially encouraged but not forced, has many positive and healthy impacts on individuals, communities and society. (Even though I would absolutely grant it is not a perfect institution.) I don’t think the same can be said for sex work if it were to be normalized and encouraged to the extent marriage is or has been, particularly in its more modern iterations. Maybe you do not agree with that assessment. It’s obviously fine if we don’t fully see eye to eye.
I believe you’re thinking about these topics more so on the individual level and how people make decisions about their own lives (while still acknowledging some of the societal circumstances that make you uncomfortable with sex work or marriage), which is absolutely valid. My knee jerk reaction is to think about this issue on a social level and how cultural and political norms impact everyone, but especially vulnerable communities. That is not to say you don’t care about that as well, it is just a different focal point.
Thanks, again, for taking time to consider my thoughts!
You have outlined the most respectable liberal defence of legal sexual services. One of the assumptions here not made explicit is that law and ethics are two different things. There are a range of activities that are not illegal but the ethics of which are left to whatever confession one professes. But that raises the more basic issue of whether we liberals are missing something in our world view with our prizing of autonomy. Certain issues seem to make people question the fundamentals of the world view, I'm thinking of certain life long liberal leftists who seem to have reached a limit when faced with surrogacy, and euthanasia . Certain ideas of dignity, undefined, seem to be in play. Yes men are different, and on a spectrum too. Male 2 male anonymous sex is basically available on tap. But many gay men are revolted by that scene and thrive on emotionally intimate sex.
I feel compelled to go off topic since you mentioned euthanasia and surrogacy.
The classical liberal view admits that certain "things" are outside the scope of "free" exchange and that your autonomy is limited for the sake of other people autonomy. For example, you are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery. So what's the difference between prostitution, surrogacy and organ selling? I'm afraid it's not clear cut, but a case can be made that while prostitution is not irreversible, organ selling and surrogacy are (the latter also impacting on the rights of the newborn). As for euthanasia, it's even more irreversible, and I suggest you buy Kathleen Stock's latest "do not go gently" (which I haven't finished yet) for the case about being ok with the principle but the practical considerations changing almost everything
Yes Kathleen Stock was one of those I had in mind. She's a very clear thinker. I'm looking forward to reading her latest.
Years behind a bar in Germany put me in sustained contact with a fair number of sex workers, men and women both. Not as a researcher — as someone people talk to at the end of a night.
Among those working independently, the distribution matched your taxonomy pretty closely. Roughly 60-70% in the it's a job camp — showing up, doing the work, going home. Around 20% in the preferable to shift work category, and a smaller fraction who were genuinely strategic about it, building toward early retirement with some discipline.
That picture changes almost completely when a third party is managing the arrangement. The "it's a job" crowd largely disappears. What replaces it isn't a different attitude toward the work — it's the near-total absence of attitude, which is its own answer.
Agency, it turns out, is less about the work than about who controls the conditions of it. Which is probably the sentence your whole piece was building toward without quite saying it.
I don't disagree with anything you say here Helen. It's a fair-minded liberal view. I don't really care if someone chooses to prostitute for a living. It is their right, but I refuse to call it sex work and dignify it. That is my right. You share a lot of personal stories and possible scenarios in the post. But I highly doubt you can show me a little girl or boy who says, " Mommy, I want to be a sex worker when I grow up." I'm hard-pressed to think it's anyone's aspiration or dream job. It is a consolation prize at best.
Well, you’d certainly hope not. That’s very much an adult thing. I think some people are genuinely interested in making a career in sex, but they’d be at the top end of the possibilities. For more people, it’d be like a lot of jobs “I don’t mind it and it pays the bills.”
There are children's books about some of the occupations which children could consider and some of them have sections on "sex work", describing its supposedly favorable characteristics. These are for prepubescent children who do not as yet have any idea what sexual feelings are or the range of activities that comprise sexual expression. I saw one several years ago in a bookstore. It had colorful illustrations, although nothing "explicit".
So there may actually be children who have read such books and gotten the idea that "sex work" would be a good thing to aspire to.
I’m sure there are but that would be a very bad thing.
I'm a bit suspicious about this - can you provide some proof please?
Unfortunately that doesn’t surprise me
I agree. Especially with the last paragraph. It isn't morality so much as seeing the iatrogenic harm legalised commodification of female bodies. Individual autonomous women choosing this privately is one thing. The wholesale, casual sale of largely female bodies, the dubious supply mechanisms to meet ever-increasing/sickening 'service' demands harms all females everywhere. When the mainstream legitimises bodies as holes/organs 'for sale', some men will realise this only applies to 'some bodies', not all. But not all. And for many boys (and girls) raised with this mindset, it isn't hyperbole to see how that line will blur.
“evolution has favoured the offspring of choosy females who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes.”
Why has evolution not equally favored the offspring of choosy males who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes?
The ratio of investment per copulation is different for men and women, due to women being the bearers of children. This has a lot of downstream effects.
Yes, the female risk and investment is MUCH larger, which is why Woman is the CEO of the species and the arbiter of human life itself. Risk and investment = founder = gets deferred to.
How do you get from (1) child-bearing is done by women to (2) evolution has not equally favored the offspring of choosy males who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes? Why would evolution not favor the offspring of males who require commitment, or why would males not pass on choosy or cautious genes?
David Buss is the evolutionary psychologist who has written most about this. The way it's usually expressed is "Eggs are expensive. Sperm is cheap." Men can best maximise their biological fitness by having many sexual partners. Some offspring will survive and likely more than if he sticks with one woman. Women cannot do this. Their offspring survive best when they have a committed partner who sticks around.
This is the scientific explanation for male/female sexual relations. I think this of course matters, but I mostly think about the economic side of things - which is the central point of your article - if I am not mistaken.
I don’t know what you mean. The economics of sex work are on a different level to the reasons women typically regard sex as in a different category to other physical labour they can earn money for performing.
People being paid to fuck or fight - it is difference isn't it. Compared to bricklaying or accounting. I think I get your point. It is personal.
sorry - happy hour here - I was doing ok earlier. Thank you for your well written article.
I respect how you feel, but I compared sex work to military service in a certain way - survival prostitution and survival military service, I see a connection there. Sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making. As for non-survival-based sex work, well biology and culture do matter.
Good point, but nothing to do with the article we are discussing.
I never claimed 2, nor did Helen. The key claim was women are more choosy than men. Yes the mix of sexual and natural selection is complicated. And Helen is using a broad brush metaphor here, but it's basically parental investment theory.
“I never claimed 2, nor did Helen.”
Without (2), her claim “evolution has favoured the offspring of choosy females who require commitment thus passing on choosy and cautious genes” would be irrelevant. If evolution favored choosy males and females equally, she might as well not have mentioned evolution favoring choosiness while trying to show that women are choosier.
“The key claim was women are more choosy than men.”
She attempted to substantiate that claim, but her attempt failed. Unsubstantiated claims do not always reflect reality. They instead can stem from misinformation, ignorance, indoctrination, confusion, wishful thinking, fantasies, fables, myths, rumors, old wives’ tales, conspiracy theories, lying, and delusions. Claims substantiated by no evidence persuade no intelligent people: https://biard.substack.com/p/claims-substantiated-by-no-evidence.
“Yes the mix of sexual and natural selection is complicated.”
It is not too complicated for me. I am a capable scientist. The issue is rather that Pluckrose failed to substantiate her claim with anything besides an unsound argument.
“It's basically parental investment theory.”
Pluckrose cited no such thing.
Pluckrose’s argument has been debunked. That is how peer-review and falsification work.
I didn't try to substantiate it. I assumed people know that men can maximise their biological fitness by having sex with lots of women while women cannot do this but maximise theirs by selecting a mate who will stick around to provide and protect.
Anyone who has cats knows this. You don't even have to know people to know this. Thank you, Helen.
Here is a good recent overview of the evidence that females are choosier than males.
https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/p/sex-differences-in-sexual-choosiness
What has been debunked? I'm sure you're a capable scientist but I think you're missing the point.
It is clear enough to reasonable people. I am muting you now.
Animal science yes - but not people science. You have to humanize these things.
Human social evolution has favored prostitution in one form or another. Perhaps you should consider that. Christian teachings tell us to treat each other well. Marx tells us to be fair in our economic relations. If you have a higher authority on these matters - please share them with us.
Irrelevant to my question.
sorry, please state your question again, as well as its relevance to Helen's article
Thanks for this clear-headed dive into a controversial issue. Indeed, there is no single, simplistic narrative that gives an adequate picture of what sex work is or isn't. As often is the case, I find myself in agreement with most of Helen's points.
“ Sex work”makes prostitution seem just like any other job when it’s basically degrading of those engaging in it. Many girls are forced into it and into a life of slavery with pimps getting most of the money.
I can see no defense whatsoever in using one’s body for making money because an 8 hour day is just too long and arduous!
Prostitution is a dirty business and those engaging in it are used women ( or men)and calling it “sex work”, a euphemism for whoring , doesn’t clean it up.
Well, I addressed that in the piece.
I cringe when I hear the words “sex work.” Selling my body wasn’t a livelihood. There was no resemblance to ordinary employment in the ritual degradation of strangers’ using my body to satiate their urges. I was doubly exploited — by those who pimped me and those who bought me.
From a young girl who was pushed into prostitution. I agree that the euphemism “ sex work” is demeaning… by making it sound so innocent!
I agree with your rejecting prostitution as a form of productive labor. I am also sorry that you suffered from this. Please believe me when I say that I sympathize with your previous situation.
Sounds very judgmental, but I get your point. "No defense whatsoever" well I don't judge those who sell sex and I don't judge those who pay for it (those making money from above is another matter). I do judge the conditions that make that happen.
…….”The term “sex work” whitewashes the economic constraints, family ruptures and often sordid circumstances that drive many women to sell themselves. It flips the nature of the transaction in question: It enables sex buyers to justify their role, allowing the purchase of women’s bodies for their own sexual pleasure and violent urges to feel as lightly transactional as the purchase of packaged meat from the supermarket.”
( New York Times article)
It is mostly an awful business - I agree with that. But sometimes people find each other and sex is transactional and voluntary. Not a common example - as far as I know - and I admit I don't know much about it first-hand.
I would suspect that it’s extremely unlikely to be transactional, but even so, prostitution is degrading and calling it” sex work” is simply whitewashing it!
There is a good article in the New York Times on this subject and the attempt of some” progressives” to make it seem just like any paying job.
Those who support the idea of this being a legit from of Praxis are vile - fuck the NYT
The New York Times did not support the words “ sex work”
. Quite the opposite!
Sorry, I misunderstand your point
Read the quote from the NYT that I posted.
I agree it is awful in most cases. The term “Sex work is work” is problematic to me. How do we define “work”. Lots of people making money - but not all “work”. My concern with this issue is the least among us.
Admirably objective and non-judgemental.
A life of prostitution is a life of slavery and why not be judgmental? I feel sorry for those in that situation.
"A life of prostitution is a life of slavery"
The vast majority of prostitutes are free to quit prostitution, no?
Also, some are more or less enslaved.
"Also, some are more or less enslaved."
That evades rather than addressing my question about the vast majority.
I think it is safe to assume that the "vast majority" as you call them, would rather not have to do that.
No, that is just your agenda, nothing substantiated by evidence. I am a scientist, not an ideologue like you. You are totally wasting your time replying to my posts. I am buying none of your nonsense.
Please read my other comments on this article. I respect how you feel. But one must sometimes think in terms of “harm reduction”.
No, your posts to me have been bad enough.
It depends on why they do it. For some, quitting prostitution means quitting eating and quitting have a roof over their heads. Best not to judge - not very "Christlike"
“For some, quitting prostitution means quitting eating and quitting have a roof over their heads.”
Everyone has to work at least some job in order to eat and live under a roof, but that is not what slavery means.
“Best not to judge - not very ‘Christlike’”
Best for me to ignore internet-randoms telling me what to do. 😭
Muted.
Thank you for muting me. I suppose we are all random though.
Which is why you don't find me giving orders.
Our in-jest back and forth on goblin sharks led me to this piece.
I believe in full autonomy. The reasons why a person would or would not want to do sex work (gender, social attitudes, etc) are mostly immaterial - provided, and this is crucial- there is no coercion or dire circumstance forcing them to do so. That would not be freedom, that would be use and abuse. I also believe the sex industry is rather horrific and predatory, and that while there is free agency to be found, it’s often used to mask the existence of much worse situations.
In other words, I approve of the idea of sex work in theory, but I have serious ethical qualms with how it’s happening in the real world. Can it just be work? Yes. Is it always, or even usually? That I don’t know.
For the record, I’ve never partaken of a sex worker’s services. I’ve never been to a strip club. The knowledge that the person is merely performing for my money and not for me ruins it. And that’s just my personal take.
(Deleted and reposted a more complete version because I got cut off and couldn’t edit.)