Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
– Matthew 23:24
Sex worker rights activists hear a lot of arguments against decriminalizing our profession, absolutely none of them sound or reasonable (no matter what those who use them may believe). Most of them are based in one religion or another, and by religion I mean any belief system which is unsupported by (and may even fly in the face of) verifiable facts; others are rooted in the ever-popular desire to control women’s sexuality, arguments that prostitution somehow causes harm to a nebulosity like “public decency”, or the indefensible belief that personal aversions should be forced upon others at gunpoint. Some of these arguments are wholly ridiculous, while others have the appearance of sensibility to those who are ignorant of either the realities of sex work or the inevitable and unintended consequences of any attempt to proscribe certain behaviors by the use of brute force; one of the most popular prohibitionist strategies of the past few decades falls into the latter category. Any advocate who presents a compelling moral, legal and practical case demonstrating categorically that decriminalization is better for everyone – sex workers, clients, families of both, health officials, society at large and even government treasuries – can be sure that once every other argument is defeated someone will intone sonorously, as though it were an unanswerable question, “But what about the trafficked children?” And though this one is no more valid than the others, its emotional impact often flusters even experienced advocates and triggers a reflexively apologetic stance which may well undermine everything she has previously said.
The most serious flaw in this line of attack (it cannot legitimately be called an argument) is the implication that decriminalization somehow harms coerced prostitutes, especially underage ones; in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. When any business or consensual behavior is criminalized, the law lumps good people together with bad: a punter who is kind and generous is equated with brutal or dishonest ones; an ethical escort service owner who treats her employees fairly is just as “criminal” as one who coerces workers and cheats clients, and so on. The primary tool of control for those who exploit women is not physical abuse, rape, drugs or black magic as the various narratives pretend: it is threat of exposure to the “lawful authorities”. Those who are in a country without proper papers are subject to arrest, confinement and deportation, and under criminalization regimes like that of the United States just being a sex worker is illegal, so police are just as likely to arrest a coerced woman as one who adores her job. Clients or workers under decriminalization are free to report violence or suspected coercion to the police, while those under even partial criminalization are not due to fear of arrest. Furthermore, criminals are often attracted to criminality; in other words, those who are comfortable making a living outside the law are more likely to take advantage of the higher profits inherent in a black market, so that criminalizing any business actually attracts shady characters who might not otherwise be interested in it. Simply put, making sex work wholly or partially illegal tends to attract the sort of person who doesn’t mind coercing others; make maid service illegal and there will almost certainly be a rise in the number of coerced, underage domestics.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that despite the claims of prohibitionists, the vast majority of sex workers are no more coerced than anyone else without a well-padded trust fund; we all need to work, and we choose the work that suits us best (even if that work is highly unappealing to others). Less than 2% of all prostitutes are coerced in any meaningful way, and only about 8% of even underage prostitutes report having been coerced into the trade by any person (a number which has, incidentally, remained relatively stable since at least Edwardian times). And despite sensationalized claims to the contrary, only about 3.5% of all prostitutes in Western countries are below 18, and the majority of those are 17; the average age at which a so-called “child prostitute” enters the trade is 16, not the oft-cited 13. In other words, the fraction of all Western sex workers who could be described as “trafficked children” in even the loosest and least accurate sense is less than 0.3%. Criminalizing an entire type of human activity because of the exploitation of a tiny minority of those involved in it not only exacerbates the problem (see the paragraph above this one), it also sets an impossible precedent; if you consider it a valid response I suggest you learn to grow your own food, make all of your own clothes and chuck your iPhone in the bin (because if you sell it you are also profiting from exploitation).
The third, and perhaps most subtle, problem with this rhetoric is its philosophical bankruptcy and appeal to bigotry. The Australian activist Cheryl Overs has already expressed this much more effectively than I could:
…even in that overstudied “hotbed of sex trafficking” Cambodia, the only credible study [showed that] less than 2% of sex workers say they had been sold or coerced (CACHA 2008). How might this compare to the percentage of married women who were forced into marriage – even in the “hotbeds” of forced marriage? What percentage of gay men have been forced into sodomy? We don’t know, but clearly both happen. But it would be absurd to preface the words “bride” and “gay man” with “willing” or “consenting”. Can you imagine reports that say that condoms should be distributed to “consenting homosexuals”? Can you think of anything more absurd, more homophobic or more stigmatising? Can you think of anything more absurd than describing Kate Middleton as a “willing bride”? Positioning “willing” and “unwilling” doesn’t contribute to justice for people who have been raped, beaten [or] imprisoned in the course of either marriage [or] homosexuality and no one would suggest that. Nor would anyone suggest that rejecting the terms “willing brides” and “consenting homosexuals” amounts to a denial that those things happen. Yet this is exactly what the trafficking paradigm sets out for sex workers…
It is a sad fact of human existence that some people hurt and abuse others, sometimes for emotional reasons and sometimes for political or economic gain; it is also a fact that there is opportunity for coercion in virtually every human activity. The solution to this is not to retreat like frightened rabbits into dark warrens, nor to empower the state to police every human interaction in the vain hope that this will somehow help more people than it will harm; on the contrary, the solution is to stop trying to control everything and everybody, so the law is able to focus on those cases where one party has clearly wronged another. It is long past time for the blind guides of our society to stop expending so much effort in straining at gnats that they regularly swallow camels.
(This column previously appeared in Cliterati on February 10th.)
According to the US CDC, 59% of the average 700 annual fatalities caused by bicyle accidents occur in children under 15 years of age.
Since few children are obliged by law or contract to cycle, following the logic employed in “sexual trafficking”, bicycle ownership and riding should be banned except where it is required by law or occupation. Merely banning children from owning a bicyle would not be enough, since unscrupulous adults might set up illicit riding facilities or force children to cycle to the shops.
Clearly such a horrible death toll requires the death penalty for any offending bicycle vendors and the bicycling “gangs” that inevitably turn up at every major sporting event.
>Clients or workers under decriminalization are free to report violence or suspected coercion to the police, while those under even partial criminalization are not due to fear of arrest.
Somehow, I don’t see this bit working out in the USA. Our police are too corrupt and callous.
On that note, I actually saw a news story on-air last night of a new (or new to me, at least) anti-trafficking, prohibition group up here in Canada. On their fact-sheet they list the average age of entry as 14 years; no citation is provided, of course. They also have a poster which you might find useful; it speaks volumes of their mentality…
https://twitter.com/WilsonKM2/status/305577225376378880
Yes, as if the vast majority were exactly like this girl victimized by her father. But of course the historical fame of the Salvation Army comes from this kind of mindset – and equally dubious facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Armstrong_case
What they don’t want to “get” is exactly what Maggie said; if they weren’t wasting resources on general criminalization schemes, girls like this would be far more likely to be found and helped. But that isn’t really what they are interested in.
Maggie wrote: the vast majority of sex workers are no more coerced than anyone else without a well-padded trust fund;
I was reading on an anarchist web site a screed against sex workers and legalization. I came to the conclusion that the only instance wherein they would think that an action was not coerced was if there were absolutely no constraining factors whatsoever. I think that your analogy of “without a well-padded trust fund” is apt; my initial response was “they seem to be confusing free choice with omnipotence.” By their standards, only deities would have free will. And as we know, deities of various types are constantly violating the free will of the lower beings. Which, I think, is the status to which these particular anarchists were consigning sex workers. Lower beings who need to be protected from their own (imaginary) volition.
I hit post too soon. I was going to add that every choice is contstrained by the circumstances that adhere at the time. Whether that is personal limitations like money or education or geography or social limitations like coercive laws and religions and to argue that one “has no choice” unless all such constraints magically vanish is to argue that only gods have free will.
It’s kind of pointless refuting rationalizations, because the emotional “truth” that they are motivated by is unshakable.
It seems to me that, when somebody starts making the argument that taking a job in prostitution because you need the money is akin to slavery, there is a simple test which can be applied. Simply ask that person, “Would you support a universal basic income, without means testing or work requirement and sufficient to meet a person’s basic needs, so that nobody is forced through economic necessity to take a job in prostitution or anything else?”
It may be necessary at this point to explain the idea a little, but Sir Google is your friend here.
If the answer is anything other than “yes,” then that person is not arguing that taking a job because you need the money is akin to slavery; that person is arguing that prostitution should be suppressed because it’s icky and naughty and wicked, but since those are not so much seen as reason to suppress something anymore, they will pretend this other thing.
I always wonder why arguments like “but what about the trafficked children” don’t immediately get shot down.
You don’t need to make an entire activity illegal to stop be effect of it. You don’t prevent drunk driving by making cars illegal! Or making drinking illegal!
There is no way anyone should get away with “for the children!” arguments. Everything that must be illegal usually always is, without the need for ridiculous “prevention” laws that prevent nothing.
I mean, murder, assault, rape, kidnapping and abuse are already illegal. These are the problems. Better enforcement is what prevents thee things, not more things to enforce!