of the debate over whether to prohibit prostitution or to have it decriminalized, and normalized in
society, I will begin by looking at what the various authors have written about the institution as it
is right now, and its problems. I will then be able investigate the solutions presented by the liberal
feminists, the problems with those, and the solutions presented by the radical feminists, and the
problems with their arguments as well.
What is Prostitution?
The legal definition of prostitution is defined by Larson (2001:51) as “engaging in sexual
behavior for financial payment”. Davis (1979:234) describes the basic principle of prostitution as
“the use of sexual stimulation in a system of dominance to attain non-sexual ends”, mainly
survival, and relates it to our close relatives, the primates. But, obviously, this cannot be a
complete definition of prostitution, as one could never go into the jungle and see an ape being
arrested by the police for being a prostitute doing the sexual things in order to distract another so
the former may swallow his food before the other takes it by force. Also, many other institutions
in our culture, which are very respectable, are in a sense, the trade of sexual goods for non-sexual,
survival needs, such as marriage. It would also include employing attractive people in stores,
cafes, advertisements, movies. Anderson (2002), creates an analogy of a man, taking his date to
an expensive restaurant, and spending an impressive amount of money, in return for which, he will
hope for some kind of sexual reciprocity. Such payment is not required on the part of the second
party, and should she not consent to sex, he could not demand it. Should he try to take it by force,
that would be harassment, and a violation. In commercial prostitution, neither party is using sex
for a socially acceptable end, one is looking for pleasure, the other for money (Davis, 1979: 235).
So, as Larson explains later in his chapter (2001: 52), the sociological definition of prostitution is
“activities in which sex is exchanged for immediate financial reward, and in which there is no
ongoing emotional and/or social relationship between the participants.” There are a lot of
problems with commercial prostitution that need to be addressed in order to benefit the
prostitutes, and society as a whole.
What Do We Need to Change About Prostitution?
Anderson (2002) describes in his essay two sets of problems with the institution of
prostitution. First the “narrow set,” and then the “broader set.” The “narrow set” consists of
problems that directly affect the prostitute, such as the specific acts of violence of the customers
and pimps who harm, abuse, degrade and exploit the prostitutes they employ. Also included in
this set of problems are the issues that arises from the state’s efforts to suppress prostitution, such
as the prostitutes’ inability to organize collectively, and the fact that prostitutes are not protected
by the law, because they are ‘outlaws.’ The “broader set” of problems are the ones that affect
society more as a whole, rather than the individuals. These include the gender marked
characteristics of the trade, as it is described by Dworkin (in Anderson, 2002) as “a kind of
inhuman violence targeted at the female body,” the social stigma attached to prostitutes and
pimps. The fact that women earn lower wages than men, and that there are fewer employment
options available to them is a factor that Davis (1979) approaches. He suggests that if the wages
of working girls were raised, there would be less incentive for women to go into prostitution
rather than the more socially accepted forms of employment. There would, therefore, be fewer
prostitutes on the street, and the ones still there would be in higher demand, and would then be
charging more for their services. The larger amounts of money being made by prostitutes would
then entice even women who have legitimate occupations into the field of prostitution, and there
would be as many prostitutes as there were to begin with. Social conditions that force women into
the trade, and seem to undermine their ability to avoid the harms and abuses that accompany this
sort of work also fall into this category. Many girls go into prostitution because of prior physical
or sexual harassment and brutality, or because of homelessness, substance addiction, or financial
emergency. And finally, the idea that the problems prostitutes face are rarely seen by the public as
injustices that need to be solved. As Anderson (2002) remarks sarcastically: “they’re not like us;
they do things we wouldn’t dream of doing.” And as Abraham and McNaught (1997) point out:
“what prostitutes need...is not a bunch of goody-goodies looking down on them.” In looking for a
resolution to these problems, I will first address the radical feminists, and their campaign as to
why prohibiting prostitution is the best solution for women, and society.
The Radical Feminist Critique of Prostitution
The radical feminists are against prostitution because of the sexist nature of the institution:
their claim is that it “exploits women and reinforces their status as sexual objects, undoing many
of the gains women have made over the past century” (Abraham with McNaught, 1997).
They are against normalization of prostitution because of its threat to sexual autonomy, a radical
feminist value, and if sex work was accepted as “just another way to use your body,” as Martha
Nussbaum (in Anderson, 2002) suggested, that value would need to be sacrificed. According to
Anderson (2002), the radical feminists feel that absolute abolishment of prostitution is necessary
because the good purchased from a prostitute is partly her own degradation; the existence of
prostitution is dependent upon the inequalities between the customer and the prostitution, in
social and economic power; and because prostitution contributes to the persistence of the
inequalities that the practice is dependent upon. Radical feminists believe that the very existence
of prostitution “denigrates all women by reinforcing chauvinist attitudes regarding women as
sexual property” (Larson, 2001:56), and prohibiting the practice would end the definition of
women in general as available sexual objects, for any man who desires them. Since it is unlikely
that the institution of prostitution will disappear the way the radical feminists would like it to, they
consider the next best option to be shifting the blame away from the prostitute, by freeing them
from legal penalties, and condemning rather the male customer, and the pimp. As Anderson
(2002) points out, it would make the prostitutes life much easier, as they are already
disadvantaged, and it makes more sense to reprehend those who make the job a dangerous and
degrading one. Larson (2001:60) notes that the legal authorities in Toronto found that the
customers, who were mostly middle-class men, with families, were more easily deterred than
prostitutes, because the latter group normally had long criminal records already. The liberal
feminists would also like to see legal measures taken against those who abuse prostitutes. This
group would like to see all sex-trade workers treated as fairly as any other social-service worker.
Their beliefs are outlined in the next sub-category.
The Liberal Feminist Critique of Prostitution
The liberal feminists see that prostitution as it is right now is a harmful, degrading
institution, but they believe prostitution (and sexual commerce in general) is not necessarily a bad
institution (Anderson, 2002). Their solution to the problem is not to get rid of it, but to legalize it,
or at least decriminalize it, and to make it a normal part of our society. Some liberals, such as
Nussbaum (in Anderson, 2002) hold that “any reluctance to normalizing prostitution is based in an
unjustifiable prejudice, one that we should strive to overcome,” just as we have overcome
prejudices pertaining to women working on the stage, as actors and dancers. The liberals’
responses to the radical feminist assertions to eradicate prostitution are that prostitution may be
the best employment option some women have, and that to eliminate it would make things worse
for the poorest women by denying them what small benefits they might have gained from such
work; and that there is much diversity within the bounds of prostitution, and that the different
institutions may not have any of the same problematic characteristics in common. Normalization
would go a long ways towards protecting prostitutes from the harms they experience from
clients, pimps, psychopaths and police officers. They would be able to organize collectively, and it
would be easier for them to sue for damages caused by the violence against them. O’Neill (1996)
and Larson (2001:63) both state that lifting the laws against brothel keeping would improve
prostitutes’ circumstances by allowing them to work in safe, healthy environments, and provide
the protection that comes with operating in small, mutual interest groups. In the Netherlands,
where prostitution is decriminalized, police officers and prostitutes are on the same side.
Prostitutes speak at police academies, and the communication pays off in safer working conditions
(Abraham with McNaught, 1997).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the radical feminists want to completely get rid of prostitution in any form,
because of its sexist, chauvinistic patriarchal nature, and because it is harmful and degrading
to women. The liberal feminists want to make life better for the prostitute by allowing them
to continue to work in the sex trade, with the law on their side, to protect them and make
their working conditions as safe and healthy as any other worker in our society. Anderson (2002)
has the fullest, most complete argument, presenting both sides equally, and giving substantial
reasons for his siding with the radical feminists to abolish the sex trade, because to normalize it
would be to give up sexual autonomy. Abraham with McNaught (1997) also have very convincing
arguments for both sides of the debate, quotes directly from extreme radical feminists, and those
from the other end of the spectrum as well. Davis (1979) also has good arguments, that are very
objective. They are good material to read to begin forming a personal opinion on the debate.
