The Ethics of Sex work

Real Talk Philosophy Artwork

Introductory Discussion Questions

• What is sex work?

• Have you ever sold or purchased sexual services? Would you? 

• Should full-service (penetrative) sex work (not sex slavery) be:
  a) fully criminalized
  b) decriminalized for sellers but not purchasers c) decriminalized for sellers and purchasers but not pimps
  d) fully decriminalized
  e) legalized with regulation
  f) something else 

• How would you feel if a friend or family member entered the sex industry?

• Is there an ethical difference between pornography and prostitution? 

What is Sex Work?

Definition of Sex Work

In general, sex work can be fedined as “the exchange of sexual services, performances, or products for material compensation. It includes activities of direct physical contact between buyers and sellers as well as indirect sexual stimulation.” There is an ongoing debate on whether academics and commentators should be using the term prostitution or sex work. Diving into the literature, it seems that the term ‘Sex Work’ is often used to differentiate legal work from illegal prostitution. The term also implies that the services are voluntary work and not a form of sexual slavery. It can be also used as an umbrella term. Including professions like VIP Top Escorts Nairobi, escort services, massage parlor workers, some massage parlor workers, lady on a phone call, phone sex operators, pole dancers, exotic dancers, lady with black high heels, cam girls, porn set up, workers in the porn industry, bunny bar, brothel owners, pimps, madams, lady on the street-side and people who sell “full service” sexual services, prostitutes

It’s important to distinguish between sex work and sex slavery. Sex slavery involves a completely different set of moral and ethical questions. Here, we are focusing on sex work that is voluntary (although there is certainly room to debate whether or not any sex work is voluntary). 

Sex work is the term preferred by Amnesty International, perhaps the largest and most impactful Human Rights NGO in the world. They write, “We use the term ‘sex work’ only for consensual exchanges between adults.” Of course, what exactly consensual in this case means is up for some very nuanced debate

The term ‘sex work’ is widely debated as some say that sex work is not sex “work”, that we should not be using this word. Instead, we should use words like “prostitution”, or “harlotry”. They say that it's not work, not the same as working as a barista for example. There's something particular when you involve sex in a service that makes it no longer defined as work. Other people from the other side say that the word “sex work” is actually empowering for women and that we want to make sure that we don't just see women as prostitutes or harlots. Instead we see them as workers.

Major Arguments For/Against Criminalization

Most of the calls for the criminalization of sex work are grounded in the risks the profession poses to the workers. Even if many sex workers are never involved in a dangerous situation, the consequences could be so severe that it may be better to make sex work illegal across the board. The direct risks of prostitution include: extortion, mental illness, STDs, the potential for Trafficking; that is, being abducted into sex slavery, violence, and rape.

It's very difficult (to ….?) after you've given your consent over to another human being to treat you a particular way, in a particular environment, particularly when we have no clear definitions of what constitutes sex and what doesn't. The sellers of sex can be the victims of unwanted violence. With that, there are also situations when  non-consensual sexual acts ocurr along with consensual sexual acts. Maybe the seller of sex says no to a particular sexual service, but because they're in that situation the purchaser demands it and the seller feels as though she doesn't have the power in the moment to say no.

However, there are counterarguments to the presence of risks. The danger of a profession has never been a justification for its eradication. Miners have higher chances of injuries, death and disease than sex workers. Yet mining is still legal. In response to high-risk occupations, legislators usually focus on minimizing the risk “many lines of work have intrinsic harms, and yet rather than banning them, we instead compensate the workers, usually monetarily, but also through the establishment of health and safety regulations”, e.g. monitoring workspace, forming labor unions, insurance, etc. Others recognize that criminalization is likely futile. Philip Pettit, an Irish philosopher and political theorist, writes that “criminalizing consensual sex work is unlikely to undermine the oldest profession.”

Some argue that “The ickiness involved in the job’s tasks demean’ [sex workers].” But… this only applies to some sex workers and there are many demeaning jobs that we do not make illegal like sewage maintenance or trash collection

Some argue that Sex work is brutal on the body, and therefore should be abolished.  Others counter that professions like “boxing, crab fishing, and mining” are just as brutal

Some argue that “Many [sex workers] are seriously harmed and killed.” and that’s unfortunately true. But again. this is countered with the argument that not as many prostitutes are killed “as soldiers, police, loggers, or roofers” which are all permissible forms of labor.

The Paternalistic Charge

Ultimately, though, any calls for the criminalization of sex work for the safety of sex workers may fall under what’s referred to as the Paternalistic Charge. This claims that it is for the sex workers’ own good (and therefore the authorities’ responsibility) to ban sex work. This is the default position of most governments. That it is in the best interest of the sex worker to criminalize sex work. Let’s set aside sex work for a moment, and speak a bit more generally. Do you believe that it is the government’s responsibility to criminalize actions that are harmful to the individual engaged in the action? 

There are some freedoms that most of us believe the government should take away for the well-being of society. Even though the vast majority of motorcyclists will never be involved in a serious accident, most of us agree that it is in society’s best interest for the government to take away our freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Particularly because the consequences—having your head splattered all over the ground—are so severe. Importantly, there’s nothing immoral or unethical about not wearing a helmet. And yet, most politicians agree (and perhaps their constituents agree) that not wearing a helmet should be a punishable offense. 

There are other arguably harmless acts that governments ban because they pose self-risk like working for less than minimum wage, indentured servitude, receiving loans from predatory lenders and consuming certain drugs

Public Policy Options

In most public policy debates, there are three basic questions being asked: 

• Should the sale of sex be decriminalized?  

• Should the purchase of sex be decriminalized?  

• Should the operation of sex businesses such as a brothels be decriminalized?

Regardless of how you answer these questions, the debate taking place around sex work generally has one goal in mind: to protect sex workers. There is some consideration for the buyers of sexual services, third-party service providers like pimps and madams, and some consideration for society at large, but the ethical debates currently taking place are primarily about protecting sex workers. There are several different proposed legislation responses to sex work including full criminalization, criminalization of the buying of sex, criminalization of pimps, brothels, madams, etc., total decriminalization, legalization with regulation 

As Juno Mac, sex worker and sex worker rights activist, expressed on the TED stage: “People get really hung up on the question, ‘Well, would you want your daughter doing it?’ That's the wrong question. Instead, imagine she is doing it. How safe is she at work tonight? Why isn't she safer?” Juno Mac is the coordinator of sex worker-led groups, the Sex Worker Open University and the English Collective of Prostitutes. She is supported by UNAIDS, the World Health Organization, Amnesty International, and other global bodies. Her main argument is that prohibiting the Sex Industry exacerbates every harm that sex workers are vulnerable to.

Full Criminalization

Full criminalization, also known as prohibitionism, is a policy option that criminalizes the seller, the buyer, and third parties (e.g. brothels, pimps, etc.) In order to protect sex sellers, this may seem like an appropriate response. But, unfortunately, the criminalization of sex work leads to its own host inadvertent consequences. There’s increased social stigma and discrimination of being a sex worker because it is illegal and this stigma sometimes leads to harassment. Anyone with a criminal record will have a more difficult time finding gainful employment. So if sex workers are convicted, they are less likely to find another job. Sex workers are often victims of arbitrary arrest and detention. The fines often motivate workers to make money fast, sending them back onto the streets. So even if a worker wants to leave the sex industry, the fines and criminal record make it very challenging. Sex workers are sometimes forcefully evicted from their homes and excluded from health services. Criminalization motivates women to work in the shadows so they don’t get caught by police. It “prevents [sex workers] from unionizing or banding together for safety and support.” It “forces [sex workers] to rely on exploitative pimps for security.” which provides a “source of reliable income for criminal organizations.” Moreover, If a buyer of sexual services mistreated the sex worker, the sex worker would be unable to persue any legal redress. Overall, criminalization makes “it impossible to regulate the sex industry”. Criminalization also puts sex workers at risk of being mistreated by the State. Sex workers may be coerced into paying bribes or having sex with a police officer to avoid arrest. 

crimnalization of purchase of sex

Another option would be to criminalize the purchase of sex, but not the sale. The buying of sexual services is illegal, but not the selling. This is also known as “The Nordic Model”, “Neo-Abolitionism” or “Asymmetrical Decriminalization.”

Some political theorists have justified the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services by arguing that each of us has a right to control our own minds and bodies. Criminalizing the sale of sex would violate this right, but criminalizing the purchase of sex would not violate this right. Therefore, we can reduce the amount of sex work being performed without violating any rights of the workers. 

But, of course, there are some strong counterarguments. First, it has been argued that criminalizing the purchase of sexual services but not the sale would decrease the demand, but not alter the supply. This might force sex workers to reduce their prices or, perhaps offer more risky sexual services. This might motivate sex workers to not say “no” to any requests, even sexual services they are ordinarily uncomfortable with. Criminalizing buyers also increases risks for sellers. Buyers might be too scared to give any personal details, so the sex workers would stil be unable to report any violent clients to the authorities

criminalization of third-party

There have also been calls for third-party criminalization. In this system: Buying and selling sex would be legal. But the surrounding activities (like brothel-keeping) would be illegal. According to Peter de Marneffe, professor of philosophy at Arizona State University, “the opportunity to own a brothel is neither necessary for people to control their own bodies or to [satisfy] unusual psychological needs. One can therefore consistently argue for the decriminalization of sale and purchase without arguing for the decriminalization of brothel ownership.”

Of course, there are also strong arguments against third-party criminalization. Primarily that, perhaps counter-intuitively, partial criminalization still increase risks for sex workers. This increase in risk is due to the fact that, in some countries, brothel-keeping is defined as just 2+ sex workers. Under this policy, many sex workers would still have to work alone, increasing vulnerability. If choosing to work in groups, the sex workers could not seek legal protections against violent clients because their work would technically be illegal. 

Legalization of sex work

Many places, like the Netherlands, Germany, and Nevada, USA, have begun legalizing sex work, while also placing some regulation on the practice, like other industries. Legalization and regulation would “eliminate the need for pimps altogether or at least “subject their activities to the same level of public and legal scrutiny as any other employer”

In Germany, sex work was fully legalized in 2002. Since then, the law demands that sex workers must be registered and they must pay taxes just like any other professionals. Many of the sex workers don't manage their own businesses. The employers must provide benefits like health care and paid leave. The buyers of sexual services are no longer allowed to deny payment simply because they are unsatisfied. Some people say if sex work were legalized we wouldn't see an increase, but this appears to be untrue. Following legalization, the German sex industry did increase. In 2005 there were 400,000 women working in the German sex industry and over 1.2 million men that were paying for their services. This is about 3% of the entire male population of Germany. 

Legalization led to the invention of roadside, drive in "sex boxes”. These are drive-in sexual service purchasing areas. Anyone can drive their car into a little booth and then a worker will come out, get into the car and the entire transaction takes place in the car. There are also these Megabrothels, previously mega malls or big hotels designed, now repurposed exclusively for the sale of sexual services. Some people are aghast at the site of such a large building devoted to debauchery. To which others respond by asking “Is this different from a mall?”

Discussion Questions

• Is sex work inherently different than other forms of labor (e.g. massage, masseusery)? 

• Is sex work legalization better for sex workers?

• Are there certain countries where sex work should be legal, and others where it shouldn’t?

• If prostitution were legalized, should there be an age restriction?

• Is sex work more harmful than other forms of labor (e.g. mining, massage, rice farming, etc.)?

• Is the eradication of sex work technically possible? 

• What might the psychological effects of sex work be?

Ethical Arguments

In addition to the debates over public policy regarding the criminalization or legalization of sex work and its tertiary service providers, there is serious debate within philosophical communities over the ethics of selling sexual services.

Some thinkers argue that “criminalization serves to express the widely shared values of the community.” By legalizing sex work, we would be communicating to the world that we hold a cavalier mindset toward sex. So cavalier that we feel it can be bought and sold. 

In counterargument to this, some ask “where do these values come from? And how much values are shaped by legal status?” If sex work were legalized, would we still feel that it is a stain on our values? 

Others argue that infidelity is simply wrong or sinful. Some respond by asking then do we not criminalize infidelity? Why criminalize sex work? Also, prostitution often involves unmarried buyers. 

Some argue that selling bodies is simply wrong. Against which others argue that workers do not sell their body or vagina, but sexual services. Masseuses, miners, rice farmers, etc. also all “sell their bodies”. Should we outlaw these too? As Carol Hay writes, “From masseuses to therapists to models to writers we put the most intimate parts of our bodies and our minds up for sale all the time.”

Even if you feel that it’s not wrong to sell our bodies for labor, many argue and feel that specifically sex shouldn’t be sold. Sex work is wrong because sex should not be transactional. It should be a natural result of falling in love with someone. To which others argue that even non-prostitutive sex is often transactional (e.g. shelter, affection). Some argue that ”pimps of all stripes, from street to Craigslist to the mega-brothels of Germany and more, become legal, respectable businessmen.” To which others reply, yes, and ask why should these not be respectable businesses?

It’s important here that we begin to analyze the significant versus casual view of sex. According to the significance view, sex is only permissible when it is romantically significant. According to the casual view, sex needn’t be romantically significant in order to be permissible. David Benatar, professor of philosophy at the University of Cape Town has pointed out a dilemma: The significance view explains the special wrongness of paedophilia and non-consensual sex. But not the permissibility of promiscuity. That is, is non-consensual sex more harmful than non-consensual [anything else]? Is non-consensual sex more harmful than a non-consensual pie to the face? If you believe it is, then you believe that sex is significant. So it is inconsistent to believe that people can be promiscuous and sell their bodies. The casual view explains the permissibility of promiscuity but not the special wrongness of paedophilia and non-consensual sex. That is, if you believe that people can be cavalier with their bodies and sex, then non-consentual sex is of the same moral weight as a non-consensual pie to the face.

Others argue that the legalization of sex work cements, solidifies, strengthens, bolsters the dominance of men over women. They say that prostitution is an image of men’s oppression over women sexually. We debate sex work policy against “an unjust background of structural oppression and economic marginalization of women” and that the decriminalization of sex work “both reflects and cements the broader subordinated condition of women under male supremacy.” They also argue that“prostitution makes men feel entitled to sex” , that legalization makes “the right of men to buy sex appears to be paramount.” Decriminalization entrenches and legitimizes misogynist norms and beliefs such as “our culture’s eroticization of gendered relationships of dominance and submission” and that “women exist primarily for the sexual use of men.”

People who disagree say “How could paying for it possibly communicate an entitlement?”. Might it be instead that women are oppressing men economically? Perhaps the solution should be to incentivize male prostitution. Back to the other side, some provide a counter-counter argument by recognizing that none of these counterarguments address the tendency for men to be buyers and women to be sellers or the underlying inequality.

Some argue that the legalization of sex work would lead to increased objectification; that is, viewing bodies (primarily women’s bodies) as objects rather than subjects. They argue that “sex work requires workers to alienate themselves from their subjectivity” because while providing sexual services they “cannot show their true feelings.” In counterargument, though, some point out that “this is true of many jobs, including retail sales clerk, barista, and therapist.” These jobs all then are guilty of requiring workers to “alienate themselves.” Should these other jobs be outlawed too? Some argue that if sex work is legalized, “men will view all women as sex workers.” Men will meet women at the bar and immediately see them as prostitutes in their minds. But, in counterargument, some recognize that “there are more waitresses than prostitutes, and no one sees all women as waitresses.”

Some argue that sex work is not cosensual, voluntary, by choice, etc. Some argue that “sex work is an occupation that no one would choose in the absence of coercion, the ‘choice’ to become a sex worker is no choice at all.” “The criminalization of [sex] work is a legitimate bit of paternalism that’s necessary to protect vulnerable people.” Marginalized people with less money, less job security, less formal education, less legal representation, are less able to say “no” when someone (usually a man) offers them a lot of “easy” money, that turns out not to be so easy.  “sex work is, in itself, inherently degrading or exploitative, a ‘desperate choice' that no one would make, except under duress or delusion.”

According to Julie Bindel, “A number of survivors who have left the sex trade have spoken about how they survived while still involved, which includes insisting to themselves and to others that they were making a free and happy choice to sell sex.” “[sex work] is so inherently degrading to the prostitute (or otherwise problematic), that… there is no such thing as ‘autonomously’ choosing to be a prostitute.”

In response, some argue that, sex work is as consensual as any other job. Is being a barista consensual? Is being a teacher consensual? Or are people only working these jobs because they are coerced by capitalism? “Few people get to work in their careers of choice and, as bad as that may be, it is no comment on the permissibility of their industry.” To argue this point, some say that only people who are “forced” to do so by their circumstances — such as extreme poverty, let us say — would ever turn to prostitution to make ends meet.

However, some argue that we can not compare the consentuality of sex work to the consentuality of being a barista, etc. because sex work is so inherently different from other forms of labor. As Patricia Marino argues, "because of the special relationship of sex to one’s identity, the activities of sex work are unlike those of other exchanges: sex work damages the self”. Patricia presents a counterargument herself asking, “why should we think sex plays this special role [establishing a person’s identity] for everyone — or even for most people…? People’s relationship to their sexuality varies widely.

So, is sex work like other forms of labor?

The last argument we’ll explore here, some consider disabled buyers of sexual services. They argue that “some people who would benefit psychologically from sex have psychological or physical disabilities that prevent them from pursuing non-commercial sex successfully. They recognize that sex has psychological value in “creating feelings of closeness, intimacy, and acceptance” and “in relieving feelings of loneliness, rejection, and stress”

Discussion Questions

• Is sex work voluntary? Under what circumstances is sex work involuntary? What does it mean for an act to be voluntary? 

• How is sexual assault qualitatively different than non-sexual assault? 

• Is all sex transactional? 

• Does sex work exacerbate dominance/submission gender roles?

• Why have most religions decried sex work? 

• Do you think most sex workers enjoy their job?

• In an exchange of sex for money, who has more power - the buyer or the seller?

Haiku and Drawing Submissions