SEX WORK: TO BAN OR REBRAND? (academic essay)

Prostitution is a derogatory term used to describe sex work in a way that takes agency away from sex workers. ‘Prostituted women’ implies that women are objects in the act of sex, who have sex done to them, rather than choosing to engage in sex work. Often used purposefully to comment on the subservient history of the practice, the term aligns with the notion that sex work reinforces damaging stigmas in our society. Using this term disempowers sex-working women for the sake of a conceptual movement aimed to empower women. Is banning the industry because of its connotations to women the solution, or is there a way we can reposition sex work as a market that can assist in empowering women?

It is important to note that I do not take ‘prostitution’ or ‘sex work’ as umbrellas term which include sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is a violation of human rights, and not distinguishing it from liberated sex workers reinforces the stigmas, lack of agency and desperation implied by the term ‘prostitution’. For the purpose of this analysis, the sex work market will be examined as a market that encompasses only those who are sex workers by choice.

In order to examine a market, we can start from the economic theory, then look at the reality of its application. Take capitalism - in theory, it works well, but is widely perceived as a failure due to its corruption by practices and individuals that sit outside the theory, yet are now inextricably connected to it. The same goes for sex work. In theory, women are empowered to earn a living by providing a scarce service to fulfil the need of a consumer. However, due to the patriarchal toxicity that has seeped into most practices, there exists a gender inequality which can be seen to pollute certain services into reinforcing a power asymmetry. Thus, the sex work industry is often categorised as a noxious market; presupposing it reinforces the gender hierarchy due to the alienation and lack of agency of the workers involved.

Many other industries dominated by women could also be seen to noxiously reinforce the power asymmetry in which women exist to serve only their maternal instincts and/or men: childcare, nursing, cooking, massage therapy. Yet, sex workers are alienated and lacking in agency in the way they conduct their service, due to regulation issues. Sex work isn’t regulated because of stigmatisation. It’s further stigmatised because of the side effects of non-regulation. This self-fulfilling prophecy is noxious. Yet by attributing the market as a cause, rather than a symptom, of gender inequality, the inability to take the market seriously is perpetuated. As a result, it has not been provided the same regulations and benefits of other markets, such as OH&S standards, legal protections, licensing rules, security and HR management. To ban an industry because it hasn’t had the support required to flourish isn’t the solution to a power asymmetry that predates that industry. The solution lies in giving the industry what it needs to attain equality and empowerment. 

Nevertheless, there still exists a stigma surrounding the work itself; the view “that there is some intrinsic property of sex that makes its commodification wrong… that sexual and reproductive capacities are more crucially tied to the nature of our selves than our other capacities” (Satz 2010, p. 6). However, any idea that sees a woman’s sexual and reproductive capacities as integral to her selfhood has been shaped by patriarchy. If we were to completely cleanse our perceptions from patriarchal moral pollutants, perhaps we could detach sexuality and reproduction from the essence of women. If the transaction of sex was seen not as a moral violation, but a regulated service, perhaps it would not be perceived any more a dehumanizing experience as those who do the ‘dirty work’ of a massage therapist or foot doctor which, like sex work, could be independently seen to “promote inferior forms of personhood” (Satz 2010, p. 7). 

If sex can be extracted from its moral context, we should also reassess outdated definitions of intimacy. Some objections to a transactional sex point to potential repercussions for intimate relationships. To abate such concerns, it’s important to acknowledge that healthy intimacy is attainable outside of heteronormative monogamous relationships. Fearing that paid transactional sex will ruin intimacy disregards the fact that free transactional sex takes place multiple (unsatisfying) times a day all around the world thanks to modern dating. In either case, it can be argued that when sexual experiences don’t provide a person with emotional intimacy, they tend to seek it out in other ways. This can clarify the importance of, and desire for, emotional intimacy to an individual more than if their understanding of intimacy was tied solely to sex. Additionally, adapting our understanding of intimacy will only lead to further balancing the power asymmetry between men and women, as the patriarchy often reinforces that men cannot be intimate unless sexually or paternally engaged.

Furthermore, this highlights a vital, positive function that the sex work industry offers to societies. Sex is a means of comfort, exploration and intimacy that not all people can freely experience. Many anti-sex-work arguments rest on the perception that sex is a means needed by, and provided to, men. This ignores the scope of possibilities sex work can and does provide to other marginalised communities, such as couples, queer-curious, disabled and kink-curious people. It provides avenues for safe experimentation & exploration, which is important to one’s wellbeing and their respect for others. To keep sex as something only attainable in intimate relationships limits these benefits of sex to a certain subsect of the population and reinforces heteronormative ideas that sex is part of a women’s offering and a man’s consumption. 

Sex work isn’t a noxious market; patriarchy is the noxious substance that pollutes an otherwise acceptable service industry. If stigmatising beliefs surrounding sex work could be repositioned so that the industry commanded respect, compassion and understanding of both clients and service providers, it could disrupt the gender hierarchy and the damaging perceptions of women that result. 

To ‘rebrand’ is “to change the way that an organization is seen by the public” (Cambridge 2020). To change the perception of sex work is to put into action a set of systemic changes that seek to empower sexuality for all. Rather than seeing sex work as immoral women without agency performing degrading acts, we could focus on ways to change the identity of sex work, by teaching the public to respect and uplift an industry dominated by women. Sex work doesn’t happen to women if we let them run the business. 

Reference List

Satz, D. (2010). ‘Markets in Women’s Sexual Labour’ in Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, pp. 1–21. Retrieved from <http://cat.lib.unimelb.edu.au:80/record=b4184802~S15>