Jump to comment:

• Prostitution is not justified by sexual "needs": an alternative to full legalisation
  Nathan Hodson
  Published on: 18 May 2017

• Published on: 18 May 2017

  Prostitution is not justified by sexual "needs": an alternative to full legalisation

  • Nathan Hodson, Medical Student
  • Other Contributors:
    • Susan Bewley, Professor of Women's Health, King's College London, and Consultant Clinical Lead (jobshare), The Havens (London's Sexual Assault Referral Centres)

  Earp and Moen demonstrate the absence of a relevant difference between the use of prostitutes by disabled people and by shy, ugly, libidinous, able-bodied people, and the impossibility of circumscribing the latter[1]. This is incorporated into a case for the full legalisation of prostitution based on: (a) the absence of a justification for its prohibition; and (b) the "needs" it meets. We posit that (b) misrepresents pro...

  Show More

  Earp and Moen demonstrate the absence of a relevant difference between the use of prostitutes by disabled people and by shy, ugly, libidinous, able-bodied people, and the impossibility of circumscribing the latter[1]. This is incorporated into a case for the full legalisation of prostitution based on: (a) the absence of a justification for its prohibition; and (b) the "needs" it meets. We posit that (b) misrepresents prostitution and then outline a response to (a).

  Earp and Moen develop Thomsen's argument[2] as follows:

  (1) Many or most persons have a sexuality that generates strong needs for sexual relations, and (2) Some disabled [or any] persons are partially or entirely incapable of satisfying this need except through the purchase of sexual services from a prostitute. (C) There is a prima facie case for legalising prostitution.

  The notion that "the purchase of sexual services from a prostitute" is a response to "strong needs for sexual relations" is problematic. Evidence suggests that men who use prostitutes do not consider themselves to be satisfying such a "need". Punternet.com, a website where men rate their experiences with prostitutes, found that only 28% of punters[i] considered themselves unable to find "free sex"[3]. Similarly only 1 in 5 London punters "[c]an't get what he wants sexually or emotionally in his current relationship"[4]. Men use prostitutes not out of necessity but choice. Outside the simple framework Earp and Moen create, the purported "need for sexual relations" is not fulfilled by the use of a prostitute. This desire is subsidiary to the human drive for social intimacy, to which the mutual giving and receiving of sex contributes. As McKinnon states, "The consideration for sex is sex (and if there's some other consideration then it's something else)"[5]. The Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales considers it appropriate that "prostitution is addressed as sexual exploitation"[6]. When 55% of men who use prostitutes believe that the majority of women in prostitution have been "lured, tricked or trafficked"[4], this confirms that the behaviour is usually a gratuitous act of conscious abuse.

  Given the facts about prostitution, the Nordic model of legislation[5] mentioned by Thomsen[2] is a more appropriate way forward. Indeed, this model deals more effectively with the authors' presented concerns. Earp and Moen correctly point out that prohibition does not make women safer[1]. Criminalising women makes it harder for them to leave prostitution and find a safer way of living. In many settings they are vulnerable to police corruption and violence[5]. This must end. Concurrently, it is reasonable to focus on, and even consider punishing, punters. Just as Earp and Moen proposed using the law as a tool to change social attitudes, this model transfers the stigma away from prostituted women - recognising the complexity of their situation - and instead stigmatises male customers who recklessly participate in abuse. The combination of punter stigma and sanction is likely to reduce demand and in turn decrease trafficking[5]. Analysis of 150 countries found that the degree to which full legalisation expands punter demand far outstrips any increase in legal prostitutes. Countries with legalized prostitution have experienced greater human trafficking inflow[7].

  Earp and Moen claim that people are usually granted autonomy regarding choice of work[1]. Trafficked women are evidently denied this, but autonomy can also be influenced and diminished by external factors commonly associated with prostitution such as adverse childhood experiences and grooming. Prospective cohort research shows that child sexual abuse victims are more likely to be prostituted in adulthood than victims of other abuse and neglect [8]. When Earp and Moen speculate "it is likely to be people who are already in very difficult situations who would find it worthwhile to sell sexual services"[1], perhaps that "very difficult situation" includes living with the long-term psychosocial consequences of sexual abuse and trauma. However, they are wrong to assert that reliving this confusing cycle is a positive act of autonomy; it is an act more redolent of a person who needs care, compassion and support to re -establish control over her life. The Nordic Model involves resourcing and training women to find other sources of income, thus expanding their financial autonomy[7]. The authors may not agree that women deserve active help to exit prostitution but, given the extent of trafficking and abuse in the sex industry, this ought to be a priority. Commitment to autonomy of choice of work would include education, training, and resourcing to ensure the choice of prostitution was truly free.

  The so-called "need for sexual relations", disabled or otherwise, is penis- rather than person-centric and irrelevant: the use of a prostitute is a different category of act. The best response is to reduce demand and maximise the autonomy of prostitutes.

  Footnotes

  i. This is London slang for customer and a common term used to describe the men who use prostitutes.

  References

  1. Earp BD, Moen OM. Paying for sex??only for people with disabilities? J Med Ethics 2016. Published Online First: 5 Nov 2016. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103064

  2. Thomsen FK. Prostitution, disability and prohibition. J Med Ethics 2015;41:451-9.

  3. Myth: punters are lonely single men. Nordicmodelnow.org/myths- about-prostitution/myth-punters-are-lonely-single-men

  4. Farley M, Bindel J, Golding JM. Men Who Buy Sex: Who They Buy and What They Know 2009. London: Eaves and San Francisco: Prostitution Research & Education.

  5. McKinnon CA. Trafficking, prostitution, and inequality. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review 2011;46(2):271-309.

  6. Legal Guidance: Prostitution and exploitation of prostituted. Crown Prosecution Service. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#a15

  7. Cho SY, Dreher A, Neumayer E. Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? World Development 2013;41(1):67-82

  8. Wisdom CS, Ames MA. Criminal consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect 1994;18(4):303-18

  Conflict of Interest:

  None declared

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top