Philosophers on Prostitution's Decriminalization Daily Nous
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Dayton eCommons Philosophy Faculty Publications Department of Philosophy 8-2015 Philosophers On Prostitution’s Decriminalization Rebecca Whisnant University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/phl_fac_pub Part of the History of Philosophy Commons eCommons Citation Whisnant, Rebecca, "Philosophers On Prostitution’s Decriminalization" (2015). Philosophy Faculty Publications. Paper 85. http://ecommons.udayton.edu/phl_fac_pub/85 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 5/18/2016 Philosophers On Prostitution's Decriminalization Daily Nous HOME » DAILY NOUS FEATURES - NEWS » Philosophers On Prostitution’s Decriminalization By Justin W.. August 13, 2015 at 1:20 pm 106 This past Tuesday, Amnesty International representatives from 60 countries voted on which stance the influential non- governmental organization should take regarding the legal status of prostitution, ultimately deciding to support its full decriminalization, including both the selling and buying of sex. The position is highly controversial—particularly the decriminalization of buying sex—and Amnesty’s draft statement of it is diplomatically vague. But sources inform me that the policy is in fact a statement in support of “full decriminalization,” including buying, as The New York Times reports, and as Amnesty’s FAQ page about the policy suggests. There was much debate about the policy leading up to the vote (with a number of Hollywood actresses opposing it, for example), and it remains divisive. The Times reports: The proposal split human rights activists. Amnesty chapters in Sweden and France pressed the group to support a so-called Swedish or Nordic model, now followed in several Scandinavian countries, that spares prostitutes from penalties but sanctions the buyers with heavy nes and prison terms. Lawmakers in France are pushing new legislation to punish buyers that most likely will be voted on in the fall. After the vote, the Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution, a French organization, vowed that it http://dailynous.com/2015/08/13/philosophersonprostitutionsdecriminalization/ 1/47 5/18/2016 Philosophers On Prostitution's Decriminalization Daily Nous would no longer work with Amnesty International. Yet, Amnesty says: The research and consultation carried out in the development of this policy in the past two years concluded that this was the best way to defend sex workers’ human rights and lessen the risk of abuse and violations they face. And the Christian Science Monitor reports: Amnesty said its policy is based on what is known in public health policy as the harm reduction principle: the idea that you can’t stop people from taking part in a dangerous activity, but you can make it safer. The decriminalization of sex work is currently being discussed around the world. I invited a number of philosophers to join this public discussion here, with brief contributions that clarify some of its central issues and disputes. They are (in alphabetical order): Peter de Marneffe (Arizona State), Dan Demetriou (Univ. of Minnesota, Morris), Brian D. Earp (Oxford), Lisa Fuller (Albany), Jeffrey Gauthier (Univ. of Portland), Carol Hay (Univ. of Massachusetts, Lowell), Patricia Marino (Waterloo), Philip Pettit (Princeton), and Rebecca Whisnant (Univ. of Dayton). I am grateful to them for participating on such short notice. The idea of the “Philosophers On” series is to prompt further discussion among philosophers about issues and events of current public interest, and also to explore the ways in which philosophers can add, with their characteristically insightful and careful modes of thinking, to the public conversation. Others are, of course, welcome to join in. Additionally, if you come across particularly valuable relevant philosophical commentary elsewhere, please provide a link in the comments. (image: modified versions of “Woman with Raised Arm” and “Man Sitting” by Carly Ashdown) Peter de Marne룁e: According to the New York Times, Amnesty International voted on August 11, 2015 “to support a policy that calls for decriminalization of the sex trade, including prostitution, payment for sex and brothel ownership.” Because nothing is actually mentioned in the posted Amnesty International resolution about decriminalizing payment for sex or brothel ownership, the Times report is puzzling. As the Times also reported in this article, the decriminalization of prostitution has split human rights activists into two camps: those who endorse the “Nordic model,” now in effect in Sweden and Norway, which decriminalizes the sale of sex but not the purchase of sex or brothel ownership, and those who support “full decriminalization,” the decriminalization of purchase and brothel ownership as well as the decriminalization of individual sale. In this light it is striking that the document posted by Amnesty does not explicitly go beyond the Nordic model. Instead it refers vaguely to “the highest possible protection of the human rights of sex workers, through measures that include the decriminalisation of sex work.” Okay . but what else does it include? Given the sharp disagreement on precisely this question, the Amnesty resolution is not a model of intellectual clarity or candor, but perhaps the vague language was necessary to get the votes needed to pass it. Whatever political reasons there might have been for the vague wording, analytical clarity is nonetheless important. Three different questions about prostitution laws should be distinguished. First, should the sale of sex be decriminalized? Second, should the purchase of sex be decriminalized? Third, should the operation of a sex business such as a brothel be decriminalized. The answer to all three questions might be yes, or it might be no, or it might be yes to some, and no to others. Although it is sometimes said that is “inconsistent” or “illogical” or “absurd” to support decriminalization of sale while supporting the criminalization of purchase, these charges should strike anyone who has taken a first-year logic class as confused. But the confusion is not simply a failure of logic. It is also a failure to appreciate the possible grounds for these positions. http://dailynous.com/2015/08/13/philosophersonprostitutionsdecriminalization/ 2/47 5/18/2016 Philosophers On Prostitution's Decriminalization Daily Nous Here is an argument for decriminalizing sale but not purchase: Each of us has a right to control our own minds and bodies. Because laws that criminalize the sale of sex violate this right, the sale of sex should be decriminalized. It doesn’t follow that the purchase of sex or brothel ownership should be decriminalized. The right to control one’s own body involves being at liberty to consent to sex with someone, and so being at liberty to consent to sex with someone only under certain conditions: if and only if they turn you on, if and only if they are not drunk, if and only if they are thoughtful and gentle, if and only if they pay, etc. But your right to control your own body does not require that anyone else agree to have sex with you. It doesn’t require a higher rather than a lower number of persons who are likely to agree. Owning a brothel might be necessary for a pimp or a madam to make a living from other people’s sex work, but it’s not necessary to control his or her own body. It is therefore consistent for a human rights advocate to support the decriminalization of sale, but not the decriminalization of purchase or brothel ownership. Here is an argument for decriminalizing sale and purchase, but not brothel ownership: Not only does each of us have a right to control our own bodies, sex has psychological value in creating feelings of closeness, intimacy, and acceptance, and in relieving feelings of loneliness, rejection, and stress. Some people who would benefit psychologically from sex have psychological or physical disabilities that prevent them from pursuing non-commercial sex successfully. If paid sex would provide these benefits to such persons, then laws that criminalize purchase impose a substantial burden. Consequently, they can be justified only by a strong argument. Proponents of the Nordic model believe that criminal penalties for purchase substantially reduce sex work and the psychological, physical, and social harms it is thought to involve. Others are skeptical. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, we don’t have conclusive evidence either way. Suppose, though, for the sake of argument that penalties for sale do not substantially reduce these harms. Then given the substantial burden they impose on persons with unusual needs, they violate their right to sexual freedom, and purchase should be decriminalized. It does not follow that brothel ownership should be decriminalized because the opportunity to own a brothel is neither necessary for people to control their own bodies or to meet these unusual psychological needs. One can therefore consistently argue for the decriminalization of sale and purchase without arguing for the decriminalization of brothel ownership. Dan Demetriou: Let copulation thrive—even the paid variety. Opponents of legalized prostitution have had ample time to forward a plausible justification for their view. In the absence of such, they trade upon