Prostitution and the Law:
Legalization vs. Decriminalization
by Beverly Fisher, Slut at Large and Woman of Easy Virtue

Note: the following is a work of fiction. Any similarities between the story and real life are coincidental. Beverly Fisher is a companion paid for her time only.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

Conservative feminists are always getting their panties in a bunch about something. Prostitution has long been a cause of their underwear compression. Then again, you didn’t know there was such a thing as a conservative feminist, did you? Most people just bunch feminists together, assume they hate men, and be done with it. But there are as many different types of feminists as there are women. From the radical to the conservative and every group in between, all of them have a big wad of underwear up the crack of their collective asses. I’ve been trying to pry mine out.

But in the case of prostitution, from the feminist viewpoint, and from the standpoint of people in any given community, there are many different ways of looking at the situation. Some view it is an overwhelming problem that must be completely eradicated; others see prostitution as necessary work, and that prostitutes should be given the freedom to practice their craft in safety and without fear of the law. Still others favor a middle ground, allowing for the existence of prostitution, but regulating and controlling it.

I consider myself a feminist, though I’m what I call a “realistic feminist.” Though most conservative feminists, like Donna M. Hughes, would call me a “radical feminist.” I would call Donna M. Hughes a bitch. She’s like Andrea Dworkin in a tweed suit with a tie.

Name calling aside, the fact is that a good many feminists of Hughes’ ilk believe that prostitution is a form of exploitation, that I am a victim of my sad little childhood (which wasn’t so sad), and that abolishing prostitution is the only way to “help” women like me. They believe that prostitution implicitly legitimizes patriarchal relationships. Which is to say, they believe that we encourage men to suppress and lord over women. It’s the prostitute's fault women can’t get past the glass ceiling. It’s the prostitute’s fault women aren’t paid an equal wage to men. It’s also my fault that earthquakes happen. I’ll take the blame for all of it, what the hell.

The only problem with this is that sex is just sex. It’s a primary animal need, and exists outside of the social construct of “patriarchy.” We buy and sell that which we need. To say that selling sex is legitimizing the patriarchy is like saying that selling groceries at the grocery store furthers the patriarchal paradigm. People who insist on putting those labels on it are in fact the ones who are legitimizing the patriarchy themselves, by attaching that kind of social significance to an animal need. A construction worker sells his body every day. Is he furthering the patriarchal paradigm?

Prostitution does not reduce women to “sex objects” any more than working as a plumber reduces men to “plumbing objects.” Society makes women or men sex objects, in the media and in routine practice. To blame prostitution for women being sex objects is simplistic and childish, and avoids the real problems in the culture. In seeking equality for women, we should not be attacking prostitutes but the men who control the power structure. I’m not man-bashing here; the majority of men have no idea why women aren’t equal to themselves and fully believe in equality. It is easy to attack prostitutes because the way the law is set up, we have no voice to defend ourselves. So feminists like Hughes take the easy way out.

Abolitionists contend that prostitutes do not have a choice in what they do. They reduce us to children, controlled by external forces, including incest, drug use, etc. We choose, we decide. When we point to prostitutes who are hooked on heroin, and must pay their pimp in order to get a fix, we can try to say that woman has no choice. Yet she does have options, should she choose them. There are methadone programs, battered women’s shelters, a myriad of options available to her. Yes, they are very difficult. Yes, they require courage and conviction. But in the end, we are all personally responsible for our lives. She chooses to remain where she is. And why does the “free choice” question apply to prostitutes alone? The unskilled laborer who works in a factory, whose wages will never be higher than the poverty line – did he choose his life? Does he have other options open to him, difficult, but possible?

The Ivory Tower vs. the woman on the street

In the end, as countries wrestle with the whole notion of prostitution, the question is no longer about the morality of prostitution, whether those of us who are prostitutes are somehow lacking in character or moral judgment. The real question comes down to this: is prostitution a form of exploitation, as some feminists contend, that should be abolished for the good of all? Or is prostitution an occupation, a trade, that should be regulated? Or should it be regulated at all?

There are basically two feminist camps. Picture little plaid flannel yurts on one side of a valley, and pink satin pavilions (with red porch lights) on the other.

In the plaid flannel tents, we have those seeking to eradicate prostitution, like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. In the hot pink pavilions, we have prostitutes rights groups like the Sex Workers Outreach Project, who view prostitutes as “sex workers” with rights. Needless to say, these two camps are at bitter war with one another. For example, the Coalition believes that the girls in the pink tents represent the interests of the “pimps, procurers, and traffickers.” The prostitutes’ rights groups point out that the Coalition and others like them are locked up in the Ivory Towers of academia, and have no idea what life is really like for real prostitutes. They cannot agree on what is free choice and what is not.

The women in the plaid yurts, like the Coalition, believe that men are not buying sex or sexual services, but they are in fact buying women – and that the women are selling themselves. Donna M. Hughes says, of attempts to decriminalize prostitution and integrate sex workers into society, “This is utopian thinking that has no basis in the reality of the lives of women in prostitution – women who are defined by how men can and do use them.” Men cannot buy women any more than I can buy a man when I hire a guy to fix my heater. Prostitution is not who I am, it’s something I do. Who I am is complex, just as with any other person. The job does not define me as a person any more than an office worker’s job defines who they are as a person. To assume that I am defined by what I do is to belittle and degrade me – the very thing these women purport to be against.

Hughes further believes that decriminalization of prostitution will not decrease violence against sex workers, that it will simply continue. I disagree. Violence will happen, certainly. But if prostitutes feel safe within the law to report such violence, fewer men will do it, knowing there will be repercussions. Part of the reason violence against prostitutes is so easy today is that the perpetrators know they can get away with it, as their victims are afraid to report the crimes to the police. But to people in the Coalition, they can’t take things like this into account. It’s a black and white patriarchal world to them.

An interesting note: in countries where prostitution is legal, the crime rates are far lower than in the U.S.

Abolitionists like Hughes define all sex work, from prostitution to pornography, as inherently exploitative. They define prostitution as violence, and insist that it is a response to childhood sexual abuse. Never mind that not all prostitutes were sexually abused. Additionally, some psychologists have suggested that childhood sexual abuse allows the victim to separate the sexual self from the rest of their psyche, a necessary component to being able to do sex work – but not necessarily a cause.

Abolitionists try to “rescue” women from prostitution, helping them to find other careers or settle down in a nice marriage (monogamous prostitution). Abolitionists envision a world without prostitution at all, a utopia where men and women are fully equal and sexual services are given freely, never sold. Organizations like WHISPER (Women Hurt In Systems of Prostitution Engaged in Revolt) oppose any legitimization of prostitution in any form. They seek to abolish all sex work, including dancing and pornography.

International anti-prostitution activists oppose prostitution as well as sex tourism and trafficking. I’m opposed to sex tourism and trafficking myself, and I think that most prostitutes’ rights groups are as well. We support sex work by choice.

Sex trafficking occurs all over the world. Many of the women know from the start they are going to work in prostitution, even though they often don’t know about the working conditions. Others hope for a job as a waitress or au pair. Some are abducted. Once they arrive at their destination, their passports are taken away and they are informed that they will have to work off the cost of the trip. Some are sold to pimps or brothel owners, who then make them work off the purchase price. They work in bars, apartments, massage parlors, or as escorts and have to hand over most of their earnings. Some women resign themselves to the situation, as they are still making more money than they could have in their home countries; others rebel and are often abused. Frequently they are told that the police have been paid off and will not help them, which is untrue. Their families at home are also threatened. Women are often unwilling to testify against their oppressors and face deportation.

Legalization vs. decriminalization

I’m tossing around terms like “decriminalization” and “legalization.” The two things are very different.

Legalization tends to indicate that prostitution is a vice that needs to be controlled, much like liquor. In some states, they have a variety of regulations for the sale and consumption of liquor. It can’t be sold from grocery stores, or after midnight, or on Sundays. Legalization of prostitution imposes similar controls and regulations.
Certain countries have legalization systems, such as the United States, Amsterdam, and Germany, to name a few. Regulations can include registration with the state, or only being able to work in licensed areas or brothels – what some of the ladies in the pink pavilions call “sex ghettos.” License fees can be very expensive. In Nevada, the girls can only legally work in brothels, and give 50 percent of their earnings to the brothel owners. In some legalized systems, prostitutes are charged higher tax rates – equivalent to a “sin” tax on liquor or tobacco.

Often legalization or even criminalization includes laws prohibiting people from living on the proceeds of a prostitute’s labor. The law is ostensibly to prevent pimping, but in the end this law doesn’t protect prostitutes, who should have the right to structure their family systems in any way that they choose. I currently support another adult while I work; he has an illness that prevents him from working a regular job, and in return for my support, he helps raise my child, cooks, and cleans. It’s a bit like having an especially hairy housewife.

Additionally, legalization often includes forced health checks for STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases), often with punitive quarantines. The prostitutes’ rights groups believe that all sexually active people should be responsible for their own health, and not leave it to the state to control the health of one portion of its citizens and not another. In Germany, health checks are mandatory every week for prostitutes. They are required to display their clean bill of health in their rooms. Some women report that clients use this as an excuse to avoid using condoms, saying “see, you’re healthy, I don’t have to worry.” But we, as prostitutes, have to worry about them – and they’ve had no such mandatory health checks. Studies show that men transmit HIV and STDs at a significantly higher rate than women.

Further, there is no evidence that sex workers have greater incidence of HIV infection than the general population, or that they spread HIV. In fact, evidence shows that sex workers are highly educated about safe sex, more so than the general population. A German study in 1992 found that only 2.5 percent of the tested prostitutes had a disease, a rate much lower than the one among comparable non-prostitutes.

Decriminalization, supported by prostitutes’ rights groups such as SWOP, COYOTE, and the National Task Force on Prostitution, indicates that prostitution is a legitimate business. In the decriminalization model, all laws against prostitution are removed. Decriminalization often refers to the removal of all laws against consensual sexual activity between adults, both commercial and non-commercial.

In countries or states where decriminalization is in place, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex workers can ply their trade in relative freedom, without worrying about legal issues. Licensing is not required, and individual sex workers are free to open brothels. There are some laws governing street walkers, however.

Sex workers in decriminalized countries and states pay taxes like any other small businessperson.

Prostitutes’ rights advocates seek decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution, excepting those involving non-consensual prostitution, or sex trafficking. The feminists in both camps are in agreement when it comes to sex trafficking, or forced prostitution. However, advocates believe that prostitutes should have freedom of choice with regard to how their business is managed. Laws against living off of the earnings of prostitutes can be used against domestic partners, as in my case, and children. These laws also prevent prostitutes from working together. Instead, decriminalization calls for legal authorities to enforce laws against coercion, violence, fraud, and abuse to protect prostitutes – the same laws that protect “average citizens.”

Prostitution and the law

Fighting prostitution uses law enforcement resources that could be going toward fighting real crime, from drug dealers and violent criminals to white-collar crime like Enron and WorldCom. The cost to the taxpayers of fighting prostitution – only to have the woman released the next day – is astronomical.

Law enforcement should focus on problems that arise from prostitution, rather than on prostitution itself – noise complaints, trespassing, littering. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask that prostitutes not troll for clients outside of their homes and businesses. Decriminalization has been shown to reduce street prostitution.

In countries and states where prostitution is criminalized, police often abuse their power and the prostitutes themselves, forcing prostitutes to have sex with them, or fondle them, before arresting them. I have personally experienced this sort of behavior, and it’s appalling. That the police can use women for their sexual pleasure, and get away with it, is horrendous. And because of their legal position, prostitutes usually can’t, or won’t, fight back. You just let it slide, because that’s “how things are.” You often don’t know that there’s anything you can do to fight it, and are afraid to fight it if you do.

Usually, prostitution is a misdemeanor charge. Yet it is very expensive to prosecute a prostitution case. San Francisco, in 1996, estimated the cost of arresting, booking, fingerprinting and processing to the first court date were $312,000. This didn’t include further court costs, incarceration, and attorney costs. San Francisco estimated total annual costs (in 1996 dollars) to the taxpayer exceeded $7.6 million.

Often the police insist that prostitution is part of the drug problem. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a direct correlation between prostitution and drug use, though it is true that, like the rest of the population, some prostitutes are affected.

The oldest profession

Prostitution has always existed and will continue to exist. Despite strong emphasis on enforcement as a solution to the perceived problem, the occurrence of prostitution does not decrease as time passes. Making it criminal only drives it underground, and turns women into criminals. We punish those we call victims.

Prostitution laws violate fundamental rights to individual liberty and personal privacy. The same people who are against “big government” in people’s lives are the same who are most violently opposed to prostitution.

Everyone is a whore to a certain extent. Many, many people work jobs they hate, just to get their paycheck. They whore out their minds and their bodies for money. The patriarchal society even encourages monogamous prostitution in the form of marriage.

Prostitution truly is a victimless crime. For some clients, prostitution is the equivalent of therapy. Just ask the man in the wheelchair, or the man who was sexually abused in childhood. As prostitutes, we choose to provide a service like any other small businessperson, but it is a service that has the potential to do much good. We make people feel good with our work.

Decriminalizing prostitution is what’s called for, to allow us to work freely like everyone else, to pay taxes like everyone else, to be a visible part of society, to not live in fear of violence and the police. We are human beings with rights and dignity. We deserve no less than recognition of those rights.

-30-