Abolitionist Radical Feminist Stances in Contemporary Female Sex Work Debate

Introduction 

Defining who is a sex worker is a struggle because it is socially constructed and has changed in diverse eras, states, research and social institutions (Kissil & Davey, 2010). As in Simmons (1998), sex work is defined as a process that involves an exchange between a seller and a buyer of a sexual service. In order to prevent confusion about definition during the paper, this definition of sex work will be accepted. Even though there are many different views among feminist theories on sex work; in order to analyze and make sense of the main arguments, it is necessary to focus on two important approaches: radical and liberal feminism. Although radical feminism has been subject to more criticism over time, it has never been outside these discussions as a result of their strong and outstanding arguments. Despite the fact that not every radical feminist is against sex work, a significant number of them evaluate female sex work from a critical perspective. Sex work can be done by individuals of all genders, and they have their own discussions indeed. However, it should not be forgotten that female sex workers have long been at the centre of feminist discussions both because they are more crowded and because they are women. Therefore, it is important to emphasize female sex workers when examining the arguments. These discussions can be evaluated under three major headings: radical feminists’ abolitionist (to abolish) approach to sex work, liberal feminists’ defence that emphasizes individual choice, and some points that the two approaches have in common. These disagreements about female sex work have been ongoing for a long time and no global agreement has been reached, apart from the regulations developed by diverse countries. However, over time, these feminist arguments have also evolved, and the debates continue dynamically. This research paper will reveal that radical feminists’ criticisms of female sex work still maintain their abolitionist stance and continue to have a strong influence on contemporary feminist debates. 

Sex Work as Patriarchal Violence 

Radical feminists see female sex work as an extension of patriarchal violence. First part of this argument is based on the question of individual choice whether if it is freely chosen or a result of structural oppression. The radical feminists assert that even if there is consent; sex work, without dispute, is a form exploitation enforced by means of the patriarchy. The consent part is controversial as well. Feminists who are opponents of female sex work believe that the involvement of women in sex work is non-consensual at all times, and they were compelled by their social circumstances into sex work (Simmons, 1998, as cited in Kissil & Davey, 2010). In addition, according to Simmons (1998), if one is under economic distress, the “freewill” to use their body as an object for a complete stranger is non-existent. Through the evidence it can be clearly seen that radical feminists strongly disagree about mentioning the words “choice” or “freewill” when it comes to talking about female sex work. They defend that making sex work seem like it is just an individual preference neglects the sex workers’ challenging reality and the fact that they are in the need of better living conditions. They emphasize that women who have no other choice should be the main subject of these discussions and because of the existence of these women, no one should try to legitimize sex work in any way.  

The second part of the argument states that men’s control over women’s bodies is legitimized by female sex work. The opponents of female sex work believe that the area of female sex work can be a way of proving “superiority” over women’s bodies through violence. Kesler (2002, as cited in Kissil & Davey, 2010), states that the characteristic of this area is defining sex work as a form of violence practiced against women, however, practicing the sex work itself is not the only aspect of this violence, but there is also this idea of “buying sex” which is inseparable from a system of heterosexuality and male power that it symbolizes, also meaning that this system of female sex work is an absolute incarnation of the patriarchy. Moreover, as suggested by Comte (2014), sex work is not only about buying women for sex, but it also emerges an exercise of power over them. In order to subordinate women by dehumanizing them, sex work has been created by the patriarchal system. These findings indicate the importance of seeing sex work as a power conflict instead of seeing it as an ordinary sex act. The difference between other patriarchal conflicts and this one is that in the female sex work field women are more vulnerable to male violence and oppression due to its physical touch side. The fact that this field still exists not only legitimizes men’s control over women but also reinforces the idea that women are not as human as men, as a result of women feeling compelled into sex work and objectifying themselves.  

When Radical Criticism is Exclusive 

Many people in modern feminist communities find radical critiques of female sex work exclusionary, defending sex work through individual choice and resistance. Initially, feminists who are positive about sex work believe that when radical feminists perceive sex work only as exploitation and violence, they disregard the agency and autonomy of female sex workers. They argue that seeing sex work as inherently abusive marginalizes the experiences of many sex workers who see their work as a positive choice, offering control over their bodies. Society already puts pressure on women’s bodies and their lifestyles and the fact that radical feminists tell these women what to do only increases the pressure on them. According to Kissil & Davey (2010); choosing to be a sex worker, consequently, depends on a full and equal personhood. Limiting a woman’s choice means neglecting her equality and her status as a human being. Also, Hays (1994, as cited in Simmons, 1998) states that this perspective finds sex workers as agents since they have alternative choices (to do sex work or not) and make conscious or unconscious choices in the middle of available sets of structural alternatives. In light of this evidence, it can be understood that according to sex positive feminists, before a woman chooses to do sex work, it is taken into consideration whether she makes this decision herself. Radical feminists, on the other hand, emphasize that sex workers cannot do this work with an individual choice, and that even if they do, this choice is wrong. Again, according to Simmons (1998), agency is a relative concept, and completely free agency is an ideal. The two sides in this debate differ on their degree of agency, and we see that the sex positive side, unlike radical feminists, argues that sex workers have more agency. Moreover, in this context it should not be neglected that women also have sexual desires and are human beings with preferences. Seeing sex work solely as an oppression means neglecting women’s sexual desires. Women’s sexuality in general is suppressed in many societies, they are shamed by society for any act that reveals their sexuality. According to Comte (2014), a double standard has occurred where women are shamed for expressing their sexuality outside marriage by being labelled as “whores” or “easy women” whereas men are not. Furthermore, there is a society that women are categorized as either “brains” or “bodies” (Bateman, 2021). Never both because according to them a woman who is sexually active cannot be intelligent. Considering these, engaging in sex work may be an empowering action for a female to fight these double standards. In fact, fighting this double standard is important for any woman out there. However, not criminalizing sex work is going to be on the workers’ favour especially because Comte (2014) also states that the aim of criminalizing female sex workers is not to protect them but to control their sexuality. For example, Zengin (2020) says that Turkish government sees female sexuality as a threat to “family values” so they only recognize female sexuality when it comes to family-making process. Sex positive liberal feminists are insistent on their stance through the agency argument and sexuality as a resistance argument. It is clear that they are trying to achieve a point that where no women are being judged for their decisions and are provided security and welfare by the laws. The main point that they are being criticised for is that their arguments only imply to the “modern” women in the West, not the women in the third world countries. They should construct their arguments in a more intersectional way which considers other conditions such as race, age and class. 

Points in Common 

The defenders of female sex work and radical feminists do have points in common. Being sex positive is not radical feminism’s strict opposite side (Sutherland, 2004). Even though through the paper it can be seen that the two feminist groups have different ideas that conflict a lot, there are issues which they agree on such as the welfare of the sex workers. No feminist would want a woman to suffer in an unsafe and unhealthy work environment because it is a fact that female sex workers do continue their jobs even the radical feminist groups may not like it however the workers have to be supported in the terms of health and welfare. Simmons (1998) explains that both groups are concerned with the wellbeing of the sex workers. Both groups have organized conferences, put pressure on governments to take action and written books about their opinions of the ways to improve the lives of the workers. Simmons (1998) adds that the radical feminist group is trying to protect women from the sex industry and from what they see as violent and they seek to punish the sex-act buyers instead of punishing sex workers. The sex positive liberal feminist group on the other hand, wants to empower female sex workers through decriminalization, they expect to organize sex work in order to keep the workers safe, healthy and prosperous. 

Besides the issue of welfare, both feminist groups think that it is clear that criminalization will only increase the inequality. This means that both sides agree that laws are hard on these women and things should be easier for them. As argued by Kuo (2002, as cited in Kissil & Davey, 2010), both feminist groups think that female sex workers will now have to deal with financial, psychological and physical problems of being identified as criminals in addition to the other inequalities. Also, the strongest argument against criminalization is that criminalization never decreased or eliminated sex work. It is proven by the fact that the practice of sex work has increased in the U.S. even though it is currently illegal in 49 states (Kuo, 2002, as cited in Kissil & Davey, 2010). Besides the legal part, if any of these women feel guilty about their job, when something bad happens, they are going to have a hard time asking for support from others. Kuo (2002, as cited in Kissil & Davey (2010) also added that if sex workers feel discriminated and are afraid of being arrested, they struggle with seeking out for help. Everyone should have a right to ask for help without being judged; however, criminalization of these women makes surviving even harder for them. Ultimately, both feminist groups need to provide support to these women in some way, no matter how different their views may be. Radical feminists have the upper hand in this debate because fewer women engage in sex work voluntarily than those who are forced into it, and their stance seems likely to be more helpful to women who are forced into it and who cannot escape the industry. However, it is obvious that both groups are trying to increase workers’ welfare by using their own ways, but their purpose is the same: providing those women a better life. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the arguments discussed in this study have shown that the radical feminist perspective preserves its traditional abolitionist stance towards female sex work today and still has a significant impact on feminist debates. The disagreements over whether sex work should be associated with individual freedom or the reproduction of patriarchal oppression continue to exist sharply, especially among radical and sex positive liberal feminists. In this context, the arguments of radical feminists, although they sometimes attract negative reactions, have an important position within feminist theory in terms of emphasizing the connection of sex work with structural inequalities. Their existence makes it possible to question everyday issues of many groups of women. However, this debate should not remain only on the ideological level but should also be centred on experiences in the field. Understanding how sex work experiences are shaped by intersecting factors such as class, race, age and gender in particular will make feminist theory more inclusive. Therefore, it is possible for future research to develop a more holistic and fair approach in terms of both feminist theory and policy-making processes by focusing on this intersectionality perspective. Feminist discussions must produce not only theoretical but also practical implications that impact the lives of individuals in the field. 

References 

Bateman, V. (2021). How Decriminalisation Reduces Harm Within and Beyond Sex Work: Sex  

Work Abolitionism as the “Cult of Female Modesty” in Feminist Form. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(4), 819–836.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00612-8 

Comte, J. (2014). Decriminalization of Sex Work: Feminist Discourses in Light of Research.  

In Sexuality and Culture (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 196–217).  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9174-5 

Kissil, K., & Davey, M. (2010). The prostitution debate in feminism: Current trends, policy and  

clinical issues facing an invisible population. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 22(1), 1–21.  

https://doi.org/10.1080/08952830903453604 

Simmons, M. (1998). Theorizing Prostitution: The Question of Agency. In: Sex Work and Sex  

Workers 

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351306683-7/theorizing-prostitution-question-agency-melanie-simmons 

Sutherland, Kate. (2004). Work, sex, and sex-work: competing feminist discourses on 

the international sex trade. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 42(1), 139-168. 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232625242.pdf 

Zengin, A. (2020). A Field of Silence: Secrecy, intimacy, and sex work in Turkey. In Feminist 

 Studies (Vol. 46, Issue 2, pp. 345–370). Feminist Studies Inc.  https://doi.org/10.15767/FEMINISTSTUDIES.46.2.0345