What is the moral difference between sex work and other forms of work?

[MooFeatures]

Hear me out. I know the two are different, and that and that a person selling their body (indeed, their consent) for sex is morally different to other types of work which they wouldn’t engage in if that financial incentive (coercion?) wasn’t present. I’m not questioning this position... I’d just like to be able to fully articulate why the two are different. All explanations gratefully received

Priceless that!

Love it

female SWs attending GUM clinics are only at marginally higher risk of an STI than other female attendees

If a woman has gone to GUM, it's because she thinks she might have an STI. Women don't routinely attend GUM. You cannot extrapolate STI prevalence in the whole population based on the women going to GUM. The term here is "selection bias".

Yes of course there is a selection bias in GUM clinics-that is why the Australian data is useful as it shows that in the decriminalised environment of NSW that the STI prevalence in prostitutes is similar to survesy of the general population

Yes of course there is a selection bias in GUM clinics-that is why the Australian data is useful as it shows that in the decriminalised environment of NSW that the STI prevalence in prostitutes is similar to survesy of the general population

No it isn't. As has already been pointed out to you women don't routinely attend GUM clinics.

Unless you think 'sex work' jobs should be listed at Job Centres, you know that there is a clear moral difference between 'sex work' and other work.

The whole sexual interaction sours the instant money is handed over because she has become a good or product he has paid for

I think this is the key point.

If we believe as a society, that every part of sex should be consensual and that consent can be withdrawn at any moment, sex is not like any other commercial trade.

However, 'sex work' doesn't just create a conflict between consent and the contractual expectations of the person who has bought the 'product', but also puts the 'sex worker' in a position of physical vulnerability at the exact point when she might decide to break the contract.

Imagine if it was just work. Then there would be courses for it and degrees.

It’s just bollocks that anyone thinks that sex work is just work.

Only idiots think that

If it was a job like any other job it wouldn't require regular trips to the GUM clinic, nor lead one to believe that that was a thing most women do.

I said it upthread but introducing money really changes interactions between people and undermines morality.

There was a nursery somewhere where they were getting fed up with parents picking up their children late. It broke the agreed rules and was an inconvenience to staff. So the nursery introduced a penalty charge for late pick ups.

Did tardy parents improve? No! the late pick-ups increased. It appeared that parents decided that if they were to be charged for that time they might as well use the additional childcare being offered. Their moral obligation to turn up punctually so that staff could go home was reduced by the introduction of the monetary transaction. The policy backfired entirely.

Men are physically doing things to women's bodies during sex. Introducing money seriously reduces the moral obligation to consider the women's safety, comfort and humanity - which is of course the point of why he has sought out a prostitute rather than seek out a mutual sexual encounter. Removal of that obligation is what is dangerous for women.

Payment also encourages exploitation. Where payment is introduced for blood donation, instead of donations being altruistically offered by people who can afford the time and inconvenience and who are generally fairly healthy, instead you get poorer and less healthy people donating blood and trying to do so more often than is advisable because they needed the cash. The product is potentially less safe and you create a system with a tendency to utilise poorer people. Similar exploitation argument to paid surrogacy.

Exploitation isn't guaranteed (hence these tedious, disingenuous arguments about the 1% happy hookers and well off kindly surrogates) but with payment replacing mutual moral obligation, which is a less tangible concept but one which we all know exists, systems have a massive inbuilt tendency towards exploitation.

Your plumber provides a service in fixing your sink-you pay for their work. Your hairdresser cuts hair as a service and you pay-no one would say plumbing and hairdressing is not work. A prostitute provides a sexual service for money-how come this not work? Prostitutes often talk about “their job”-they see it as work-how come many posters here do not?

Ah several posters say-it cannot be work as there are no courses teaching prostitution- or if it were work it would be advertised in job centres (ignoring the fact that self-employment jobs are not advertised in job centres- but we don’t say those jobs are not work) or that if it was work the unemployed could be forced to do it-since they are not it cannot be work. Or if it is work why can’t your boss insist on you as an employee having sex with him. Or if it were work men would do it. Well I have news for you-some men do and mostly service other men-if there were sufficient demand from women they would service women. All pretty stupid arguments.

Ah some posters say-the prostitute does not fancy the client and were it not for money changing hands she would not provide the sex-her consent to sex is being bought. Are you buying your plumbers “consent” when he fixes the sink-he would not fix your sink unless you paid-he may not enjoy fixing your sink, he may even hate it-but does it because there is an implied contract. Plumbers exist to do plumbing-you are not buying his consent you are buying a service. Similarly with prostitution-you are not buying her body she is using her body to provide a service.

Ah but consent is relevant say the “prostitution is rape” brigade, sex without consent is rape. But the contract a prostitute enters into is to provide sex for money-she consents to provide certain defined services for money, just as your plumber does.

Ah but the prostitutes is being coerced-as no one in their right minds could possibly choose to be a prostitute-she is being coerced by pimps, by poverty or by traumatic events in her past. Well I have news for you-there are a whole spectrum of reasons people enter prostitution (look at the multiple AMA threads on Mumsnet) here, here, here, here, here here, here, here or the experiences of over 200 current or ex-prostitutes who contributed to over 300 Mumsnet threads.
You will find the experiences ranges from good to dire-and although a few say they were coerced the majority say they entered by choice (maybe a constrained choice from not very good options) but they were not on the whole coerced.

Ah but these prostitutes are “not representative” they area self-selecting minority of privileged hookers and do not represent the experiences of the majority. Well how do you know? There is no fully representative survey of all prostitutes-but the majority of surveys do pretty much triangulate with the experiences of those on Mumsnet (apart from perhaps an under representation of street prostitutes)

Ah but it is the wrong sort of sex-the only permissible sex is a result of continued hopity-skiperty “enthusiastic consent” –surely the only test is did both sides get what they wanted out of the sex and are they OK with that? Ah but there is something “special” about sex (as opposed to other services) as it is particularly intimate, it is penetrative and breaches bodily integrity and that should not be bought or sold. Well this is a moral view-not everyone shares that view.

Ah sexwork is not work because other work (like plumbing or hairdressing) is useful to society-prostitution is not. Well is bookmaking? Gambling on the stock exchange ? There are many jobs that are not useful –but no one says they are not work.

Ah but prostitution is harmful to the individual (mentally and physically)-no doubt some have crap experiences-but if you look at the prostitute threads on Mumsnet for those who have exited prostitution (or survivors as the abolitionists like to call them) some look back in horror, but over half had an OK time and some would do it again given the same circumstances. (for a general discussion see Why Feminists Should Rethink on Sex Workers ’ Rights here

Ah but the existence of prostitution means that men objectify and despise women and treat them as less than human and that harms gender equality and relationships between the sex –so it is harmful to society for that reasons it should not be considered work. Well it turns out that there is no relationship between measures of sex equality and levels of prostitution- so Sweden and Denmark score similarly on measures of equality but have different levels of prostitution-and New Zealand with decriminalised prostitution also scores well in the equality stake.

It also turns out that prostitutes clients are more accepting of gender equality than the general population, see Are Men Who Pay for Sex Sexist? Masculinity and Client Attitudes Toward Gender Role Equality in Different Prostitution Markets here

So-how come sex work is not work?

If sex work is work would you be ok with women (and men) having to do sex work or have any benefits sanctioned?

"This porn maker is looking for someone to be in their next porn film, I reckon you'll be perfect for the role, off you go - if you refuse then I'm afraid that's a 6 week sanction"

Yeah, as if...

Perhaps it is good to consider whether we should be able to sell our organs or have commercial surrogacy or unregulated gambling.

I guess we have controls because it produces a negative impact on society because people may make choices that are ‘bad’ for them and society in the long term.

So I guess if people can pay for prostitutes, they are less likely to take the time to form a relationship with other people to have sex. I guess it may impact on their behaviour within relationships - eg if they can just pay to get it, they can treat their partners poorly. People may be tempted into prostitution due to financial issues which may impact their sexual, family and mental health. Now it IS a restriction on freedom and it IS nannying, but there is precedent in other areas and it’s about the risk/benefit society sees as a whole.

All pretty stupid arguments..

Except you haven't explained why any of these arguments are stupid.

but they were not on the whole coerced.

Doesn't matter. Children may wish to work 12 hours a day in a factory, and people may wish to sell kidneys. Many 'business' practices are illegal because of the potential to cause harm.
Well this is a moral view-not everyone shares that view.

And yet we don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow because we have different moral views.

Are you buying your plumbers “consent” when he fixes the sink-he would not fix your sink unless you paid-he may not enjoy fixing your sink, he may even hate it-but does it because there is an implied contract.

But generally a miscommunication between the two parties about whether the plumber was supposed to supply taps will not result in the plumber being abused or raped.

Prostitution is not work because people who are mistaken for construction site workers don't get pulled off the street into passing cars, taken to a flat and forced to renovate it, and then chucked onto the pavement afterwards with money thrown after them.

Women in Holbeck do get mistaken for prostitutes, abducted from the street, and raped.

Prostituted men are a red herring. Most prostituted people are women.

Are Men Who Pay for Sex Sexist?

In Holbeck, yes. In Holbeck, men solicit schoolgirls in uniform.

Germany has legalised brothels and I was over there a few years back. I received and witnessed more street harassment in two weeks than I did in the other 50 weeks of that year in this country.

When men have the green light to buy women, they treat all women like shit.

Plumbers exist to do plumbing-you are not buying his consent you are buying a service. Similarly with prostitution-you are not buying her body she is using her body to provide a service

No - the punter 'is^ buying her body.

Dido dont be daft-the prostitute is in full possesion of her body after the act-so how come she has "sold" it.

She uses her body to provide the service, just as the plumber uses his skill to provide his. His body is not bought neither is hers,but their service is

So-how come sex work is not work? You've missed the point completely. Read the OPs actual question again. Moral difference between different kinds of work. Reason why you'd tell your mates your wife was a plumber but why you wouldn't want to tell them she'd taken up sucking other men's cocks for a living.

The most glaring indication that prostitution is not remotely like other forms of work is that the more experienced the prostituted woman or girl is the lower her value and the less experienced a prostituted woman or girl is the higher her value to the pimps and punters.

Ok here’s another very simple reason: When it comes to the enforcement of contracts if you pay a prostitute but they fail to provide any sex an attempt to legally enforce the contract would result in a rape. Rape can never be moral.

When men have the green light to buy women, they treat all women like shit.

Yes.

That's a yes from me too.

..and to whichever poster said the prostitute didn't sell a body - all right then, rented the body.

Happy now?