Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets

Laurie J. Shrage
First published Wed Feb 18, 2004; substantive revision Fri Jul 13, 2007
STAF!"# $%&%'!($#)A !F (*)'!S!(*&
http+,,plato-stan.ord-edu,entries,.e/inist0se10/ar2ets,
Sex markets have been a concern to feminists because, historically, the
skin trade has relied predominantly on female service providers and
male consumers. Feminist theorists are divided on the question of whether
markets in pornographic materials and sexual services pose a threat to
women in all contexts. Some feminist theorists argue that when one is
paid for sex, a person contracts to give away her freedom and sexuality.
thers argue that selling sex harms women only because the work carries
a stigma generated from double standards of sexual morality and negative
attitudes to sex, which need to be challenged. !he debate over sex
commerce extends to a number of social practices, including pornography,
prostitution, escort services, erotic dancing and strip shows, phonesex and
cybersex, and s"m parlors and swing clubs. Feminist philosophers have
primarily focused on the issues of pornography and prostitution, and have
subsumed the other practices under one of these broad categories.
#. $ornography
% #.# &iolence 'gainst (omen
# #.) *ausal $roperties
) #.+ Sexual b,ecti-cation
+ #.. /egal Suppression
). $rostitution
% ).# rigins
# ).) 0arms to (omen
) ).+ /egal Status
+. 1ew 2irections
3ibliography
% (orks *ited
# ther 4mportant (orks
ther 4nternet 5esources
5elated 6ntries
1. Pornography
1.1 Violence Against Women
Pornography emerged in Europe as a distinct cultural genre with the development of mass
print culture in the nineteenth century (Hunt 1996, 10) Historians of Europe tell us that
pornographic wor!s appeared and flourished at a time when modern democratic states and
industrial"capitalist economies were #eing formed Pornographic literature and engravings
were often vehicles for promoting new political and scientific ideas (Hunt 1996) $oday,
se%ually graphic pu#lications occasionally have a political aim, #ut the ma&ority of such
materials are mar!eted for se%ual titillation, entertainment, and instruction 'eligious and
secular moralists have fre(uently condemned pornography for its harmful impact on se%ual
mores, children, and pu#lic order and decency )s a result, pornography has #een regulated in
a variety of ways* in the +,, pornographic materials can violate o#scenity statutes if they
appeal to -prurient interests,. are offensive to the -average person,. and lac! -serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. (/iller v 0alifornia 1912)
Pornography #ecame a focus of feminist activism as second"wave feminists #egan to
challenge various forms of culturally entrenched violence against women, especially rape and
domestic violence /any feminists allege that pornographic films and maga3ines erotici3e the
se%ual assault, torture, and e%ploitation of women 4eminists have de#ated whether
pornography is merely a reflection of a se%ist culture or a significant causal factor in the
pervasive se%ual violence against women 5n the 1960s, feminist philosophers and legal
theorists argued that pornographic wor!s could precipitate se%ual assaults against women
#ecause they endorse or recommend the violation and degradation of women (7ongino 1960,
82) Helen 7ongino claims that pornography shows men and women ta!ing pleasure in
activities that o#&ectify women and treat women as less than human 9y depicting female
su#&ects as dehumani3ed o#&ects, pornography encourages the idea that women can #e treated
without moral regard : ie, raped and tortured 7ongino writes, -;hat<s wrong with
pornography, then, is its degrading and dehumani3ing portrayal of women (and not its se%ual
content) Pornography, #y its very nature, re(uires that women #e su#ordinate to men and
mere instruments for the fulfillment of male fantasies. (7ongino 1960, 8=)
,ome years later, 0atharine /ac>innon and )ndrea ?wor!in defined pornography, in their
model ordinance, as -the graphic se%ually e%plicit su#ordination of women. (/ac>innon
1992, 1@1, n 2@) $he ordinance captured the developing feminist view that pornography is a
form of defamatory speech against women and can precipitate invidious forms of
discrimination against women /ac>innon writes, -;omen who charge men with se%ual
a#use are not #elieved $he pornographic view of them isA they want it* they all want it.
(/ac>innon 1961, 191) 5n other words, #y undermining women<s a#ility to see! &ustice for
se%ual assaults and harassment, the production and dissemination of pornography promotes
gender"#ased discrimination and oppression /oreover, /ac>innon argues that -,pecific
pornography does directly cause some assaults ,ome rapes are performed #y men with
paper#ac! #oo!s in their poc!ets. (/ac>innon 1961, 168) /ac>innon claims #oth that
pornography is used #y men -to train women to se%ual su#mission. (/ac>innon 1961, 166),
and that -pornography conditions male orgasm to female su#ordination. (/ac>innon 1961,
190) 5n other words, pornography shapes #oth female and male se%ual desire into
victimBa#user roles that are then treated as natural forms of se%ual and gender e%pression
4urthermore, pornography promotes rights violations not only of the female partners, friends,
ac(uaintances, and relatives of the men who consume pornography, #ut also of the women
who participate in its production, according to /ac>innon $his is #ecause the acts caught on
film in much pornography are allegedly coerced through intimidation and money 5n
/ac>innon<s words, pornography represents -se% forced on real women so that it can #e sold
at a profit to #e forced on other real women* women<s #odies trussed and maimed and raped
and made into things to #e hurt and o#tained and accessed, and this presented as the nature of
women* the coercion that is visi#le and the coercion that has #ecome invisi#le : this and
more #others feminists a#out pornography C pornography causes attitudes and #ehaviors of
violence and discrimination that define the treatment and status of half of the population.
(/ac>innon 1961, 181) 5n short, a num#er of feminists conclude that pornography is not
simply a reflection of se%ism and male domination, #ut that it -nourishes se%ism. (7ongino
1960, =8) #y #eing a !ey component of the mechanism for producing and maintaining male
domination
7ongino, /ac>innon, and others argue that pornography should not #e given the same legal
protection as other e%pressive materials, and recommend that pornography #e strictly
regulated However, they advocate the legal regulation of pornography, not as a form of
o#scene e%pression, #ut as a practice that causes in&uries to women, individually and as a
group 7ongino argues that li#eral toleration for pornography constitutes toleration for civil
and se%ual harms against women (7ongino 1960, 86) /ac>innon and ?wor!in emphasi3e
that, #ecause women possess vastly une(ual social power compared to men, women<s
participation in the production of pornography should not #e considered fully consensual
(/ac>innon 1961, 1@6, 186"89* ?wor!in 1919, @01) Pornography, on their view, involves
the coercive e%ploitation and pu#lic humiliation of vulnera#le and disempowered citi3ens, and
it encourages further a#use 4or /ac>innon and ?wor!in, pornography serves as a critical
weapon in maintaining women<s second"class social status, for it perpetuates a climate in
which women are #oth defined as se%ual o#&ects and constantly threatened with violence,
ma!ing it impossi#le for them to e%ercise whatever formal rights they have won /ac>innon
and ?wor!in<s model ordinance proposes to ma!e -pornography actiona#le as a civil rights
violation. so that women could see! legal redress when pornographic materials interfered
with the e%ercise of their rights or caused personal harms (/ac>innon 1992, @@, 1@1, n 2@)
$hey argue that, #y protecting the speech of pornographers and shielding them from lia#ility,
the state fails to protect women<s e(uality and freedom /ac>innon writes, -$he 4irst
)mendment essentially presumes some level of social e(uality among people C $he 4irst
)mendment also presumes that for the mind to #e free to fulfill itself, speech must #e free and
open )ndrea<s wor! shows that pornography contri#utes to enslaving women<s minds and
#odies )s a social process and as a form of Dspeech,E pornography amounts to terrorism and
promotes not freedom #ut silence 'ather it promotes freedom for men and enslavement and
silence for women. (/ac>innon 1961, 1@9"120) 5n sum, a num#er of feminist theorists
maintain that the legal and social suppression of pornography is necessary to achieve gender
e(uality and to resist the oppression of women
Fot all feminist theorists concur with the feminist criti(ue of pornography ;hile agreeing
that the content of pornography condones the o#&ectiona#le treatment of women, )nn Garry
was one of the first to (uestion whether pornography should #e held responsi#le for pervasive
gender"#ased violence and discrimination Garry writes, -/uch of the research on the effects
of pornography indicates that any effect it has : positive or negative His short lived. (Garry
1919, 12@) Garry also (uestions whether treating a woman as a se% o#&ect is always #ad, and
suggests that pornography succeeds in harming women, in part, #ecause viewers assume that
se% is generally harmful to women (Garry 1919, 126"21) Garry encourages feminists to
support the production of non"se%ist pornography rather than try to suppress pornographic
materials /any of the themes of Garry<s early essay have persisted in the ongoing feminist
pornography de#ateA the causal properties of pornographic wor!s, the moral significance of
sexual objectification, and the legal suppression of pornography
1.2 Causal Properties
'eviewing the social science literature on the connection #etween pornography and rape,
?iana ,cully writes, -the proliferation of cultural products, li!e pornography, intensifies the
(uantity and (uality of violence in men<s fantasies 4urther, particularly when women are
depicted as receiving pleasure from the violence directed at them, pornography triviali3es rape
and, thus, may encourage more men to act on their fantasies )rmed with the myths cele#rated
in violent pornography, such as women secretly want to #e raped, men who rape can and do
#elieve that their #ehavior is within the normative #oundaries of the culture. (,cully 1990,
1==) +nli!e earlier research, which involved somewhat artificial la#oratory e%periments to
detect the effects of e%posure to pornography (=6"=1), ,cully<s research compares the
consumption of pornographic materials #y convicted rapists with a control group of felons
)lthough she notes some pro#lems with her research design, she concludes that her -data do
esta#lish that the ma&ority of convicted rapists were familiar with pornography and that their
use of such material was somewhat greater than that of other felons. (,cully 1990, 1=8)
?e#orah 0ameron and Eli3a#eth 4ra3er (uestion whether accounts of the causal properties of
pornography are helpful or illuminating $hey argue that such accounts assume a
deterministic model of human #ehavior, in which men lose control over their #ehavior and
respond somewhat mindlessly to pornographic stimuli (0ameron I 4ra3er @000, @86"@=1)
$he idea that men simply imitate what they see in pornography, or are conditioned to #ehave
in certain ways through e%posure to pornography, implies that men are not a#le to creatively
and critically interpret pornographic materials )lthough some men may unthin!ingly copy
what they see, or may even #ecome -addicted. to se%ual violence through pornography, these
men are the e%ception, not the rule (0ameron I 4ra3er @000, @82) 9y treating se%ual
violence as a product of e%posure to pornography, feminists promote a view that relieves
se%ual predators of responsi#ility for their actions, and #lames their actions instead on
e%pressive materials or the pathological conditions they allegedly cause )lthough causal
theories invo!ing the loss of the individual control through -imitation. and -addiction. may
#e useful to defendants in se%ual assault and murder cases, 0ameron and 4ra3er point out that
these theories undermine the feminist goal of showing that se%ual violence is a function of
cultural norms and structural ine(ualities, rather than mental de#ilitation or disease (0ameron
I 4ra3er @000, @86) 5ronically, causal models may engender social sympathy for the
perpetrators of se%ual violence and ma!e it difficult to punish them (0ameron and 4ra3er
@000, @81) 0ameron and 4ra3er conclude that feminists can #e critical of -the discourses
which inform se%ual practice. and imagine alternative discourses, without promoting
pro#lematic models of human #ehavior (0ameron I 4ra3er @000, @=2)
,ome feminist philosophers enlist the tools of speech act theory to e%plicate the causal
properties of pornography, especially the idea that pornography su#ordinates and silences
women 'ae 7angton argues that pornographic speech su#ordinates #y virtue of its
illocutionary force (7angton 199=, @1=) ?rawing on the wor! of John )ustin, 7angton points
out that pornographic words and images are a form of action 4or e%ample, #y uttering the
words -5 promise,. -than! you,. or -you<re fired. someone may complete the acts of ma!ing
a promise, than!ing, or disemploying someone )ustin distinguished the actions performed #y
words (illocutionary force) from their literal content (locutionary force), and their effect on
particular listeners (perlocutionary force) $he literal content of a pornographic wor! may #e
the depiction of a particular se%ual act, and this may have the effect of arousing particular
viewers and shaping their attitudes toward women $he illocutionary force of a pornographic
wor! pertains to the actions performed in depicting se% and women 4or e%ample, &ust as a
sign that says -;hites Knly. may su#ordinate 9lac!s and authori3e racial segregation in
certain conte%ts, a pornographic wor! may, #y virtue of its illocutionary force, su#ordinate
women and endorse se%ually predatory #ehaviors $he illocutionary force of a particular
utterance will depend on a variety of factors, including the intentions of the spea!er and the
#ac!ground conventions that lin! the literal meanings of words with social practices 7angton
argues that there are good, though not conclusive, reasons to thin! that the factors which
determine the hostile illocutionary force of pornographic te%ts are in place However, she also
suggests that the illocutionary force of pornography may #e #loc!ed effectively #y the speech
acts of its critics, rather than #y censorship (7angton 199=, @16)
Jennifer Horns#y deploys speech act theory to e%plain how pornography silences women
)ccording to Horns#y, pornographic materials reinforce ideas a#out women that deprive their
utterances of their ordinary illocutionary meaning (Horns#y 199=, @@1) 4or e%ample,
pornographic wor!s may convey the idea that the women which men find se%y are eager to
satisfy their se%ual appetites, so that when women say -no,. their utterance constitutes not an
act of refusal #ut an act of teasing 5n this way, pornography may reinforce social codes that
allow men to systematically misread and discount women<s speech ;omen may #e silenced,
then, not #y having their speech suppressed #ut #y changes to the #ac!ground conditions
necessary for successful speech acts, such as refusal 5f pornography interferes with the a#ility
of women to communicate, then women cannot contest the harm of pornography with more
speech, #ut only #y suppressing pornographic materials
Fadine ,trossen has challenged the claim that pornography su#ordinates and silences women
,trossen argues that pornographic wor!s do not have singular meanings, nor do they
command only se%ist understandings 5n her wordsA -Procensorship feminists may well view a
woman<s apparent welcoming of se% with a man as degrading, #ut this is #ecause of their
negative attitudes toward women<s a#ility to ma!e se%ual choices Kther viewers are li!ely to
see such a scene as positive and healthy. (,trossen 199=, 16@) 4urthermore, according to
,trossen, -)m#iguous and positive interpretations apply to the full range of se%ual speech,
including violent imagery and imagery that might well #e la#eled Dsu#ordinatingE or
Ddegrading,E such as rape scenes and scenes dramati3ing the so"called rape myth : namely
that women want to #e raped. (,trossen 199=, 186) $o illustrate that pornographic te%ts can
produce divergent responses, ,trossen e%amines opposing reactions to films that depict rape,
to controversial images of women in popular advertisements or print media, and even to
)ndrea ?wor!in<s own se%ually graphic novels ,trossen claims that the effect on some
viewers, including women, may #e positiveA -Pornography, including pornographic rape
scenes, may serve another, intensely political end for women who read or see themA they go
against the grain, thus allowing viewers to e%press re#ellion and individuality 5n this sense,
too, words or images that literally depict a woman<s powerlessness may well have an
empowering impact on female viewers. (,trossen 199=, 118) $he e%istence of divergent
interpretations and responses to pornographic wor!s challenges the idea that pornography has
any single, harmful impact on the #ac!ground conditions of communication )nd without any
single, persistent impact on #ac!ground understandings, it is dou#tful that pornographic
wor!s would have the power to silence or su#ordinate women, in any or all conte%ts 5n some
conte%ts, ,trossen suggests, pornographic wor!s can even invite viewers to re#el against
conventional notions of female vulnera#ility and respecta#ility, or to e%plore the origins of
distur#ing se%ual fantasies )t the very least, such materials ma!e aspects of human se%uality
availa#le for pu#lic de#ate and criti(ue (,trossen 199=, 116) 5ronically, as Georgia ;arn!e
notes, anti"censorship feminists might charge that -antipornography feminism silences
women<s differing se%ual self"e%pressions #y condemning those with which it disagrees as
false consciousness C LandM #y promoting legislation that would suppress materials through
which women can discover different views of an authentic se%uality and, indeed, different
ways of #eing se%ual. (;arn!e 1999, 1@8)
1.3 Sexual Objectification
,ome feminist philosophers argue that pornography violates the moral imperative to treat
people as autonomous, rational su#&ects )ccording to )lison )ssiter, -the /aster",lave
dialectic seems to capture the relation #etween people in pornographic eroticism 5n much
pornography, people, usually women, #ecome o#&ects for another C 5n the case of
pornography, what happens is that the one person #ecomes a #ody desired #y the other, #ut
this is not reciprocated. ()ssiter 1966, 6=) $o treat someone as merely a #ody for another<s
use, without recogni3ing that she too is a su#&ect with desires, is to treat someone as a slave,
as a su#human creature or o#&ect, and therefore violates her dignity as a human #eing )ssiter
e%plains that, for Hegel, -Dthe /aster",lave dialecticE is a phase in the development of world
history : in the progression towards freedom of the D,piritE that controls historical change 5n
fact, the relation is disadvantageous #oth for the slave and for the master. ()ssiter 1966, 6=),
for neither gains the forms of recognition necessary for self"conscious awareness and
emotional fulfillment )ssiter also argues that -the role of the wife in marriage is very li!e
that of the ,lave. for the wife<s social identity is su#sumed #y her hus#and, who holds social
power, and thus she is not a social su#&ect in her own right ()ssiter 1966, 6=)
Harry 9rod argues that pornography harms men individually even while it augments men<s
collective power (9rod 199@, 1=6) 9rod also employs a Hegelian framewor! and writes,
-$he female is primarily there as a se% o#&ect, not se%ual su#&ect Kr, if she is not completely
o#&ectified, since men do want to #e desired themselves, hers is at least a su#&ugated
su#&ectivity 9ut one needs another independent su#&ect, not an o#&ect or a captured
su#&ectivity, if one either wants one<s own prowess validated, or if one simply desires human
interaction /en functioning in the pornographic mode of male se%uality, in which men
dominate women, are denied satisfaction of these human desires. (9rod 199@, 1=8) 4or 9rod
then, pornography enhances men<s political power over women, while diminishing the (uality
of men<s intersu#&ective relationships with women, and there#y contri#utes to the loss of
positive human interaction and self"reali3ation 9rod also argues that pornography contri#utes
to the commodification of se%uality, which enhances men<s powers as consumers, although
not necessarily their genuine autonomy and freedom
0atharine /ac>innon invo!es >ant<s idea of persons as ends to e%plain the moral pro#lem of
pornographyA -) person, in one >antian view, is a free and rational agent whose e%istence is
an end in itself, as opposed to instrumental In pornograp! "omen exist to te end of male
pleasure # $%ac&innon 1'()* 1+(, 4or /ac>innon, pornography involves men treating
women as mere instruments in order to satisfy their se%ual desires ,uch treatment, at #est,
fails to recogni3e women as free and e(ual persons and, at worst, dehumani3es women and
encourages their victimi3ation 5n response to /ac>innon<s claims a#out the role of se%ual
o#&ectification in women<s lives, /artha Fuss#aum has as!ed whether se%ual o#&ectification
is always morally o#&ectiona#le or whether it is only so in certain conte%ts (Fuss#aum 1999,
@18) -ussbaum i.entifies se/en .istinct 0in.s of actions tat ma! or ma! not be part of
objectification in an! gi/en instanceA instrumentalit!* .enial of autonom!* inertness*
fungibilit!* /iolabilit!* o"nersip* an. .enial of subjecti/it! (Fuss#aum 1999, @16) ,ome
of these actions are always morally pro#lematic, #ut some of them are accepta#le when they
are part of a larger relationship involving mutual respect Fuss#aum writes, -?enial of
autonomy and denial of su#&ectivity are o#&ectiona#le if they persist throughout an adult
relationship, #ut as phases in a relationship characteri3ed #y mutual regard they can #e all
right, or even (uite wonderful C 5n a closely related way, it may at times be splendid to treat
the other person as passive, or even inert Emotional penetration of #oundaries seems
potentially a very valua#le part of se%ual life, and some forms of physical #oundary
penetration also, though it is less clear which ones these are Treating as fungible is suspect
when the person so treated is from a group that has frequently been commodified and used as
a tool, or a prize; between social equals these problems disappear !ussbaum "###, $%&'
%#) 5n other words, some actions in which we use another<s #ody se%ually are consistent with
recogni3ing the person so used as an end and do not involve treating her as a mere o#&ect, in
the >antian sense 9ut Fuss#aum concludes that most conventional pornography, such as
(layboy, fails to meet the >antian moral standard, and -depicts a thoroughgoing fungi#ility
and commodification of se% partners and, in the process, severs se% from any deep connection
with self"e%pression or emotion. (Fuss#aum 1999, @28) Fuss#aum therefore concurs with
/ac>innon that (layboy treats women as mere o#&ects or trophies that can #oth enhance
men<s status and #e e%changed for the ne%t se% o#&ect at will
7inda 7e/onchec! argues that the se%ual fantasies depicted in pornography imply that
women<s su#&ectivities are recogni3ed #y the consumers of this material (7e/onchec! 1991,
122) $he fantasy of overcoming a woman<s will assumes that she has a will to overcome
(7e/onchec! 1991, 121), and the fantasy that women en&oy #eing se%ually e%ploited assumes
that they have desires that men<s se%ual use fulfills (7e/onchec! 1991, 122) 7e/onchec!
writes, -se% wor! is not merely a#out treating a woman as an o#&ect nor merely a#out
dehumani3ing her ,e% wor! is a comple% dialectic #etween su#&ect and o#&ect in which a
woman<s dehumani3ation is successful precisely #ecause she is perceived as a person whose
will, seductiveness, and power is properly su#ordinate to men. (7e/onchec! 1991, 128) Kn
this view, pornographic materials and porn consumers recogni3e women<s agency while
imagining su#duing it ;omen are thus recogni3ed as su#&ects with ends of their own and are
not depicted as mere su#human o#&ects ,usan 9ordo similarly recogni3es that women are
constructed as su#&ects in pornography, #ut she argues that they are su#&ects whose agency
e%presses itself only as a desire to please the pro&ected male viewer ,he writes, -an essential
ingredient in porn C is the depiction of a su#&ectivity (or personality) that willing contracts its
possi#ilities and pleasure to one : the acceptance and gratification of the male C $he
woman in porn a#dicates her will, her se%ual discrimination, her independence, #ut not to
#ecome a mute #ody for the man. (9ordo 1998, @16) 4or 9ordo, there is a mind inside the
pornographic female #ody, #ut it communicates only a limited range of nonthreatening
desires, and therefore it e%ists as a truncated self
7aurie ,hrage (uestions the >antian account of se%ual desire that underlies /ac>innon<s
analysis of se%ual o#&ectification (,hrage @00=) >ant holds that the e%pression and
fulfillment of se%ual desire are uni(uely powerful in their a#ility to dehumani3e and o#&ectify
others ,e%ual desire is fundamentally an animal urge that is fulfilled #y ta!ing control of
another<s #ody in a way that disrespects their autonomy and humanity, in almost all conte%ts
/ac>innon turns >ant<s -anti"se%. view into an -anti"porn. one #y arguing that the
e%pression and fulfillment of se%ual desire under patriarchy involves men ta!ing control of
women<s #odies in a way that fails to respect women as persons ,hrage argues that >ant and
/ac>innon illegitimately assume that the e%pression and fulfillment of se%ual desire are
uni(uely powerful in their a#ility to o#&ectify others, and #oth e(uate se%uali3ing someone
with the failure to respect her humanity and autonomy ,hrage de#un!s these assumptions, in
part #y appealing to Fuss#aum<s criti(ue of >ant<s account of se%ual desire ,hrage argues
that the use of others involved in pornography is not incompati#le with respect for their
autonomy and personhood, as long as consumers and producers respect the ends of porn
actors $hese ends include the desire to e%ploit for economic gain others< se%ual interest in
them and their #odies within the conventional #oundaries set #y various genres of se%ual
representation and entertainment $he relationship #etween porn stars and consumers of their
images are mar!et relationships and should #e held to the norms of those relationships, not the
norms of friendships and romance 5f se% wor!ers need help from feminists, it should #e
aimed at protecting their rights as wor!ers, not at protecting them from #eing se%uali3ed #y
men outside the personal or family sphere
Jennifer ,aul e%plores the possi#le connection #etween o#&ectification:treating people as
things:and personification:treating things as people ,aul criti(ues earlier feminist claims
that men<s use of pornographic images involves treating pieces of paper li!e women, and
therefore involves conflating women with inanimate instruments (,aul @006, 89"=0) $he
inclusion of real women and pornography in a single category:eg, the category of entities
that can arouse and satisfy se%ual desire:can undermine respect for women and promote
oppressive practices ,aul argues that personification and o#&ectification are only lin!ed in
trou#ling ways if some conditions for morally pro#lematic o#&ectification are already met
,aul draws on 'achel /aines<s historical wor! on the development of a device now !nown as
the personal vi#rator and contends that women<s use of vi#rators to achieve se%ual pleasure
and orgasm represents a form of personification 4or some women, vi#rators eventually
replaced a service that had #een provided #y doctors (and midwives and spas) Net this is not a
trou#ling form of personification:one lin!ed to trou#ling forms of o#&ectification:#ecause
doctors are not li!ely to #e confused with se% toys as a result of women<s mastur#atory use of
vi#rating technology ?octors have other ac!nowledged medical uses, as well as ends of their
own $herefore, the transformation of their historical role in treating se%ually frustrated (or
-hysteric.) women, #y #oth new understandings of women<s reproductive and se%ual health
and advancements in vi#rator technology, does not contri#ute to the oppression of doctors
,aul<s discussion of the possi#le e(uation of people and things, and the #ac!ground
circumstances that may permit this, is useful for considering some new technological
developments in pornography Few digital imaging and personal computer technologies
ena#le users to interact and -have se%. with playmate animations on one<s computer screen
0omputer"mediated interactions with digitally"simulated #ut fictional people can sometimes
#e difficult to distinguish from computer"mediated online interactions with real people Net
such pornographic possi#ilities do not necessarily involve morally trou#ling o#&ectification, as
long as #ac!ground conditions ena#le the recognition of women as su#&ects, and the
recognition more generally of flesh and #lood humans as autonomous agents
1.1 2egal Suppression
/ac>innon and ?wor!in<s model ordinance has met with mi%ed support from feminist
theorists /artha Fuss#aum, who is sympathetic to /ac>innon and ?wor!in<s analysis of
pornography<s contri#ution to the su#ordination of women, offers four reservations in regard
to their ordinanceA (1) the &ustification for the ordinance fails to distinguish #etween moral
wrongs that are legally actiona#le and those that are not* (@) violence against women has a
variety of causes and it is difficult to isolate the distinct contri#ution of pornography* (2)
ma!ing authors responsi#le for the criminal actions that their wor! may inspire is li!ely to
have a chilling effect on valua#le e%pression* and (8) officials and courts are li!ely to
misapply the ordinance to controversial #ut not harmful speech (Fuss#aum 1999, @86"@89)
However, Fuss#aum re&ects simple appeals to the 4irst )mendment to protect pornographic
speech, as she notes that not all speech is protected #y the 4irst )mendment (Fuss#aum 1999,
@81) ,he also notes that ma!ers of other vice"type products, such as to#acco, can #e held
lia#le for the damaging effects of their products, and that other ;estern democratic countries
permit restrictions on hate speech Fevertheless, Fuss#aum suggests that the harms of
pornography can #e addressed through moral dialogue and cultural criti(ue
) num#er of feminist theorists have claimed that women are consumers of pornography, and
are not merely the o#&ects on view ,ome argue that pornography is a#out voyeurism and that
women, li!e men, ta!e pleasure in loo!ing at depictions of se% $o e%plore women<s use of
pornography, feminist scholars have studied soft"core pornographic genres that are mar!eted
to women, such as pulp romance fiction ('adway 1991) ,ome have studied les#ian
pornography to challenge the idea that pornography always involves men su#ordinating
women ('oss @000) 5n 1966, a group of feminists pu#lished )aught *oo+ing, -eminism,
(ornography, and )ensorship, which argues that feminists have targeted pornography out of
frustration with their lac! of progress in reducing violence against women $he #oo!
showcases a variety of pornographic imagery in order to illustrate the types of materials that
may #e restricted under feminist"supported legal regulations 5n the introduction, >ate Ellis,
9ar#ara K<?air and )##y $allmer argue that -the feminist movement must not #e drawn, in
the name of protecting women, into the practice of censoring DdeviantE se%ual representation
or e%pression C ;omen had to learn, with the support of other women, to articulate
e%periences that lay outside the proper sphere of the Dnice girl,E to ac!nowledge our fantasies,
and to #e proud of our se%ual choices C ;e must spea! out when we are victims, #ut also
ac!nowledge what e%cites us, and support women who ma!e their living providing that
e%citement to men and to ourselves. (Ellis et al 1966, 6) )nn ,nitow advocates recentering
feminist se%uality discussions on -the right to demand a se%uality more centered on female
pleasure,. instead of focusing on controlling male se%uality (,nitow 1966, 11)
5n )aught *oo+ing, 7isa ?uggan, Fan Hunter, and 0arole Oance as! -How can feminists #e
entrusting the patriarchal state with the tas! of legally distinguishing #etween permissi#le and
impermissi#le se%ual imagesP. (?uggan, Hunter, I Oance 1966, 12) $hey argue that the tas!
of evaluating the material targeted #y /ac>innon"?wor!in ordinances, in terms of the
definitions articulated, is (uite complicated and su#&ective /oreover, such ordinances would
surely #e applied materials depicting consensual ,/, and thus allow the state to persecute
se%ual minorities $hese authors give three further reasons for opposing these lawsA -first, the
se%ual images in (uestion do not cause more harm than other aspects of misogynist culture*
second, se%ually e%plicit speech, even in male"dominated society, serves positive social
functions for women* and third, the passage and enforcement of antipornography laws such as
those supported in /inneapolis and 5ndiana L/ac>innon"?wor!in ordinancesM are more
li!ely to impede, rather than advance, feminist goals. (?uggan Hunter, I Oance 1966, 60"61)
/ore recently, Gayle 'u#in has argued that -$he scapegoating of pornography will create
new pro#lems, new forms of legal and social a#use, and new modes of persecution )
responsi#le and progressive political movement has no #usiness pursuing strategies that will
result in witch"hunts. ('u#in 1992, 26)
Judith 9utler e%amines the role of fantasy in feminist politics and argues for maintaining
conditions that permit diverse representations of women 9utler writes, -feminist theory relies
on the capacity to postulate through fantasy a future that is not yet. (9utler @000, 861)
)ccording to 9utler, antipornography feminists uncritically assume a representational realist
ontology in which -depictions. imitate and can causally affect some pree%isting reality 9utler
argues for a more comple% understanding of the relation #etween representations and their
referents, focusing #oth on the ways that representations can call into (uestion the ontological
status of entities and on how Dthe realE is produced through social action 0urtailing
representations will produce new forms of social action rather than protect some undistur#ed,
preferred version of reality 5n 9utler<s words, -certain !inds of efforts to restrict practices of
representation in the hopes of reigning in the imaginary, controlling the phantasmatic, end up
reproducing and proliferating the phantasmatic in inadvertent ways, indeed, in ways that
contradict the intended purposes of the restrictions itself. (9utler @000, 890) 9utler points out
that efforts to censor homoerotic images have led to their greater production and e%posure
,he concludes that, -4eminist theory and politics cannot regulate the representation of
DwomenE without producing that very DrepresentationEA and if that is in some sense a discursive
inevita#ility of representational politics, then the tas! must #e to safeguard the open
productivity of those categories, whatever the ris!. (9utler @000, =02)
9utler<s view fits in well with feminists who call for more speech as the answer to no%ious
speech Kn this view, distur#ing representations of -real se%. should #e contested #y different
representations of se%uality ?rucilla 0ornell develops this approach #y arguing that -Political
action, not legal action, should #e the main mode of intervention in the production of
pornography. (0ornell @000, ==1) 9y political action, 0ornell means that feminists should
form alliances with feminists in the pornography industry to create representations of
se%uality that will #enefit women 7i!e ,nitow, 0ornell argues that feminist activism should
focus -on unleashing the feminine imaginary, rather than on constraining men. (0ornell @000,
==2) /oreover, 0ornell e%amines the film and performance wor! of 0andida 'oyalle, Kna
Qee, and )nnie ,prin!le to show how -femme. and feminist pornography challenges the
ways that conventional pornography captures women and se% 7i!e 9utler, 0ornell
emphasi3es the importance of fantasy for reali3ing transformative feminist pro&ects ,he
writes -;ithout new images and new words in which to e%press our se%uality, we will #e
una#le to create a new world for women. (0ornell @000, =68) 4urthermore, 0ornell critici3es
/ac>innon and ?wor!in<s model ordinance for its tendency to enshrine an old stereotype of
woman in the law : woman as vulnera#le and in need of protection ,he alleges that the
ordinance approach relies on the law to enforce social norms and thus fails to struggle
-#eyond those sym#olic forms that have #een deeply inscri#ed in and #y the structures of
gender. (0ornell @000, ==8)
2. Prostitution
2.1 Origins
;hereas the rise of the pornography industry coincided with the emergence of
communication technologies, prostitution, it is often said, is the -world<s oldest profession.
$he historian Gerda 7erner ela#orates this idea #y e%plaining that -the most widespread and
accepted e%planation of the origin of prostitution. is that it #egan with temple prostitution in
places such as ancient /esopotamia (7erner 1966, 1@=) 7erner analy3es -cultic se%ual
service. in ancient 9a#ylon, in which temple wor!ers and patrons offered se%ual services to
the gods, often as part of fertility rituals )ccording to 7erner, -;hat seems to have happened
was that se%ual activity for and in #ehalf of the god or goddesses was considered #eneficial to
the people and sacred $he practices varied with the gods, the different places and different
periods $here was also, especially in the later period, commercial prostitution, which
flourished near or within the temple. (7erner 1966, 1@=) 7erner argues that scholars have
conflated cultic and commercial prostitution, ignoring their distinct social purposes and
organi3ational structures /oreover, she argues that to understand how prostitution evolved
historically, we need to understand -its relationship to the se%ual regulation of all women in
archaic states and its relationship to the enslavement of females. (7erner 1966, 1@8) 7erner
writes, -5t is li!ely that commercial prostitution derived directly from the enslavement of
women and the consolidation and formation of classes /ilitary con(uest led, in the third
millennium 90, to the enslavement and se%ual a#use of captive women )s slavery #ecame
an esta#lished institution, slave"owners rented out their female slaves as prostitutes, and some
masters set up commercial #rothels staffed #y slaves. (7erner 1966, 122) 7erner suggests
that prostitutes and concu#ines were used #y rulers as sym#ols of wealth and power, and this
practice was then emulated #y other men of wealth and status (7erner 1966, 122) )lso,
paupers were often forced to sell children, adding to the supply of la#or for this purpose
4urthermore, -)s the se%ual regulation of women of the propertied class #ecame more firmly
entrenched, the virginity of respecta#le daughters #ecame a financial asset for the family
$hus, commercial prostitution came to #e seen as a social necessity for meeting the se%ual
needs of men. (7erner 1966, 128) $hese practices created social hierarchies among women,
in which women were distinguished on the #asis of their se%ual availa#ility )t the high end
were married women and their marriage"eligi#le virgin daughters, in the middle were
concu#ines, and at the low end were unmarried temple prostitutes and slave women (7erner
1966, 121) )lthough female slavery, concu#inage, and temple prostitution are less common
today, commercial prostitution and the custom of measuring a woman<s social status in terms
of her virginity and monogamy carry over to contemporary societies
7erner<s account connects modern forms of prostitution to oppressive social practicesA the
enslavement of women and the treatment of non"slave females as se%ual property to #e
e%changed #oth in and out of marriage 9y contrast, rather than attri#ute the rise of
commercial prostitution to slavery and capitalist class formation, Gayle 'u#in traces the
origins of prostitution to !inship systems in which women are e%changed as gifts among
families to cement social #onds ('u#in 191=, 11=) 'u#in writes, -5f women are the gifts,
then it is men who are the e%change partners )nd it is the partners, not the presents, upon
whom reciprocal e%change confers its (uasi"mystical power of social lin!age $he relations of
such a system are such that women are in no position to reali3e the #enefits of their own
circulation )s long as the relations specify that men e%change women, it is men who are the
#eneficiaries of the product of such e%changes : social organi3ation. ('u#in 191=, 118) 5n
other words, in the very creation of society, women were allegedly su#ordinated through ritual
e%change in order to create #onds of !inship among men as the foundation of the social order
;hereas 7erner<s account was influenced #y 4riedrich Engels<s writings a#out the institution
of private property and its impact on se%ual practices, 'u#in<s account was influenced #y
0laude 7Rvi",trauss<s writings on !inship and marriage systems 'u#in writes -$he
De%change of womenE is a seductive and powerful concept 5t is attractive in that it places the
oppression of women within social systems, rather than #iology /oreover, it suggests that we
loo! for the ultimate locus of women<s oppression within the traffic in women, rather than
within the traffic in merchandise. ('u#in 191=, 11=) Kn #oth 7erner<s and 'u#in<s accounts,
prostitution (women engaging in se%ual activities for e%trinsic rewards) and traffic!ing in
women (control over women<s se%ual capacities #y others) predates the commodification of
things, and it is a transhistorical, transcultural phenomenon that ta!es on different forms in
different conte%ts
7aurie ,hrage critici3es these origin stories for their assumption that prostitution is a single,
culturally familiar social practice, which can #e traced to a single cause : the glo#al
su#ordination of women at a particular moment in human history ,hrage contends that,
although 7erner<s account locates the origins of prostitution in historical and cultural forces
and mar!s important discontinuities in prostitution in different conte%ts (ie, temple vs
commercial prostitution), it assumes that patriarchy shaped commercial prostitution in all
conte%ts in similar ways ,hrage points out that 'u#in<s account fails to e%plain why women,
rather than men or opposite"se% pairs, were e%changed in early !inship systems (a possi#ility
that 7Rvi",trauss ac!nowledged), and thus it does not really e%plain how men have gained
some control over women<s se%ual capacities (,hrage 1998, 10=, 121"2@) ,hrage tries to
show how these accounts import into the past features of prostitution that developed in
contemporary, industriali3ed capitalist societies 9y trying to e%plain contemporary
prostitution and traffic!ing in persons in terms of earlier historical and cultural developments,
these accounts overloo! important differences in se% commerce in different cultural and
historical conte%ts 4or e%ample, commercial se% providers have not always #een regarded as
ineligi#le for marriage and have, in some places, #een integrated into their communities to a
high degree (,hrage 1998, 109, 11=* ;hite 1990, 19* 'ossiaud 1966, 10) ,hrage concludes
that feminist analyses of prostitution should attempt to understand the variety and distinctness
of different economic and cultural practices that are often lumped together as -prostitution.
0arol Pateman deploys the #asic concepts of li#eral political theory to e%plain the e%istence of
prostitution in modern societies ,he argues that the social contract, which esta#lishes the
rights and freedoms of men in a li#eral civil society, also esta#lishes the terms of women<s
su#&ection 5n the patriarchal social order, there is an implicit agreement among men granting
them se%ual access to women (Pateman 1966, @) /en ac(uire rights to particular women
through formal marital and informal prostitution contracts 5n other words, men have a class
privilege : a right to se%ual relief from women : which they can e%ercise #y asserting their
rights as hus#ands or &ohns 7i!e 7erner and 'u#in, Pateman challenges the notion that
prostitution results from men<s #iologically driven #ehavior, and instead e%plains prostitution
as the incorporation of a particular conception of masculinity into modern political and social
structures (Pateman 1966, 196"99) 4or Pateman, the incorporation of prostitution into
modern societies renders suspect political structures that are associated with freedom and
e(uality 5n this respect, Pateman<s origin story differs from 7erner<s and 'u#in<s, who
associate prostitution with earlier practices of slavery or patriarchal and #ourgeois !inship
arrangements and there#y render prostitution a suspect social practice Pateman condemns
prostitution not merely for its pro#lematic origins, #ut for other reasons that 5 will discuss
#elow
2.2 3arms to Women
'egardless of its social origins, many feminists claim that se% wor! is harmful to women
,ome allege that the harm results from inherent features of se% wor!, while others allege that
the harm results from contingent features of the social environment in which it is performed
0arole Pateman argues that the wor! of a female prostitute is different from other &o#s, as it
e%presses the inferior social and political status of women /oreover, #ecause people<s #odies
and se%ual capacities are an integral part of their identity as men and women, the woman who
wor!s as a prostitute sells her womanhood and therefore herself (Pateman 1966, @01)
0hristine Kverall similarly argues that prostitution is a transaction in which one person must
#e defined as a social su#ordinate who caters to the desires of another ,he claims that the
prostitute<s wor! differs from that of other low"status wor!ers in that it is a form of la#or that
cannot #e reciprocated (Kverall 199@, 116) Eli3a#eth )nderson develops this idea and argues
that the good of se% is -reali3ed only when each partner reciprocates the other<s gift in +ind,
offering her own se%uality in the same spirit in which she received the other<s : as a genuine
offering of the self $he commodification of se%ual DservicesE destroys the !ind of reciprocity
re(uired to reali3e human se%uality as a shared good,. and may corrupt non"mar!et se%ual
relationships #y promoting the valuation of women in terms of their mar!et worth ()nderson
1992, 1=8"==* see also 'adin 1996, 122) 0ontra these views, ,hrage has argued that the
prostitute<s wor! is o#&ectiona#le on feminist grounds, not #ecause se% has an inherent
purpose that mar!ets can corrupt or #ecause our se%ual capacities have an essential relation to
ourselves, #ut #ecause se% mar!ets are currently organi3ed according to principles that
relegate women to su#ordinate positions /oreover, tolerating their e%istence in this form
perpetuates social myths that stigmati3e women (,hrage 1969, 2=1) ?e#ra ,at3 similarly
argues that -5f prostitution is wrong it is #ecause of its effects on how men perceive women
and on how women perceive themselves 5n our society, prostitution represents women as the
se%ual servants of men. (,at3 199=, 16) ,at3 con&ectures that the negative image of women
promoted #y prostitution -shapes and influences the way women as a whole are seen. (,at3
199=, 19)
/artha Fuss#aum (uestions whether the sale of se%ual services genuinely damages the
persons who provide them or women as a whole Fuss#aum points out that, two centuries
ago, the use of one<s artistic talents for pay, such as singing or acting, was regarded as a form
of prostitution (Fuss#aum 1999, @11) Fuss#aum ac!nowledges that se% wor!ers are
currently stigmati3ed for their profession, #ut (uestions whether the stigma that attaches to
their wor! is &ustified 9y tracing this stigma #oth to aristocratic pre&udice toward waged
la#orers and to moralistic attitudes and an%ieties regarding female se%ual e%pression,
Fuss#aum challenges the rational #asis of the stigma (Fuss#aum 1999, @16"19, @66"66) ,he
concludes that feminists should oppose the stigmati3ation of se% wor! rather than oppose se%
wor! for its contri#ution to the stigmati3ation of women Fuss#aum also (uestions seven
common claims against prostitutionA it involves e%cessive ris!s, the prostitute has little
autonomy, it violates the prostitute<s #odily integrity, prostitution has a destructive effect on
non"commercial intimate relationships, prostitution violates a person<s inaliena#le right to her
se%uality, it contri#utes to a male"dominated social order, and it relies on the economic
coercion of wor!ers Fuss#aum argues that the pro#lems associated with prostitution are
components of many other !inds of wor! and social practices, such as marriage, and that these
pro#lems are not inherent to the wor! #ut are often a function of the prostitute<s wor!ing
conditions and treatment #y others (Fuss#aum 1999, @66"91)
,cott )nderson resists the move to treat prostitution li!e other forms of wor! He argues that
normali3ing prostitution undermines the general right to se%ual autonomy, which is an
important value defended #y radical feminists Prostitutes waive their right to se%ual
autonomy #ecause their &o#s place them under contractual o#ligations to have se%, and thus
diminish their control over when and with whom they have se% )nderson ac!nowledges that
all &o#s, to some degree, diminish various forms of autonomy He contends that se%ual
autonomy should #e valued differently from other forms, such as a person<s control over when
and to whom they serve food, provide a massage or dance, offer e%pert advice, or tal!
philosophy He writes, -a person<s se%uality almost always figures prominently as an aspect of
his or her self"conception, status in society, and economic and social prospects5t is #ecause
se% plays such a pivotal role in the lives of most adultsthat it creates its own specialrealm
within which one can #e more or less autonomous. ()nderson @006, 266) )nderson here
echoes Pateman<s contention that our se%ual capacities and practices are an integral part of
who we are as men and women $heir arguments against prostitution rest on the assumption
that se%uality should #e non"aliena#le, li!e children or #ody parts, #ecause to alienate these is
to destroy a person<s wholeness or integrity )ccording to Fancy $uana and 7aurie ,hrage,
many se% wor!ers argue that they are not alienating their se%ual capacities #ut rather their
se%ual la#or ,elling la#or under conditions that limit an employer<s capacity to e%ploit a
wor!er is generally permissi#le in capitalist societies ($uana and ,hrage @002, 22) )n actress
performing a se% scene, a nurse ta!ing care of a patient, a -nanny. ta!ing care of an infant, are
all e%changing intimate #odily la#or and nurturing capacities that shape social identities and
economic prospects (,hrage 1999, @60)
>amala >empadoo argues that -the glo#al se% trade cannot #e simply reduced to one
monolithic e%planation of violence to women. (>empadoo @001, @6) >empadoo claims that
older feminist models, which see prostitution as reflection of patriarchy or violence to women,
are -inade(uate to capture the various histories, oppression, and e%periences of women of
color. (>empadoo @001, 2=, 21) >empadoo e%amines how histories of racism, colonialism,
militarism, and glo#ali3ation structure the choices of first and third"world women of color
)lthough >empadoo urges feminists to understand prostitution in terms of a #roader range of
social forces, she maintains that feminist theori3ing a#out prostitution should avoid
overloo!ing the agency of women of color #y treating them as mere passive victims of
oppression (>empadoo @001, 82) >empadoo writesA -$he agency of 9rown and 9lac!
women in prostitution has #een avoided or overloo!ed and the perspectives arising from these
e%periences marginali3ed in dominant theoretical discourse on the glo#al se% trade and
prostitution Kur insights, !nowledges, and understanding of se% wor! have #een largely
o#scured or dominated #y white radical feminist, neo"/ar%ist or ;estern socialist feminist
inspired analyses that have #een either incapa#le or unwilling to address the comple%ities of
the lives of women of color. (>empadoo @001, 80) 'ather than conceptuali3e prostitution in
terms of the se%ual o#&ectification and degradation of women, >empadoo advocates
understanding prostitution as a !ind of la#or that is often performed #y marginali3ed people
(>empadoo @001, 8=* >empadoo and ?oe3ema 1996, 8"=* see also 7eigh 1991) 9y
conceptuali3ing prostitution as a form of la#or and avoiding moralistic discourses a#out
se%uality, feminists can avoid unrealistic abolitionist approaches (>empadoo and ?oe3ema
1996, ;hite 1990, ,hrage 1996) 5nstead, they can address the pro#lems of prostitution in
terms of wor!ing conditions and "or0er empo"erment, the legal status of the wor!, and the
occupational alternatives availa#le to people oppressed #y race, class, gender, and nationality
2.3 2egal Status
4eminists are divided on the legal status of prostitution ,ome feminist theorists promote
stringent anti"traffic!ing laws, #oth internationally and locally (Jeffries 1996* 9arry 1996)
However, many feminist theorists worry that laws against prostitution will #e applied unfairly
to women, and will permit the state, though its police force, to persecute women for se%ual
promiscuity 9ecause prosecuting women for prostitution can compound their victimi3ation,
some feminists advocate prosecuting only the client who coerces se% with money, or the
-pimp. who recruits women into prostitution (,at3 199=, @96)
4eminist activists generally distinguish views on the legal status of prostitution in terms of
-a#olition,. -decriminali3ation,. and -legali3ation. -)#olition. refers to an approach that
aims to eliminate all forms of paid se% through legal prohi#ition and social programs that
-rescue. women and children from -se% slavery. or servitude -?ecriminali3ation. refers to
the repeal of all laws that criminali3e the action of ta!ing money for se% )dvocates of
decriminali3ation regard commerce in se% as essentially similar to commerce in other
personal services -7egali3ation. refers to an intermediate approach that regards prostitution
as inevita#le, #ut in need of special social controls and regulation $hese special controls may
include a state registry for prostitutes, mandatory health e%ams and condom use, 3oning, and
other laws that aim to protect third parties from harm and render prostitution #usinesses
relatively invisi#le to the pu#lic
$he arguments for decriminali3ation and legali3ation often appeal to the ideal of individual
privacy in matters of se%uality ,ome argue that the right to control one<s se%uality includes
the right to use one<s se%ual capacities to ma!e a living ,ome feminists argue that a woman<s
right to control her own #ody e%tends to the right to grant se%ual access to it for money
()lmodovar @00@, 1=) $hese arguments imply that governments a#use their power when they
interfere with voluntary se% for hire #y adults )rguments for decriminali3ation and
legali3ation also appeal to the notion of e(ual protection ,ome feminists argue that men are
generally not prosecuted for #uying or selling se%, and therefore e(uality re(uires that the
state either not prosecute female prostitutes (and -&eans.) or apply similar sanctions to &ohns
and male prostitutes (Jaggar 1992, 1@8)
4eminists who ta!e a#olitionist approaches often compare mar!ets in se%ual services to
mar!ets in #a#ies and #odily organs $he assumption is that la#orers enter such mar!ets only
out of desperation and poverty, and thus their e%istence allows the more fortunate to
egregiously e%ploit the less fortunate ,ome a#olitionists argue that women<s la#or is availa#le
for prostitution primarily #ecause other mar!ets and occupations are socially prohi#ited, due
to traditional and se%ist notions a#out a woman<s place in society 4eminist critics of neo"
colonialism see prostitution as a component of a glo#al imperialist system in which women
from poor countries are conscripted to provide -comfort and recreation. for the military
personnel of rich and powerful nations $hese feminists allege that prostitution is also used #y
social elites in poor countries to promote tourism and attract foreign investment (Enloe 1969,
26, 66* K<0onnell ?avidson 1996, 1=* 9ishop and 'o#inson 1996) ;hat these a#olitionist
accounts have in common is a conception of se% wor! as manifestation of deep social
ine(ualities and in&ustices
;hile ac!nowledging the glo#al in&ustices that #oth shape se% mar!ets and e%plain the social
characteristics of those who enter them, advocates of legali3ation or decriminali3ation argue
that ine(ualities of power and opportunity shape all mar!ets in goods and services in the
contemporary world $hat is, political and economic ine(ualities are producing sweatshop
wor!ing conditions in many manufacturing trades, and e%ploitative trades in domestic wor!
and childcare, as well as in se%ual services $o address these pro#lems, some feminists
advocate a politics that focuses less on single issues, such as prostitution, and more on
challenging the glo#al ine(ualities of wealth and power that !eep half the world<s population
destitute and vulnera#le 5nternational se% wor!er rights groups argue that, rather than
challenging se% wor!, those concerned with the plight of se% wor!ers should see! ways to end
slavery and #ondage, including all forms of child la#or and se%ual e%ploitation, and all forms
of involuntary la#or and se% $ogether with advocating greater glo#al economic &ustice, some
feminists advocate lending support to wor!er"led movements, such as the many international
and national se% wor!er organi3ations (,hrage 1996, 82) 'ather than dictate from the ivory
tower what marginali3ed women need, some feminists argue that we need to lend our
e%pertise and social connections to disempowered women wor!ers, including se% wor!ers,
while at the same time listening to and engaging them respectfully on the issues of strategy
and goals (>empadoo 1996, @8)
3. -e" 4irections
5n the past several decades, women in se% industries around the world have formed numerous
la#or, civil rights, health, and educational networ!s to advocate for #asic human rights and
#etter wor!ing conditions )lso, a #ody of research has developed on the lives of se%ual and
gender dissidents, such as les#ians and transe%uals, and, more recently, on the lives of third"
world women of color 9oth of these developments are changing feminist research on se%
mar!ets Few areas of concern that are emerging from the confluence of these developments
include colonialism and the regulation of se% mar!ets (7evine @002), and (ueer se% wor!ers
(Pendleton 1991* Highleyman 1991, Sueen 1991) ,ome of the latter wor! adds to a small
amount of earlier research e%amining the role of se% wor!ers in radical social movements and
dissident communities (Festle 1961) 5n addition, some new research focuses on the political
wor! of third"world se% wor!ers, and e%amines the forms of agency e%hi#ited #y women in
oppressed circumstances (>empadoo 1999* 'a&an @002) 4urthermore, many feminist se%
wor!er activists continue to challenge feminist research a#out their lives and wor!, and offer
alternative analyses (Fagle 1991, ,prin!le 1996, Suan @001, 9ernstein @000, 7eigh @008)
'egarding pornography, feminists are challenging new attempts at censorship in light of
concerns a#out the 5nternet and child se%ual a#use (7evine @00@), and some are continuing to
e%plore how women consume pornography (/atri% 1996) )nd some feminists are
responding to the feminist anti"censorship movement, restating earlier positions in light of
feminist criticism (7eidholdt and 'aymond, #77%, Stark and (hisnant
)%%.8.
Bibliography
Works ite!
'lmodovar, 1. 9., )%%), For !heir wn :ood; !he
5esults of the $rostitution /aws as 6nforced by
*ops, $oliticians, and 9udges, in 'ibert3 .or
Wo/en, (. <c6lroy =ed.8, *hicago; 4van 5. 2ee.
'nderson, 6., #77+, 4alue in $thi5s and $5ono/i5s,
*ambridge; 0arvard >niversity $ress.
'nderson, S., )%%?, $rostitution and Sexual
'utonomy; <aking Sense of $rohibition and
$rostitution, in (rostitution and (orno6raph3+
(hilosophi5al #ebate About the Se1 )ndustr3, 9.
Spector =ed.8, Stanford; Stanford >niversity $ress.
'ssiter, '., #7@@, 'utonomy and $ornography, in
Fe/inist (erspe5tives in (hilosoph3, <. :riAths
and <. (hitford =eds.8, 3loomington; 4ndiana
>niversity $ress.
3arry, B., #77?, The (rostitution o. Se1ualit3, 1ew
Cork; 1ew Cork >niversity $ress.
3ernstein, <., =ed.8, )%%%, Tri52s and Treats+ Se1
Wor2ers Write About Their %lients, 1ew Cork;
0arrington $ark $ress.
3ishop, 5., and 5obinson, /., #77@, i6ht 7ar2et+
Se1ual %ultures and the Thai $5ono/i5 7ira5le,
1ew Cork; 5outledge.
3ordo, S., #77., 5eading the <ale 3ody, in The 7ale
8od3+ Features, #estinies, $1posures, /. :oldstein
=ed.8, 'nn 'rbor; >niversity of <ichigan $ress.
3rod, 0., #77), $ornography and the 'lienation of
<ale Sexuality, in "ethin2in6 7as5ulinit3+
(hilosophi5al $1plorations in 'i6ht o. Fe/inis/, /.
<ay and 5. Strikwerda =eds.8, /anham, <2;
/ittle-eld 'dams.
3utler, 9., )%%%, !he Force of Fantasy; Feminism,
<applethorpe, and 2iscursive 6xcess, in Fe/inis/
and (orno6raph3, 2. *ornell =ed.8, xford; xford
>niversity $ress.
*ameron, 2. and FraDer, 6., )%%%, n the Euestion of
$ornography and Sexual &iolence; <oving 3eyond
*ause and 6Fect, in Fe/inis/ and (orno6raph3,
2. *ornell =ed.8, xford; xford >niversity $ress.
*ornell, 2., )%%%, $ornographyGs !emptation, in
Fe/inis/ and (orno6raph3, 2. *ornell =ed.8,
xford; xford >niversity $ress.
2uggan, /., 0unter, 1., and &ance, *., False $romises;
Feminist 'ntipornography /egislation, in %au6ht
'oo2in6+ Fe/inis/, (orno6raph3, and %ensorship,
Seattle; !he 5eal *omet $ress.
2workin, '., #7H7, (orno6raph3+ 7en (ossessin6
Wo/en, 1ew Cork; $erigee 3ooks.
6llis, B., et al., #7@?, %au6ht 'oo2in6+ Fe/inis/,
(orno6raph3, and %ensorship, Seattle; !he 5eal
*omet $ress.
6nloe, *., #7@7, 8ananas, 8ea5hes, and 8ases+ 7a2in6
Fe/inist Sense o. )nternational (oliti5s, 3erkeley;
>niversity of *alifornia $ress.
:arry, '., #7H7, $ornography and 5espect for
(omen, in (hilosoph3 and Wo/en, S. 3ishop and
<. (einDweig =eds.8, 3elmont, *'; (adsworth
$ublishing *ompany.
0ighleyman, /., #77H, $rofessional 2ominance;
$ower, <oney, and 4dentity, in Whores and !ther
Fe/inists, 9. 1agle =ed.8, 1ew Cork; 5outledge.
0ornsby, 9., #77I, Speech 'cts and $ornography, in
The (roble/ o. (orno6raph3, S. 2wyer =ed.8,
3elmont, *'; (adsworth $ublishing *ompany.
0unt, /., =ed.8, #77+, The )nvention o. (orno6raph3+
!bs5enit3 and the !ri6ins o. 7odernit3, 190001800,
1ew Cork; Jone 3ooks.
9aggar, '., $rostitution, in Wo/en and 4alues, <.
$earsall =ed.8, 3elmont, *'; (adsworth $ublishing
*ompany.
9eFreys, S., #77@, The )dea o. (rostitution, 1orth
<elbourne, '>; Spinifex $ress.
Bempadoo, B. and 2oeDema, 9., =eds.8, #77@, :lobal
Se1 Wor2ers+ "i6hts, "esistan5e, and "ede;nition,
1ew Cork; 5outledge.
Bempadoo, B., =ed.8, #777, Sun, Se1, and :old+
Touris/ and Se1 Wor2 in the %aribbean, /anham,
<2; 5owman and /ittle-eld $ublishers.
KKK, )%%#, (omen of *olor and the :lobal Sex !rade;
!ransnational Feminist $erspectives, in 7eridians,
#; )@LI#.
/angton, 5., #77I, Speech 'cts and >nspeakable
'cts, in The (roble/ o. (orno6raph3, S. 2wyer
=ed.8, 3elmont, *'; (adsworth $ublishing *ompany.
/eidholdt, 2., and 5aymond, 9., =eds.8, #77%, The
Se1ual 'iberals and the Atta52 on Fe/inis/, 1ew
Cork; $ergamon $ress.
/eigh, *., #77H, 4nventing Sex (ork, in Whores and
!ther Fe/inists, 9. 1agle =ed.8, 1ew Cork;
5outledge.
KKK, )%%., <nrepentant Whore+ %olle5ted Wor2s o.
S5arlot *arlot, San Francisco; /ast :asp.
/e<oncheck, /., #77H, 'oose Wo/en, 'e5herous 7en+
A Fe/inist (hilosoph3 o. Se1, xford; xford
>niversity $ress.
/erner, :., #7@?, The %reation o. (atriar5h3, 1ew Cork;
xford >niversity $ress.
/evine, 9., )%%), *ar/.ul to 7inors+ The (erils o.
(rote5tin6 %hildren .ro/ Se1, <inneapolis;
>niversity of <innesota $ress.
/evine, $., )%%+, (rostitution, "a5e, and (oliti5s+
(oli5in6 4enereal #isease in the 8ritish $/pire,
1ew Cork; 5outledge.
/ongino, 0., #7@%, $ornography, ppression, and
Freedom; ' *loser /ook, in Ta2e 8a52 the i6ht+
Wo/en on (orno6raph3, /. /ederer =ed.8, 1ew Cork;
(illiam <orrow and *ompany.
<acBinnon, *., #7@H, Fe/inis/ <n/odi;ed+
#is5ourses on 'i.e and 'a=, *ambridge, <';
0arvard >niversity $ress.
KKK, #77+, !nl3 Words, *ambridge, <'; 0arvard
>niversity $ress.
<atrix, *., =ed.8, #77?, Tales .ro/ the %lit+ A Fe/ale
$1perien5e o. (orno6raph3, 6dinburgh; 'B $ress.
1agle, 9., =ed.8, Whores and !ther Fe/inists, 1ew Cork;
5outledge.
1estle, 9., #7@H, /esbians and $rostitutes; ' 0istorical
Sisterhood, in Se1 Wor2+ Writin6s b3 Wo/en in
the Se1 )ndustr3, F. 2elacoste and $. 'lexander
=eds.8 San Francisco; *leis $ress.
1ussbaum, <., #777, Se1 and So5ial Justi5e, xford;
xford >niversity $ress.
verall, *., #77), (hatGs (rong with $rostitutionM;
6valuating Sex (ork, Si6ns, #H; H%IL)..
G*onnell 2avidson, 9., #77@, (rostitution, (o=er, and
Freedo/, 'nn 'rbor; !he >niversity of <ichigan
$ress.
$endleton, 6., #77H, /ove for Sale; Eueering
0eterosexuality, in Whores and !ther Fe/inists, 9.
1agle =ed.8, 1ew Cork; 5outledge.
Euan, !., )%%#, #iar3 o. a 7anhattan %all :irl, 1ew
Cork; *rown.
Eueen, *., #77H, "eal 'ive ude :irl+ %hroni5les o.
Se10(ositive %ulture, San Francisco; *leis.
5adin, <., #77?, %ontested %o//odities, *ambridge,
<'; 0arvard >niversity $ress.
5adway, 9., #77#, "eadin6 the "o/an5e+ Wo/en,
(atriar5h3, and (opular 'iterature, *hapel 0ill, 1*;
>niversity of 1orth *arolina $ress.
5a,an, 5. S., )%%+, The S5andal o. the State+ Wo/en,
'a=, and %iti>enship in (ost5olonial )ndia, 2urham,
1*; 2uke >niversity $ress.
5oss, 3., )%%%, N4tGs <erely 2esigned for Sexual
'rousalO; 4nterrogating the 4ndefensibility of /esbian
Smut, in Fe/inis/ and (orno6raph3, 2. *ornell
=ed.8, xford; xford >niversity $ress.
5ossiaud, 9., #7@@, 7edieval (rostitution, xford; 3asil
3lackwell $ress.
5ubin, :., #7HI, !he !raAc in (omen; 1otes on the
N$olitical 6conomyO of Sex, in To=ard an
Anthropolo63 o. Wo/en, 5. 5eiter =ed.8, 1ew Cork;
<onthly 5eview $ress.
KKK, #77+, <isguided, 2angerous and (rong, an
'nalysis of 'ntiLpornography $olitics, in 8ad :irls
and #irt3 (i5tures+ The %hallen6e to "e5lai/
Fe/inis/, '. 'ssiter and '. *arol =eds.8, /ondon;
$luto $ress.
SatD, 2., #77I, <arkets in (omenGs Sexual /abor, in
$thi5s, #%?; ?+L@I.
Saul, 9., )%%?, n !reating !hings as $eople;
b,ecti-cation, $ornography, and the 0istory of the
&ibrator, in *3patia, )#; .IL?#.
Scully, 2., #77%, <nderstandin6 Se1ual 4iolen5e+ A
Stud3 o. %onvi5ted "apists, /ondon; 0arper*ollins
'cademic.
Shrage, /., #7@7, Should Feminists ppose
$rostitutionM, in $thi5s, 77; +.HL?#.
KKK, #77., 7oral #ile//as o. Fe/inis/+ (rostitution,
Adulter3, and Abortion, 1ew Cork; 5outledge.
KKK, #77?, $rostitution and the *ase for
2ecriminaliDation, #issent, .+; .#L.I.
KKK, #777, 2o /esbian $rostitutes 0ave Sex (ith !heir
*lientsM ' *lintonesque 5eply, Se1ualities, ); )?%.
KKK, )%%I, 6xposing the Fallacies of 'ntiL$orn
Feminism, Fe/inist Theor3, ?; .IL?I.
Snitow, '., #7@?, 5etrenchment vs. !ransformation,
in %au6ht 'oo2in6+ Fe/inis/, (orno6raph3, and
%ensorship, Seattle; !he 5eal *omet $ress.
Sprinkle, '., #77@, (ost0(orn 7odernist+ 73 29 &ears
as a 7ulti/edia Whore, San Francisco; *leis.
Stark, *., and (hisnant, 5., =eds.8, )%%., ot For Sale+
Fe/inists "esistin6 (rostitution and (orno6raph3,
1orth <elbourne; Spinifex $ress.
Strossen, 1., #77I, #e.endin6 (orno6raph3+ Free
Spee5h, Se1, and the Fi6ht .or Wo/en?s "i6hts,
1ew Cork; Scribner.
!uana, 1., and Shrage, /. )%%+, Sexuality, in The
!1.ord *andboo2 o. (ra5ti5al $thi5s, 0. /aFollette
=ed.8, xford; xford >niversity $ress.
(arnke, :., #777, 'e6iti/ate #i@eren5es+
)nterpretation in the Abortion %ontrovers3 and
!ther (ubli5 #ebates, 3erkeley; >niversity of
*alifornia $ress.
(hite, /., #77%, The %o/.orts o. *o/e+ (rostitution in
%olonial airobi, *hicago; >niversity of *hicago
$ress.
"ther #mportant Works
'lmodovar, 1. 9., #77+, Fro/ %op to %all :irl+ Wh3 )
'e.t the 'A(# to 7a2e an *onest 'ivin6 as a
8everl3 *ills (rostitute, 1ew Cork; Simon and
Schuster.
3arry, B., #7H7, Fe/ale Se1ual Slaver3, 1ew Cork;
'von 3ooks.
3ell, /., #7@H, :ood :irls,8ad :irls+ Fe/inists and Se1
Trade Wor2ers Fa5e to Fa5e, !oronto; Seal $ress.
3ell, S., #77., "eadin6, Writin6, and "e=ritin6 the
(rostitute 8od3, 3loomington; 4ndiana >niversity
$ress.
3urstyn, &., =ed.8, #7@I, Wo/en A6ainst %ensorship,
&ancouver; 2ouglas and <c4ntyre.
*hancer, /., #77@, "e5on5ilable #i@eren5es+
%on.rontin6 8eaut3, (orno6raph3, and the Future o.
Fe/inis/, 3erkeley; >niversity of *alifornia $ress.
*hapkis, (., #77H, 'ive Se1 A5ts+ Wo/en (er.or/in6
$roti5 'abor, 1ew Cork; 5outledge.
:ibson, $. *. and :ibson, 5., =eds.8, #77+, #irt3 'oo2s+
Wo/en, (orno6raph3 and (o=er, /ondon; 3F4
$ublishing.
:riAn, S., #7@#, (orno6raph3 and Silen5e+ %ulture?s
"even6e A6ainst ature, 1ew Cork; 0arper and
5ow.
:ubar, S. and 0oF, 9., =eds.8, #7@7, For Adult <sers
!nl3+ The #ile//a o. 4iolent (orno6raph3,
3loomington; 4ndiana >niversity $ress.
4tDin, *., =ed.8, #77), (orno6raph3+ Wo/en, 4iolen5e,
and %ivil 'iberties, xford; xford >niversity $ress.
Bappeler, S., #7@?, The (orno6raph3 o.
"epresentation, <inneapolis; >niversity of
<innesota $ress.
Bipnis, /., #77?, 8ound and :a66ed+ (orno6raph3 and
the (oliti5s o. Fantas3 in A/eri5a, 1ew Cork; :rove
$ress.
Bulick, 2., #77@, Travesti+ Se1, :ender and %ulture
a/on6 8ra>ilian Trans6endered (rostitutes,
*hicago; >niversity of *hicago $ress.
Buo, /., )%%), (rostitution (oli53+ "evolutioni>in6
(ra5ti5e Throu6h a :endered (erspe5tive, 1ew
Cork; 1ew Cork >niversity $ress.
<acBinnon, *. and 2workin, '., =eds.8, #77H, )n *ar/?s
Wa3+ The (orno6raph3 %ivil "i6hts *earin6s,
*ambridge, <'; 0arvard >niversity $ress.
<iller v. *alifornia, #7H), >.S. Supreme *ourt, .#+ >.S.
#I.
utshoorn, 9., =ed.8, )%%., The (oliti5s o. (rostitution+
Wo/en?s 7ove/ents, #e/o5rati5 States and the
:lobalisation o. Se1 %o//er5e, *ambridge;
*ambridge >niversity $ress.
$heterson, :., =ed.8, #7@7, A 4indi5ation o. the "i6hts
o. Whores, Seattle; Seal $ress.
5ussell, 2., #77@, #an6erous "elationships+
(orno6raph3, 7iso63n3, and "ape, 1ewbury $ark,
*'; Sage.
KKK, =ed.8, #77+, 7a2in6 4iolen5e Se13+ Fe/inist 4ie=s
on (orno6raph3, 1ew Cork; !eachers *ollege $ress.
Segal, /. and <c4ntosh, <., =eds.8, #77), Se1 $1posed+
Se1ualit3 and the (orno6raph3 #ebate, /ondon;
&irago $ress.
!ruong, !hanhL2am, #77%, Se1,7one3 and 7oralit3+
(rostitution and Touris/ in Southeast Asia, /ondon;
Jed 3ooks.
&ance, *., =ed.8, #7@., (leasure and #an6er+ $1plorin6
Fe/ale Se1ualit3, /ondon; 5outledge and Began
$aul.
(alkowitD, 9., #7@%, (rostitution and 4i5torian So5iet3+
Wo/en, %lass, and the State, *ambridge;
*ambridge >niversity $ress.
(illiams, /., #7@7, *ard %ore+ (o=er, (leasure, and the
AFren>3 o. the 4isibleB, 3erkeley; >niversity of *alifornia
$ress.