[영문 에세이] 성노동 시장의 합법화
성매매 합법화 찬성측 주장
에세이 주제: Should markets in sexual labour be prohibited?
This essay will argue against the prohibition of markets in sexual labour for two reasons. First and foremost, the prohibition of these markets overlooks the validity of the reasons why sex workers enter such markets in the first place. By understanding their circumstances with respect to their health and financial statuses, we can better judge the negativeimplications such prohibition will have on the societies as a whole in both the short and the long-run. Second, theprohibition of sexual labour markets hinders the restoration of social justice; failing to bring about progressive policychanges for destigmatisation and demarginalisation of sex workers. To further accentuate the credibility of the arguments mentioned, this essay will refute the ‘economic approach’ which criticises costly externalities generated by sexual labour.
Before proceeding, it is important to note that ‘prostitution’ and ‘sex work’ are terms both used to refer to the transactionof payment in exchange for sexual services. The latter distinguishes itself from the former as it underlines the labour andeconomic implications involved in selling sexual services and “challenges accounts that depict sellers (sex workers) as victims of others’ wrongdoings” (Benoit et al., 2018:458). As this essay is against the prohibition of sexual labour, thelatter term will be used throughout. Moreover, while the arguments to follow will place focus on female sex workers, it isvital to note that this essay acknowledges the existence of male sex workers too. Yet, the desperateness on tackling the issues for female sex workers, as explained by Debra Satz, proves to be greater on two grounds. First, male sex workersare less likely to be subject to the violence of male clients, due to their independence. Second, male sex workers tend towork on a part time basis (Satz, 2010). As a result, this essay will concentrate on why the markets in female sexual labour ought not be prohibited.
Given such a dangerous nature of sexual labour, why should we not prohibit the markets involved? The answer to this question is twofold. Firstly, such prohibition neglects the value of the sex workers’ voices and fails to consider why these individuals had entered these markets in the first place. As Satz explains, there are two fundamental reasons behind this ‘why’: first, some sex workers are forced into the sale of sexual services due to their “miserable background conditions of desperation” (Satz, 2010:6). On the contrary, other sex workers consider sex work as a “voluntary activity, chosen among a range of decent alternatives” (Satz, 2010:6). Therefore, there is a clear distinction in the dichotomy of force and choice. Consequently, if the markets in sexual labour were banned, the former will experience additional vulnerability on top of their already-limited control over who they can provide their services to. Such prohibition will then position the sex workers to be no longer dependent on state protection and may increase the likelihood of being violently exploited by their clients and brothels. Considering how the sex workers, in this instance, have no choice but to continue selling their services for survival, the transactions will be forced to occur underground in the black market and the prohibition of the sexual labour markets will only worsen the health and economic conditions of these individuals. This point is acknowledged by one sex-worker-rights advocate in Walkowitz’s study, for whom “criminalization makes sex work more dangerous for its practitioners, forcing the trade underground” (Walkowitz, 2014:189). Thus, although the prohibition of sexual labour markets may have a short-run benefit in eliminating any visible sexual transactions from occurring, in the long-run, the severity of the problems for the sex workers’ health and economic circumstances will arguably worsen. For example, increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) across the black market will accumulate to derive additional costs to the public health in the long-run. In this respect, such prohibition is akin to the Trojan horse; although it may appear to tackle down the apparent issues of sex work in the short-run, it fails to see the severity of the consequences that may be generated as a result. Simply put, the prohibition of the markets in sexual labour lacks comprehension in holistically tackling down the problems of sex work.
Secondly, criminalising sexual labour markets can lead to social injustice due to its enforcement of stigmatisation and marginalisation. Let us first note that the stigma attached to sex workers already pose problems in countries where sexual labour is legalised: state authorities like police have taken advantage of their power over the sex workers and have continued to exploit their vulnerabilities; exercising verbal and physical violence when they please (Benoit et al., 2018). Thus, such stigma places sex workers at an unfair disadvantage of not being treated with the basic standards of health and of the justice system. The prohibition of markets in sexual labour, then, may intensify this stigma, which in turn would alienate the sex workers further away from the society and its protective services. This would result in heightened vulnerability and perceived lack of value of the sex workers. Consequently, the negative stereotype of these individualswould lead to further policy changes that will aim to protect its citizens by marginalising those involved in the sexual labour industries. This is acknowledged by Benoit et al. (2018) as they illustrate this process as that of a feedback loop. Thus, a prohibition of markets in sexual labour is likely to intensify this loop and limit the sex workers’ ability to seek out for alternative jobs in the labour market. Such policy, then, would be taking steps back from destigmatisation and demarginalisation of the sex workers and as it fails to listen to the sex workers’ voices, social injustice results.
Given the task of explaining why the markets in sexual labour should not be prohibited in this essay, the arguments above may be evaluated to not consider the implications of rising supply and demand of these markets if they were to belegalised. However, an increase in market size does not necessarily lead to more costs. Although preventing the prohibition may not be enough on its own, by involving sex workers in the policy development processes, safer working environments can be created (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014). Additionally, policies will be able to be established without the need to account for the hidden costs from the black market. Hence, the direction which this essay advocates may offer a decline in costs in the long-run.
Consider, now, a criticism of sexual labour from the economic approach. This view examines the quantitative effects of sexual labour and condemns it due to costly externalities and inefficient transactions (Satz, 2010) whereby externalities include costs of diseases, guilt, moralism and costs to third parties. However, as Satz points out, this approach is incapable of distinguishing between different types of goods, “especially in cases where these distinctions do not seem to reflect mere differences in the net sum of costs and benefits” (Satz, 2010:8). Subsequently, the economic approach neglects to address the normative elements that are unique to sexual labour (for example, intimacy and dignity (Satz, 2010) are intrinsic features of sexual labour that may derive costs but they, arguably, ought to be considered differently to similar costs caused by other forms of labour due to its distinctive cultural and historical backgrounds) and thus fails to distinguish “which costs rise to the level of justifying interference and regulation and which do not” (Satz, 2010:8). Therefore, by prohibiting sexual labour on the basis of the magnitudes of costs and benefits calculations, this approach is likely to bring about inappropriate policy changes.
Extending on Satz’s argument, considering the costs generated by sex work in merely quantitative terms overlooks “the background system of distribution” (Satz, 2010:8) within which sex workers’ costs arise. As a result, the lack of contextual knowledge upon implementing the prohibition of sexual labour will neglect the voices and the situations of the sex workers and thus, this approach lacks credibility in its understanding of the policy’s subjects. This shows that the economic approach is incomplete in its validity, even if it were to be implemented in the short-run. Building on this, the economic approach to the sexual labour markets’ prohibition seems to map out the numerous costs, represented by numbers, that the societies face but fails to provide an appropriate direction in which policies should be developed to combat the issues in the long-run. The points made by Satz and developed by this essay above demonstrate why the markets in sexual labour should not be prohibited on the grounds of the economic approach, in both short and long-terms, and how this method can be incomplete and misleading in contesting the problems generated by the markets in sexual labour.
To conclude, the prohibition of sexual labour markets overlooks the voices of the sex workers and generates greater costs (take costs in public health for example, as mentioned above) in the long-run. By preventing this policy, we are able to i) dig deeper into the roots of the problems by focusing on why sex workers enter such markets in the first place and ii) derive steps towards social justice by restoring the sex workers’ stigma. While the economic approach may emphasise the magnitude of the costs in sexual labour, its direction in tackling these costs can be incomplete and misleading. Therefore, once we relate such prohibition to the analogy of the Trojan horse; a policy that fails to see the greater long-term costs by only fixating on the short-term benefits, we can come to understand why prohibition of the markets in sexual labour should not be advocated.
Bibliography
Benoit, C., Jansson, S. M., Smith, M. & Flagg, J. (2018) Prostitution Stigma and Its Effect on the Working Conditions, Personal Lives, and Health of Sex Workers. The Journal of Sex Research, 55 (4-5): 457-471.
Pitcher, J. & Wijers, M. (2014) The impact of different regulatory models on the labour conditions, safety and welfare ofindoor-based sex workers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14 (5): 549-564.
Satz, D. (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Oxford Scholarship Online.
Walkowitz, J. R. (2016) The Politics of Prostitution and Sexual Labour. History Workshop Journal, 82 (1): 188-198.
