A Feminist Debate on Sex Work

Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown makes the case for legalizing sex work. Author Julie Bindel wants customers to be held criminally liable.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

A Feminist Debate on Sex Work

Do people who hire sex workers deserve to go to jail, or should all laws prohibiting consensual sex work be repealed?

On May 9, 2022, writer and activist Julie Bindel debated Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown at the Sheen Center in lower Manhattan. The resolution was "A good society should criminalize the purchase of sex."

The event was hosted by The Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by the Reason Foundation.

Bindel is the London-based author of The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth. She opposes arresting women for the selling of sex but wants their customers to face consequences for their actions.

Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who's also the co-founder and president of Feminists for Liberty, took the position that all laws prohibiting consensual sex work should be abolished.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; intro edited by John Osterhoudt

Comments

[bobby oshea]

At what age should it be legal to purchase sex? At what age should it be legal to sell sex?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Moments after the coinflip abortion decision... aka, the instant the umbilical cord is cut.

[mad.casual]

You only oppose selling aborted fetuses for sex because you think it's icky. I know your stance doesn't explicitly say anything about the decision to buy/sell being dependent on the outcome of the coin flip one way or the other, just that it comes afterwards, but we can all see the "Don't boink aborted fetuses." policy you're trying to enforce.

[Jana McElroy]

Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. (rea25) I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.

Details on this website >>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

[BestUsedCarSales]

Age of majority.

I still think a big thing we need in this country, or in each state, is a real age of majority where you get all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. Come what may.

What age that is, I'm open to debate. I just hate the 18/21 split we see.

[Overt]

Why does there need to be a single age of Majority? Is there just a magic point where people are capable of making every decision, no matter the consequences?

I'm not saying that our current system is necessarily sane, per se. But as I have raised my kids, I haven't just said "Ok, you are ready for everything NOW!" I phase in new responsibilities. Some I give them early, because the consequences of failure are minor. Others I wait because the consequences of failure are more drastic.

Again, not saying we've drawn the right lines in society- just saying I am not certain there is only one to be drawn.

[Stuck in California]

I don't disagree. though I see the point behind 18/21 seeming arbitrary. If you're old enough to vote, to go to war, to marry, to enter into legal contracts -- things with substantial consequences -- you sure as fuck should be capable of making an alcohol decision.

But you get to a deeper point. Responsibility, practiced by phasing it in as the child grows up, means greater personal freedoms as age progresses. You practice your independence as you gain it a piece at a time.

I wonder if the infantilization of school kids, who in many ways are treated the same as 18 year old seniors as they are as 12 year old middle school kids, has affected society badly. The expectation that colleges also act in loco parentis for undergrads, who should be adults, seems way stronger than it was when I was in school. And large companies with lots of under 35 year olds seem to coddle the 20somethings, who very often need to be told to grow the fuck up in my view.

[Overt]

To play devils advocate, in the case of "going to war" what you are saying is "Old enough to be put in a military unit where you are under the strict supervision of trained commanders who make pretty much every life threatening decision on your behalf." In the cases of Marriage and Enlistment, these are decisions that are undertaken once or twice in life after much (hopefully) sober deliberation.

Alcohol on the other hand is a decision that is made quickly, and as soon as you begin, your judgement is impaired by that very same alcohol.

I have a 16 year old, and she is pretty mature. I imagine she is probably mature enough to solicit advice from her parents and friends before getting married or enlisting in warmaking. But I also am not as sure that she has the experience or judgement to moderate alcohol intake or make decisions about whether she is capable of safely driving. And from a pragmatic perspective, the numbers tend to bear this out, as moving the drinking age to 21 drastically reduced drunk driving accidents and deaths.

All that said, I also think prohibition is nigh on the worst way to introduce kids to responsible drinking. It encourages them to either begin drinking cold turkey outside the guidance of adults who've been through that stuff, or to begin habits such as hiding drinking in places where there is no responsible adult. IF there is going to be a law, then it should include the ability for kids to drink when under the guidance and supervision and permission of their guardians.

[NM Dave]

We tried lowering the drinking age in the 70's and it filed miserably; the DUI rate among 18-20 yr olds skyrocketed. They clearly can't handle alcohol and I'm not sure they're even smart enough to vote.

[mad.casual]

Again, not saying we've drawn the right lines in society- just saying I am not certain there is only one to be drawn.

Without refuting your overall point (I think), exactly how many lines do you want the government to draw for you?

[Overt]

220....221...whatever it takes.

[USA_Jew]

If she's old enough to hire a surgeon to cut off her penis, then he's old enough to hire a prostitute to suck it.

[The Obsolete Man]

More importantly, at what age should it become illegal to sell sex?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Why a "feminist" debate?

[mad.casual]

I like how the resolution is gender agnostic and the position favoring flat out states Women sell, and are innocent, men buy, and are guilty.

I'm sure ENB, identifying as a feminist, went to bat for the men the way males who identify as masculinists would go to bat for the women.

[Stuck in California]

Because "Cat Fight" is seen as politically insensitive these days.

[Duelles]

Back during the AIDS crisis it was apparent that gay were more willing to hook up for free, but the cis heterodox guy had to pay. What happened to equal protection? Or are our own choices still valid as lifestyle options.
I think Julie should start a fund for indigents.

[Bubba Jones]

If feminists can't agree on sex work, how can we pretend they agree on abortion?

Do either of these people have actual experience as sex workers?

[mad.casual]

How can we pretend they agree on abortion? "Yes, dear.", "You and your friend are right, he/she is a bitch/asshole.", "Yes, I'm paying attention to you. I heard everything you said.", "I'll get to it during the next commercial."

Do you have actual experience with women? 🙂

[Brandybuck]

> If feminists can't agree on sex work

Because there are two feminisms. One is an individualist ideology asserting that women should have the same rights as men. The other is a collectivist ideology that wants to impose rules on others.

[mad.casual]

One is an individualist ideology asserting that women should have the same rights as men.

Actual individualists would call this egalitarianism.

[Minadin]

One's a journalist - close enough.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Julie Bindel is personally offended by prostitution and wants to dictate to other people to live by her rules.

Assuming that there is consent between the parties, why is any of Julie Bindel's business?

Assume that someone is personally offended by same sex couples. Would it be okay to dictate to other people to live by these rules?

Assuming that the couple consents to be married, why is it any of their business?

Decriminalization is the solution. I would make it criminal to force a person to do anything without their consent, otherwise there is no crime.

[bobby oshea]

Once it is legal, can you use donated sex for Charitable tax deduction purposes?

[MK Ultra]

Out-of-town, non-reimbursed business expense?

[bobby oshea]

I was thinking more like: your kid's school is having a fundraiser and you offer to donate your sex services in an auction. Can you claim the donated services as charitable giving?

[Overt]

How about the opposite: "Sir, I donated that beautiful young lady $250. And because I am extra generous, I also availed her of my sexual favors, which I have priced at the market rate of $600 per hour. Thus I am due a $300 deduction for my time and donation."

[USA_Jew]

An upgrade on the kissing booth.

[bobby oshea]

Re: personal freedom, consenting adults: Should it be legal to sell sex to 1st degree relatives?

[Overt]

I have no problem decriminalizing prostitution as long as Sexual Harassment laws are severely defanged to accommodate this.

If a man can go pay money to an escort in return for a night at the Opera with sex afterwords, then you cannot legitimately make it a crime for him to pay a woman to mind his meeting schedule, with sex during lunch breaks.

This all assumes that we are talking about consenting adults here. But I wonder if ENB would really take this bargain. By what moral principle would we allow sex for money but not sex for a role in the next Matt Damon movie?

To be clear, current sexual harassment law allows a woman to file a claim against a company that allows such arrangements- even if she wasn't one of the consenting adults. It does this because "Sex for Money" is illegal, and a man and woman consensually agreeing to trade sex for job opportunities creates an atmosphere where individuals are pressured to engage in this illegal activity. However, if this is no longer illegal, then sex is just one other price on the menu for the job.

[mad.casual]

However, if this is no longer illegal, then sex is just one other price on the menu for the job.

Despite the absolute smuttiness of it, the other side (or just another angle) should be pointed out as well. Men operating a revolving door of women without ever knowing their names is objectification but women having a man literally operate the revolving door of men to fix the sink, take out the garbage, and make sure the wrong men don't get through the revolving door isn't objectification, it's just how society works. Lots and lots of perceptions are going to change if the plumber accepts cash, check, credit, or... Even if ENB, in her tower with her man taking care of hiring the plumber for her, is comfortable with other women trading sex for a leaky faucet, is she OK with a pre-frosh "hiring" a team of movers? To really stab the dagger in and twist, how would she feel about "private corporations" colluding to accept only certain 'transactions' and excluding those who don't want to pay? It's been a while since I read A Handmaid's Tale but I'm pretty sure there was more than one road in and out.

[USA_Jew]

If sex is on the menu, it needs to be in the job description, not something the boss springs on a worker after the worker accepts the position.

[mad.casual]

That would be if he fired her for not doing what's not her job or refused to pay her for what is her job. Extra work becomes available, known-good contractors, business partners, and employees get first dibs. An extra $250K for turning down a contract isn't in any way afoul of "Other tasks as available, assigned, or required." It's more honest and good faith than many, many, many other business practices.

[mad.casual]

Shit. Realized I'm talking to a stupid troll.

[CaptainJack]

Anything you can give away freely without it being a crime should not be a crime to sell with discretion.

Likewise any talent or labor that you can perform for others that others value, should be able to be purchased with mutual consent, as long as that labor does not directly and knowingly harm a 3rd party.

[USA_Jew]

I'm a bisexual man who likes to suck cock. My gay friend fucks my ass every so often. I don't like it, but I put up with it, because I like to make him happy. He also feeds me breakfast. Am I a whore working for food? Does my friend deserve to go to jail for compensating me for sex?

[USA_Jew]

Why are women traveling to Jamaica to buy sex? Oh wait, never mind.

[Mind Your Own Business]

No one has a problem if I give away sex for free, but it's somehow somebody else's business if I get paid for it? It's either okay for people to consent to have sex or it's not. Whether I'm doing it because: I enjoyed someone's company and I want to explore more, I'm married and I feel obligated, I'm trying to hold on to a questionable relationship, I'm bored, it makes me feel better, it's fun, or because I like the money being offered, is irrelevant.

It also makes no difference whether or not I like the job. I have hated the vast majority of the jobs I've had, but I did them anyway because I needed the money. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people working at minimum wage jobs don't actually like what they're doing and nobody is telling them that they can't work at those jobs. Since it's a given I'm not going to like my job, I should at least be able to pick the one that pays twice as much, for half the effort, without some paternalistic control freak telling me that I'm too stupid to make my own choices.

[The Obsolete Man]

The word is "prostitution", not this euphemistic "sex work" garbage

[Cat Sailor2022]

This is for Ms. Bindel: Apparently it is appropriate in decent society to call a man who pays for sex a "John", and to describe his sexual organ a "cock" in a quite crude way which can only be described as misandry. Since you have opened that door, is it also appropriate to call a woman who gets paid for sex a "whore, a slut, a hooker" or other demeaning terms? Is it likewise appropriate in decent society to call her sexual organ a "cunt", or do the rules you abide by only go one way? I would suggest that we behave as gentleman and ladies, and do not use terms which are degrading towards one another. Would you agree with that suggestion? I will. Thanks for your insight.