Feminists Debate Sex Work: The Soho Forum
Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown makes the case for legalizing sex work. Author Julie Bindel wants customers to be held criminally liable.
HD DownloadDo people who hire sex workers deserve to go to jail, or should all laws prohibiting consensual sex work be repealed?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; event photography by Brett Raney.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My body my choice right?
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHhahhahha!
Getting paid every month online from home more than $12k by doing very simple and easy job in part time. (yhu22) Last month i have got paid $11547 from this easy home based online job.
.
This is where i started..........☛ https://yourjobs85.blogspot.com/
Now, see, that's a choice we can all get behind!
all laws prohibiting consensual sex work should be abolished
Seems reasonable.
>> should all laws prohibiting consensual sex work be repealed?
a little surprised they haven't already decrim'ed and regulated this obvious growth industry
Was that a subtle boner joke?
a Gross Pointe Blank reference ... but I chuckled after I typed yes.
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.
If she believes that prostitution ought to be a crime, why let the woman off the hook? She is at a minimum 50% responsible for the crime. Arguably she is MORE responsible, since she is the one actively selling an illegal service.
It is the same with many who want to criminalize abortion. A large number of them want to hold the doctors criminally liable, but let the woman off the hook. Why? Again, if one agrees that abortion is a crime against the unborn child, the woman is guilty at a minimum of manslaughter.
Is the idea here that these women are unsuspecting waifs duped by powerful men to commit crimes?
Rights for thee by not for me.
It's the mantra of the left.
"A large number of them want to hold the doctors criminally liable, but let the woman off the hook"
Not me, I've always said they should be treated exactly like a woman who's drowned their newborn. And I know a lot of others here have given similar opinions. With the pill, diaphragms and condoms so easy to use and widely available there's zero excuses.
Legalize over the counter "morning after" pills, without a prescription. More abortions would be preventing than all the banners and placards you would shake a stick at.
+; that is going to run up against the "life at conception" position, but I agree it "should" make most of the abortion controversy irrelevant.
But if that were true contraception would have accomplished this long ago. Abortion "my body my choice" has gotten to the point that there will be dissatisfaction until a woman is given the right to drown her newborn within a stipulated period of time post delivery. It is the ultimate "my body but I'm not responsible for what I did or didn't do up to the end and I should not face consequences for it."
See Maryland.
that is going to run up against the "life at conception" position,
My understanding is Plan B is designed to prevent implantation, which isn't immediate. No implantation, no conception. Plan B should be in the checkout line next to the Tic-Tacs.
Sorry, no. Conception and implantation are different concepts. Conception is defined as the "formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum". "Fertilization" is listed as a synonym. That occurs well before implantation.
I agree that Plan B should be widely available but it will not resolve the inherent conflict with the "life at conception" position.
There is not inherent conflict with "life begins at conception" unless you conflate it with "legal personhood begins at conception".
I will concede that many on both sides of the argument make that conflation, but it's wrong.
> that is going to run up against the "life at conception" position
That is true, but the "life begins at conception" argument is very new, historically. Even among Christians it's fairly new as it requires a special reading of some Bible verses.
That is true, but the "life begins at conception" argument is very new, historically. Even among Christians it's fairly new as it requires a special reading of some Bible verses.
"Life" begins well before conception. All that is required for understanding that is having remained conscious through at least a primary school biology class. No Bible verses required.
Ok, explain.
Go look at Colorado, where free birth control (including IUDs) has drastically reduced the abortion rate there. More successful then any anti-abortion law law or regulation at reducing abortions.
Conservatives hate it. And they're pretty consistent about this: they have no interest in stopping abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancy, they only care about stopping abortion by making abortions harder to get.
Conservatives hate it.
Thanks for your deeply reasoned and thoroughly cited argument.
Sir, this is a comment section. Uncited generalizations that don't dig into nuance and context is what is done here.
Which is to say... if you want a well-written piece of impeccable rhetoric with peerless citations and supporting evidence, I have rates. They over-priced, as that's not my day job, but I'm willing to accept a very well paid side gig.
"Conservatives hate it"
Libertarian's hate it. They don't want to be forced to subsidize someone else's fuckfest.
"And they're pretty consistent about this: they have no interest in stopping abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancy, they only care about stopping abortion by making abortions harder to get."
This part's a flat out lie. There's been shitloads of Republican attempts to make the pill available over the counter which have been opposed by Democrats every single time.
I'm sure that you know this. So why are you lying about it?
You're just full of shit - like all the R's who say they want that. Obviously only the FDA (or Congress) can mandate it to be OTC nationwide.
But a few states have laws that permit pharmacist prescribed birth control pills. So it can't be bought anonymously at 7-11 - but it can at every pharmacy.
If R's think this easy access is a goal - and D's oppose it, then it should obvious which states have that
Drum roll please
Guess
Sure, and Romney’s coming to take away your tampons too.
Conservatives hate it and don't want you to know about this secret!!!
And you won't believe who is #7 on the list!!!!
They require a prescription? I’ve always read otherwise.
Yes, always a prescription. I would also advocate no prescription for birth control pills either. And yes, they too require a prescription.
The prescriptions are easy to get, but do require a physician visit.
Depends on the state, I suppose. In Arizona you can go to your local Walmart and buy them without a prescription. They keep them in the "makeup" section for some reason (although I'm assuming its to add an extra layer of security to stop people from stealing them, like they do with makeup).
Also, no abortion is ever necessary anymore. If someone fears they are pregnant, simply stop identifying as a birthing person.
Problem solved.
Babies really are disrespectful to many of the dogmas of our age.
Instead of being aborted, bigoted hater babies could simply be cancelled.
FYI, this is what I'm referring to:
https://lailluminator.com/2022/05/07/louisiana-right-to-life-opposes-bill-that-would-classify-abortion-as-homicide/
Louisiana’s leading antiabortion advocacy group won’t support a high-profile bill that could expose pregnant people who seek or undergo abortions to criminal prosecution and prison.
“Our long-standing policy is that abortion-vulnerable women should not be treated as criminals,” Louisiana Right to Life said in a written statement released Friday night. “Instead, we should hold accountable the individuals performing the abortion or selling or providing the chemical abortion drugs.”
The idiots.
This isn't the fifteenth century when some innocent virgin finds the son of the laird doing inexplicable things to her nethers, and it's not not the Victorian era when an unmarried woman in the family way must be hidden from polite society.
Every single woman nowadays knows exactly what the results of having unprotected sex are and the value of doubling up in case of accidents. Don't like condoms? use a diaphragm and the pill.
If she believes that prostitution ought to be a crime, why let the woman off the hook? She is at a minimum 50% responsible for the crime.
I don't want to be mean here, but this makes me think you haven't listened or read much feminist theory over your life. The entire feminist anti-sex schtick is that men are oppressors and women are oppressed. Sex is an act of power between oppressor and oppressed. You're looking at this through the equality lens, you need to start looking at it through the equity lens.
I trust you'll get there.
Is the idea here that these women are unsuspecting waifs duped by powerful men to commit crimes?
I believe, if I'm thinking of the correct author, yes. That woman believes that. She's of the older school of feminism that has that aspect of it. Because Feminism is not a particularly linear, or coherent thread of philosophy. It's many, many things and tends to grow on top of other movements.
So women are cognitively impaired children who lack the agency required to make decisions on their own or take responsibility for their actions, and therefor should regarded as the property of their families...unless they're married, in which case they become the property of their husbands.
Now you've got it.
Proven over multiple millennia.
"So women are cognitively impaired children who lack the agency required to make decisions on their own or take responsibility for their actions"
Yes. As are racial and sexual minorities and occasionally poor people too. Woke philosophies are always paternalistic.
unless they're married, in which case they become the property of their husbands.
No, they're property of themselves, they just need the patriarchy to protect them from men.
I have not yet listened to the video, but I read Bindel's bio; sounds like a professional victim pimp, and would love a world without men in it.
Ok now I will listen and judge my initial impression.
ENB VS bindel in a battle of the half wits!
Come see what happens when the movable object comes up against a stopable force!
Key quotes:
"Women are being railroaded into compulsory heterosexuality."
"Men do not have to right to pay for sex whenever and with whomever they want it. They can just keep it in their pants."
Paraphrase: no woman really wants to engage in prostitution; they are invariably very disadvantaged and are victims of trauma.
IOW, "no young girl wants to grow up to be a hooker."
So for her these women do not have agency and are dependent upon enlightened souls like her for their salvation. The same trope for any crusader.
No young girl wants to grow up to do work where they ask “do you want fried with your order” either.
Isn't sex work considered trafficking these days?
That's the euphemism, yes.
Did ENB use her tried and true debate technique of doing her opponent and telling everyone her address?
Doing her opponent
Hot. Well, sometimes I guess.
Doxing stupid autocorrect
Imagine my disappointment when I read your correction. I was about to set up a debate with ENB.
What are you referring to?
ENB doxed a person on Twitter for calling her not a libritarian
The truth hurts...
Thanks
> She opposes arresting women for the selling of sex but wants their customers to face consequences for their actions.
Sorry, but it's a two way street. If the transaction is illegal then both sides have been made criminals. If abortion is illegal than both the women who transact for one and the doctor who provides them are criminals. If drugs are illegal then both the pushers and the users are criminals.
To suggest that sex workers did not have a choice is bullshit. Hundreds of millions of women in this country have never sold sex. Sex work is a choice freely made. If you're going to arrest the johns then you need to arrest the hookers as well, or admit that you're a fucking hypocrite.
Just legalize prostitution. Sheesh.
Unfortunately, I don't think "two way street" is a thing with this generation.
It's not "this generation", it's this bimbo trying to have her feminist cake and eat it too.
Feminism is about human having equal rights and legal agency. Yet she denies agency to prostitutes. How can one argue that women should have a choice at the same time one denies the ability for women to have a choice?
She wants them to have the choices she allows them. This is what every leftist does.
Equity. Once you understand the difference between "equality" and "equity" everything comes into focus.
She opposes arresting women for the selling of sex but wants their customers to face consequences for their actions.
Is she stupid enough to think that only women sell sexual services and only men but them?
This isn't a feminist debate, it is a human rights debate about whether the state has the moral or constitutional authority to criminalize the buying and selling of sexual services by emancipated adults. The answer is very simple: it doesn't.
In her view, men are perpetrators and women are victims. This is her take on the sex trade, without exception. She interestingly notes that woman have been known to go to places like Jamaica and purchase sex from women, but seems to just let that drop as an anomaly. It's men who are the problem, and who need to be sanctioned to the extent that their bad "male pattern" behavior is extinguished.
She’s a leftist. To a leftist, every interaction has a victim and an oppressor. So she projects this through her feminism.
Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown makes the case for legalizing sex work. Author Julie Bindel wants customers to be held criminally liable.
Wouldn't the true feminist solution be to do both? Women should be allowed to express themselves in any way they want, but if they're touched by a man, death sentence.
"Women should be allowed to express themselves in any way they want, but if they're touched by a man, death sentence [for the man, of course]."
Yes, I believe that pretty well describes Bindel's position on the matter.
Also noted "male pattern violence." Guess it's not just for baldness any more. Ann men are inherently bad if and unless they comport with her feminist standards.
What if it’s women (wives and girlfriends and baby mommas) who want to criminalize sex work?
I plead insanity.
https://youtu.be/fI-todKuWhQ?t=57
It seems like there should be a lot of room for alternatives between those two positions.
But that's why good policy makers aren't ideologues.
That said, I think y'all who are arguing Bindel is inconsistent are doing so without understanding her position. Simply put, she's anti-sex-work. But stopping sex work is a second priority to her, with the first being helping women get out of sex work.
And for that, it's been proven that you can't punish the prostitutes. The reasons are complicated and nuanced, but basically if you criminalize being a prostitute, then victims (women being trafficked, women being beaten by their pimps, women who are assaulted by their Johns, etc. and so-on) often can't get help without being arrested themselves.
So if your #1 priority is helping women, and stopping sex-work is only your second priority? Then criminalizing buying sex, but not selling sex, makes perfect sense.
For my part, I'm closer to ENB's position, but I think policies like Nevada (which allows in brothels, but not street-walkers) or Amsterdam (which has a designated red light district) is still a much-needed improvement over the current American norm. AKA, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
Why do so many people consider money to be filthy, contaminating everything it touches?
You can spend the money on a fancy dinner and expensive Broadway show, or you can give it directly to the provider. One is legal, one is not.
Why?
It applies to every part of the political spectrum. It's by no means just a Progressive woke thing.
Why is money itself so disrespected, when the resources it provides access to are eminently respectable?
Just another example of how government power encourages people to tell everyone else how to live, no matter how hypocritical.
"sex worker"
I'm so tired of bullshit euphemisms for everything. If there's nothing wrong with being a whore (and I agree that it should be legal, as should any other activity that takes place between consenting adults in private) then destigmatize the word rather than making up new terms in an effort to pretend that the activity is something other than what it is.
In part I agree when it is used as a euphemism for actual prostitutes. However, I think it's meant to be an all-encompassing term that includes strippers, camgirls, onlyfans, fetishists, etc.
In part I agree when it is used as a euphemism for actual prostitutes.
Which is exactly how it's being used here.
However, I think it's meant to be an all-encompassing term that includes strippers, camgirls, onlyfans, fetishists, etc.
Not in this context:
The resolution was "A good society should criminalize the purchase of sex."
Whore is also more fun to say. The words that woke douchebags dislike usually are.
Yay, Whores! 🙂
Resolved: that the sex work and drug reform movements conform their use of the terms "decriminalize" and "legalize".
Let's be honest about what this is really about for the militant lesbian: She simply does not like the fact that legalizing prostitution flips the power relationship between men and women when it comes to sex.
That's what leftists are all about: Power and control. And she doesn't like that women become "subordinate" to men in the prostitution relationship. All of her bullsht about violence and abuse is just smoke and mirrors. It's all crap. Just as the vast majority of the Left's dogma is built on a pile of bullsht.
Julie Bindel is just jealous that she couldn't command as high a price for her wares than Liz.
Love and Thunder Vest
If Bindel and her ilk seriously believe that police will settle for only arresting sex work clients, they don't know how law enforcement works. They go after the easiest targets. Just look at how Sweden, Norway and other countries constantly surveil and harass sex workers, supposedly to "get after the clients". It's inevitable IMHBCO that cops under the Swedish model would arrest sex workers as accessories to their clients.
Should have been Maggie McNeill up there against Bindel. And I say that as someone who (unlike most in these comments) actually likes and respects ENB... Liz's heart in is the right place, but she doesn't have the years of solid research behind her which gives an answer to all of Bindel's crazy. She has snippets, but no citations, where Maggie could meet all Bindel's carefully crafted motte and bailey bullshit with facts and experience.
Then again, Bindel would never have consented to a debate with The Honest Courtesan, so perhaps this was the best we could expect.
Nice, Liz, but probably doomed from the start.
Great Work
https://makethatcount.com/