A Heated Debate: Theoretical Perspectives of Sexual Exploitation and Sex Work

Neo-abolitionist perspectives: Radical & Marxist feminism

Radical and Marxist feminism serve as the roots of current day, neo-abolitionist perspectives with regard to sexual exploitation of women and girls. Radical feminism is rooted in its understanding of social organization and structure as inherently patriarchal, as sexism exists to maintain male privilege and patriarchal social order (Loue, 2001). Radical feminists and patriarchal theorists frame issues of violence against women in a long line of institutional and structural sexism and paternalistic views. Dobash and Dobash (1979) first identified the tenets of this theory, which stipulates that violence against women is a systemic form of men’s domination and social control of women. Thus, assaults occur primarily because of institutionalized male privilege, as men believe it is their right to enact violence against women.

The patriarchal organization of both government and society has provided a social context for the widespread sexist acceptance of hierarchy, thereby excluding women from the public sector, higher education, structural labor forces, and religious institutions (Loue, 2001; Dobash & Dobash, 1979). This also contributed to a male centered perspective, in which women had no place in holding highly respected jobs in the community and were consequently confined to the home. Argued from this model of oppression, the central tenet of sexual commerce rests in male domination and the structural inequalities between men and women. Sexual commerce provides a patriarchal right of access to women’s bodies, thus perpetuating women’s subordination to men (Farley, 2005). Radical feminists dispute the use of pornography, as they claim it causes harm and violence against women. For example, Gloria Steinem and presidents of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Planned Parenthood sent a letter to President Clinton protesting the administration’s refusal to define all types of prostitution as “sexual exploitation” (Stolz, 2005). Because radical feminists generally view all commercial sex acts as patriarchal and oppressive, advocates should be inclined to ban all forms of sex work and sex industry from existence (Weitzer, 2007).

Like radical feminism, Marxist feminism is another neo-abolitionist stance that generally views all forms of sexual commerce as a form of violence against women. Although Marxism had very little to do with women, Marxist feminists have argued that sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism, that which is most one’s own and yet is taken away (MacKinnon, 1989). Marxist feminism posits women’s oppression on the economic dependence on men in a male-centric society (Bryson, 1992) and argues that capitalism continues to be the overarching oppressor of women. As long as capitalism exists, women will live in a patriarchal state and economically depend on men in a society structured around social class.

In this model, economic exploitation includes many forms, primarily prostitution and pornography, and therefore must be viewed as oppressions of sex and class. Women’s sexuality and sexual energy is appropriated by the men who buy or control the sexual services exchange (i.e., pimps) just as any worker’s energy is appropriated to the capitalists for their profits, leading to alienation of one’s bodily capacities and very bodily being (Miriam, 2005). Marxist feminism specifically critiques the use of pornography and other forms of voluntary and involuntary sexual exchanges for money. Catherine MacKinnon, a Marxist feminist legal scholar, argues that all forms of pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking are abuses of sex and a form of power taken away from women (MacKinnon, 1982).

Both radical and Marxist feminism have been criticized for their focus on sexually exploited or trafficked victims and the lack of women’s rights to choose careers in sex work (Kesler, 2002; Wolken, 2004). In addition, arguments have ironically been regarded as paternalistic, in that the abolishment of prostitution is viewed as for the good of prostitutes (Meyers, 2013). Critics argue that categorizing everyone as victims of sex trafficking (or not) creates an unhelpful dichotomy within the law and social services of looking for victims that are always under some form of force, fraud, or coercion and therefore under the control of another (FitzGerald & Munro, 2012; Snyder-Hall, 2010). Critics also argue that these forms of feminism do not support the autonomy of women currently exchanging or who have exchanged sex for money when they choose to leave the field or provide any subsequent form of advocacy work (Meyers, 2013). Finally, some critics have argued that capitalism is a current reality, especially in countries like the U.S., and Marxist feminism loses the ability to view gender, sexuality, and class together within current day society (Beloso, 2012). In response to many of these criticisms, a new feminist framework arguing for women’s right to choose sex work has emerged, adding to an entrenched debate of feminism, choice, and freedom.

Pro-sex work perspective: Sex positivism

The pro-sex work perspective, or sex positivism, split from previously derived feminist schools of thought to advocate for women’s right to an autonomous choice of sex work. Advocates of this perspective hold that sexuality, including paid forms, is consensual in many cases and that a woman should be free to make her own decision regarding the type of work in which she chooses to partake (Ferguson et al., 1984). Similarly, sex positivists argue that the notion of intimacy and what actions or sexual acts are considered intimate should be decided by the woman. For example, former sex worker, activist, and writer, Maggie McNeil, argues that there are many professions that may be described as intimate (i.e., nurses, gynecologists, child care professionals) and that all women, including sex workers and prostitutes, should be able to choose what is considered intimate and what is not (Russell & Garcia, 2014). Thus, any mandate or perspective dictating to women that their choice of work is wrong remains dangerous and patriarchal (Kesler, 2002). Sex positivists shift the model of person-centered services from a typically neo-abolitionist model that rescues and protects victims from prostitution and sexual exploitation to providing services for women who work in the sex industry (Shah, 2004).

Critiques of sex positivism are numerous. First, the neo-abolitionist view in itself directly disputes the main principal of sex positivism, as these two frameworks grapple with finding common ground on issues of pornography and prostitution or sex work (Metcalfe & Woodhams, 2012). Others have argued that sex positivism and the issue of consent cannot be addressed without also considering the high rates of sexual assault and abuse histories, in addition to a lack of economic options (Hughes, 2005; Potterat, Rothenberg, Muth, Darrow, & Phillips-Plummer, 2001). In addition to opposing feminist frameworks, some religious organizations state that sexual integrity is jeopardized on a national level with this framework, as moral culture is damaged when sex becomes commercialized (Weitzer, 2007). Debates from both the feminist left and the religious right add yet another layer of complication to understanding these philosophical perspectives that pervasively influence law and social service sectors.

Intersectionality

Regardless of opposing opinions, intersectionality may be intertwined with previously described feminist perspectives to explain a woman’s varied experiences based on her race, class, sexual orientation or another identity she holds in addition to her sex (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). Intersectionality declares that the impact of sexism is qualitatively different depending on women’s class or race identities (Crenshaw, 1991). The impact of intersectionality was first utilized to explain the following within the context of domestic violence: (1) the socially structured indivisibility of certain victims (mainly that all women’s experiences are not the same); (2) who the “appropriate” victims are and the denial of victimization; and (3) the real-world consequences of intersection and domestic violence (Bograd, 1999). Since then, intersectionality has impacted the way in which scholars view relationships between interrelated social divisions in society and among people’s lives (Anthias, 2013). Feminists using an intersectional framework maintain that gender (or gender and class in the case of Marxist feminism) cannot be used alone to understand a woman’s oppression and the impact of sexual exploitation on her (Beloso, 2012). Subsequently, feminist legal scholars (Wolken, 2004) and researchers (Chong, 2014) have described the devaluation of women of color specifically as victimization by sexual exploitation, because they are even more likely to be considered as embodying perversions of desire and to be treated systemically as a lower class of individuals than their White counterparts.

Main criticisms of intersectionality include a lack of defined intersectional methodology and empirical validity (Nash, 2008). In addition, some critics also argue that intersectionality has only primarily been used to address Black women’s experience and is not politically and empirically inclusive of other identity intersections (Anthias, 2013), such as sexual orientation or even other races. Intersectionality is more commonly viewed as a framework to understand the impact of multiple identities on the oppression of women but is criticized for actually contributing to or creating additional hierarchies for women.

Political economy perspective

First used to address intimate partner violence, the political economy perspective has evolved to recognize important tenets of intersectionality and is applied to all forms of sexual violence, including sexual exploitation and trafficking. The political economy perspective describes the relationship between the state and economy, arguing that violence against women occurs because of the economic welfare and political processes driving the state (Adelman, 2008). For example, political welfare reform and the economic state exacerbate some women’s experiences, as poor women became more dependent on cash and in-kind assistance from sexual partners, intimate relationships, children’s fathers, etc. (Edin & Lein, 1997). Marxist feminism and the political economy perspective share the understanding that political economy and lower social economic status may drive sexual commerce; however, political economy perspective is rooted more in capitalistic differences in wealth alone, rather than differences in wealth as a result of systemic oppression against women. Thus, the political economy allows for unequal opportunity and pay for women and drives women to be more dependent and find opportunities to survive (often times from men), thus shifting the discourse from individualized deviancy toward structural inequality.

In view of sexual exploitation, women who are poor and have few options for survival may fall victims to traffickers or may prostitute themselves when they seemingly have no other choice (Anthias, 2013). Without the possession of cultural or social capital, women ranging from exotic dancers to trafficked women struggle against economic, social, and sexual oppressions (Konstantopoulos et al., 2013). Women would not be compelled to sell sexual or erotic services if the political environment at the policy level afforded equal opportunities to gain social capital, thus increasing poor women’s vulnerability to being preyed upon or trafficked. Proponents of the political economy perspective point to studies with disproportionate percentages of housing instability and poverty among youth who trade sex to survive, as well as the lack of economic options for girls and women who engage in prostitution (Farley et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2011; Valera, Sawyer, & Schiraldi, 2001; Van Leeuwen et al., 2004; Watson, 2011; Wilson & Butler, 2014).

Like critics of Marxism or radical feminism, criticisms of the political economy include the removal of a woman’s choice to prostitute or trade sex (Weitzer, 2012). With this perspective, personal agency is removed entirely and replaced with structural and economic barriers to “appropriate” options of employment or money (Wolken, 2004). A woman’s ability to choose is called into question.

Legal perspectives

Divided feminist and political theories of exploitation have practical consequences, namely the laws and legal frameworks by which individuals purchase, provide, and facilitate sex. Contrasting theoretical frameworks drive the debate with regard to the prohibition, decriminalization, or legalization of prostitution and commercial sex. Although one approach has been applied to the confines of United States law, the debate remains heated and ongoing.

Prohibitionist perspective

With the exception of parts of Nevada, the U.S. currently maintains a prohibitionist stance on prostitution, as anyone who participates in the promotion or participation of sexual activities for profit in the U.S. may be charged with prostitution and commercial vice (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). No distinction is made between those who buy, sell, or facilitate the selling of sex acts. Exceptions include cases that involve: (1) minors, in which any commercial sex act is illegal; and (2) adults, only when elements of force, fraud, or coercion are present.

Considering the complexity of perspectives on the concept of choice in prostitution, it is unsurprising that many would disagree with U.S. law. Some who support prohibition point to studies with high rates of homelessness, mental health trauma, and sexual/physical assault over the course of prostitution and indicate that most in prostitution do not freely consent; therefore legalization and decriminalization would not decrease its harm to women and girls (Farley et al., 2008). Others, including many of those in the sex positivist movement, argue that countries like the U.S. set a high standard or burden of proof for trafficking victims and criminalize other women who sell sex who also may be in need of services (Wolken, 2004). Pro-sex feminists, such as Carole Vance, argue that these standards are detrimental to women, as women are viewed and treated as criminals unless there is proof of force or coercion (Vance, 2011). It is important to understand the current national legal perspective in order to understand the proposed and much debated alternatives.