[LAF] The rational Anarchist Position on Sex Work / Prostitution / Porn

[steve ash]

Prostitution is one of the most exploited industries in existence (though perhaps not the most exploited).

The exploitation exists at three levels:

1) The criminal level : prostitution being illegal allows for the worst forms of exploitation and degradation of women. Examples of this modern slave trade are not hard to find. The solution here is simply legalisation, or at least decriminalisation.

2) The workplace level : even if legal the profession is still open to exploitation, even a workers cooperative can have an inner circle of exploiters, but this can be overcome by strict labour laws for the industry combined with regular inspections.

3) The commercial level : commercial brothels are the sex work equivalent of factory farming, capitalist pressure for profit drives exploitation.
This can be defended against by sex worker syndics operating on a different not for profit culture. Ultimately these will be at an economic disadvantage and the problem will only be solved by the end of Capitalism and its replacement with voluntary communism as an economic base.

Note, at no point here is sex work in itself the problem, only exploitation and coercion. Yet some Feminists would coerce women out of prostitution. By coercing people away from the evolutionary trend as described above such 'Feminists' strengthen illegal prostitution and make it even more exploitative.

Given the obvious attractions of sex work (what would most people rather do work in a mine for a day or fuck an hour a day?) I would think this would be the most popular work choice in an anarchist society, it would certainly be my choice every Friday :)


I think pornography is a far easier 'problem' to solve, the only reasonable arguement against it is that some commercial or mainstream porn is held to 'objectify' women in a negative way. Issues of exploitation in the porn industry are the same for legalised prostitution as given above. The only viable answer to the alleged 'negative objectification' is 'positive objectification' of all sexes not just women). Being a sex object is an occasional part of all people's lives (or should be) and in no way diminishes them as a subject. Of course the sex object themselves must be empowered over their own sexuality, own themselves as a momentary object, be in control of their own objective expression, and certainly not be used instrumentally by another person. 

To argue that 'positive objectification' be banned in order to prevent 'negative objectification' is absurd to say the least. We know banning things doesn't work, unless you plan a totalitarian regime, and so all this would achieve would be to drive things underground, which would weaken but not destroy 'negative objectification', but would destroy the minority based 'positive objectification'. Thus this action preserves the 'negative objectification' of women. 

Sexuality itself is a complex issue and the 'anti-porn' arguements of some Feminists are naive to say the least. For instance the controversial issue on female rape fantasy and self-humiliation (including that staged by others) - as a normal response to negative experience, oppressive social conditions and psychological states in some - needs to be taken into consideration. Sexuality is a complex developmental process in the psyche and not something regulatable by legislation or act of will. Many Feminist arguements are reminiscent of Christian moralism rather than valid psychological analysis.

The gender issue itself is often misplaced as today gender roles are often reversed, with male sex workers an increasing phenomena, also female sex workers, both in prostitution and pornography, often 'serving' lesbian and bisexual women these days. Feminists alas often deploy a dishonest form of arguement when they claim privileged insight into the minds and motives of others, accusing them of 'rationalising' their true gender motives, or a hidden 'hatred of women', a kind of dehumanisation of their enemies, something more familiar amongst authoritarian Marxists and other pseudo-socialists. This might have a grain of truth if applied cautiously in specific cases, but is applied far too generally, and even against other women who disagree with them!      

We know from Maslow's studies that people require sexualisation and a healthy sex life before they can achieve the individuation needed in a genuinely free society, the insights of Wilhelm Reich and Otto Gros are also well established today, not to mention the writings of numerous sex positive Feminists. Sexual freedom and liberation is part of any serious radical political program.  The notion that this will just happen 'after the revolution' or in some miraculous utopia of free love is ridiculous, human beings and their prejudices simply dont change that quickly. Thus free prostitution and pornography will be a social reality for many generations to come (no pun intended).