Legalize Oldest Profession
Prostitution is referred to as the world’s oldest profession. Although in every society the attitudes towards this profession varies greatly and ranges from tolerance to execution of the sex workers, a review of American history reveals that the criminalization of prostitution in the U.S. was adopted to protect victims of the so called “white-slavery.” At least for the last centaury, prostitution in the U.S. has been largely equated to sexual slavery. It is the position of this paper that the association of prostitution with sexual slavery is ethically wrong and has resulted in the depravation of liberty of those who choose sex work as a profession.
Anti-sex-work movement in the U.S. began when the moral panic about the so called “white-slavery” started. In 1907, George Kibbe a journalist for McClure’s Magazine wrote an article warning Americans about the spread of “white slavery” (Matsubara 2006). Kibbe argued that the offenders of these sinful crimes were among the new European immigrants. The author emphasized that the “white” women involved were not merely sex workers, but innocent victims, who were deceived, abducted, raped and ultimately forced to sexual slavery.
Following the article by George Kibbe, other works of literature, films and plays continued to be produced about white-slavery and prostitution and quite quickly resulted in a moral panic. In 1910, by passing the Mann Act, the U.S. Congress made the interstate transportation of women and girls “for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery” a federal crime (cited in Saunders 2005: 346). In 1914 alone, more than 70 percent of convictions under the Mann Act were in regards with the voluntary movement of women, for prostitution and other “immoral purposes” (Ibid.).
Eventually the white slavery panic became global. The scope of this hysteria in the U.S. as well as Europe has been widely documented (Doezema 2000; Matsubara 2006; Saunders 2005). During this period, some international organization began focusing on the issue of combating “white slavery.” Proposal made in the League of Nations for eradicating this practice included, banning women from traveling alone, special passport conditions, forcing prostitutes to return to their original country, and raising the age of consent to 21 (Saunders 2005). Such measures were adopted in Europe, North America, Asia, and Latin America (Ibid.).
However, contemporary researchers have questioned the scope of “white slavery.” Recent studies suggest that the actual numbers of “white slaves” were much fewer than what was argued at the time and “for the most part [white slavery panic] was based on a retelling of a cultural myth” (cited in Doezema 2000: 26). In this regard, Frederick Grittner, in his analysis of the “white slavery,” defines myth not only as false but also “a collective belief that simplifies reality” (cited in Ibid). Grittner emphasizes that the history of “white slavery” clearly demonstrates a case of a false and collective belief.
There have been different accounts for why narratives about “white-slavery” caused such hysteria in the American society. One possible explanation could be that, defining white prostitutes as “white slaves,” prevented them from being viewed as immoral (white) sexual beings. Rather, it presented white prostitutes as innocent, meaning non-sexual, victims. In the climate of the times, the white middle class society could not accept that some white women may voluntary take prostitution as a profession; since so much of the white womanhood was dependent on her innocence, therefore these women must have been forced to prostitution. The emphasis on the whiteness of these supposed sexual slaves shows how threatened the society was by the image that white sex workers presented. The emphasis on their whiteness also clearly excluded black women, who were assumed to have mature and deviant sexualities, from being victims of this sexual “slavery.”
In The 1910s Anti-Prostitution Movement, Matsubara offers some other explanations for the hysteria (2006). He argues that fear of newcomers and the anti-immigration sentiments of the time, presented it self in form of sexual fear. The author also emphasizes that given the social climate of the time “the forced sex labor of white women appeared to be the worst nightmare, or the reality, in the post-emancipation era” (Ibid.: 57). During this time, the American society was panicked that white women would replace black men (and women) as slaves. Another interesting issue that Matsubara points out to is women’s increasing demand for autonomy and the suffrage movement during this period. Since women at that point, less than ten years before they obtained the right to vote, could not vote on the bases of protection from the men in their lives, men’s sense of responsibility to defend their supposedly weak daughters and wives was heightened (Ibid). By attempting to demonstrate how their protection is essential for stopping the “white slavery,” men had an opportunity to demonstrate the necessity of their protection and therefore, reestablish their argument for denying women the right to vote.
Today, there is evidence that the myth of white slavery has continued and has led to concerns about “trafficking in women” (Doezema 2000). As with “white slavery,” it appears that the numerous reports, academic papers, internet sites, national and international regulation that are established in regards with “trafficking in women” are in fact a response to a relatively few number of cases (Ibid). In Loose Women or Lost Women, Joe Doezema argues there are several reasons to question the actual extent of “trafficking in women.” According to the author, the first problem is that the evidence that is usually offered in support of the “trafficking” claim is from “unrevealed or unverifiable sources” (32). In this regard, the Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women (GAATW) which has undertaken an extensive investigations about the subject, stresses that “finding reliable statistics on the extent of trafficking in women ... [is] virtually impossible” (cited in Ibid.). The GATTW argues this difficulty is partly due to the illegality of prostitution.
The second issue that is raised in connection to how accurate “trafficking” statistics are is the definition that is given to “trafficking.” According to GAATW the “trafficking” statistics that are available, “usually refer to the numbers of migrant or domestic sex workers, rather than” cases of what one might assume “trafficking” is: forced migrations (Ibid). Nevertheless, usually the statistics that are offered for “trafficking” vary greatly. For example, according to the statistics available in Asia for the city of Bombay, the numbers of sexual slaves and prostitutes range from, 100,000 to 600,000. “Such discrepancies should be cause for extreme suspicion of the reliability of the research, yet when it comes to sex work and prostitution, few eyebrows are raised and the figures are easily bandied about without question” (cited in Ibid.).
Last but not least, there are indications that sex workers, rather than sexual slaves make up the majority of this “trafficking.” In their investigation, GAATW found the majority of “trafficking” case involve women who know they are going to work in the sex industry, but are deceived about their working conditions. GAATW also emphasizes that abductions for the purpose of sexual slavery are “rare.”
By reviewing the debates about “trafficking in women” it becomes clear that various groups define this concept very differently. For example, GAATW describes “trafficking in women” as any form of forced labor, as well as coerced prostitution. However, organizations such as GAATW do not include prostitution by choice in their definition of “trafficking” and in general support sex work as a form of labor (Saunders 2005). On the other hand, abolitionists such as the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), include prostitution in their vision on “trafficking.” They argue “prostitution victimizes all women, justifies the sale of any woman, and reduces all women to sex” (emphases added cited in Doezema 2000: 33). Organizations such as CATW, believe there is no such a thing as “voluntary” prostitution. Thus, “trafficking in women,” for abolitionists, includes migrant sex workers as well.
Anti-sex-work movement in the U.S. began when the moral panic about the so called “white-slavery” started. In 1907, George Kibbe a journalist for McClure’s Magazine wrote an article warning Americans about the spread of “white slavery” (Matsubara 2006). Kibbe argued that the offenders of these sinful crimes were among the new European immigrants. The author emphasized that the “white” women involved were not merely sex workers, but innocent victims, who were deceived, abducted, raped and ultimately forced to sexual slavery.
Following the article by George Kibbe, other works of literature, films and plays continued to be produced about white-slavery and prostitution and quite quickly resulted in a moral panic. In 1910, by passing the Mann Act, the U.S. Congress made the interstate transportation of women and girls “for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery” a federal crime (cited in Saunders 2005: 346). In 1914 alone, more than 70 percent of convictions under the Mann Act were in regards with the voluntary movement of women, for prostitution and other “immoral purposes” (Ibid.).
Eventually the white slavery panic became global. The scope of this hysteria in the U.S. as well as Europe has been widely documented (Doezema 2000; Matsubara 2006; Saunders 2005). During this period, some international organization began focusing on the issue of combating “white slavery.” Proposal made in the League of Nations for eradicating this practice included, banning women from traveling alone, special passport conditions, forcing prostitutes to return to their original country, and raising the age of consent to 21 (Saunders 2005). Such measures were adopted in Europe, North America, Asia, and Latin America (Ibid.).
However, contemporary researchers have questioned the scope of “white slavery.” Recent studies suggest that the actual numbers of “white slaves” were much fewer than what was argued at the time and “for the most part [white slavery panic] was based on a retelling of a cultural myth” (cited in Doezema 2000: 26). In this regard, Frederick Grittner, in his analysis of the “white slavery,” defines myth not only as false but also “a collective belief that simplifies reality” (cited in Ibid). Grittner emphasizes that the history of “white slavery” clearly demonstrates a case of a false and collective belief.
There have been different accounts for why narratives about “white-slavery” caused such hysteria in the American society. One possible explanation could be that, defining white prostitutes as “white slaves,” prevented them from being viewed as immoral (white) sexual beings. Rather, it presented white prostitutes as innocent, meaning non-sexual, victims. In the climate of the times, the white middle class society could not accept that some white women may voluntary take prostitution as a profession; since so much of the white womanhood was dependent on her innocence, therefore these women must have been forced to prostitution. The emphasis on the whiteness of these supposed sexual slaves shows how threatened the society was by the image that white sex workers presented. The emphasis on their whiteness also clearly excluded black women, who were assumed to have mature and deviant sexualities, from being victims of this sexual “slavery.”
In The 1910s Anti-Prostitution Movement, Matsubara offers some other explanations for the hysteria (2006). He argues that fear of newcomers and the anti-immigration sentiments of the time, presented it self in form of sexual fear. The author also emphasizes that given the social climate of the time “the forced sex labor of white women appeared to be the worst nightmare, or the reality, in the post-emancipation era” (Ibid.: 57). During this time, the American society was panicked that white women would replace black men (and women) as slaves. Another interesting issue that Matsubara points out to is women’s increasing demand for autonomy and the suffrage movement during this period. Since women at that point, less than ten years before they obtained the right to vote, could not vote on the bases of protection from the men in their lives, men’s sense of responsibility to defend their supposedly weak daughters and wives was heightened (Ibid). By attempting to demonstrate how their protection is essential for stopping the “white slavery,” men had an opportunity to demonstrate the necessity of their protection and therefore, reestablish their argument for denying women the right to vote.
Today, there is evidence that the myth of white slavery has continued and has led to concerns about “trafficking in women” (Doezema 2000). As with “white slavery,” it appears that the numerous reports, academic papers, internet sites, national and international regulation that are established in regards with “trafficking in women” are in fact a response to a relatively few number of cases (Ibid). In Loose Women or Lost Women, Joe Doezema argues there are several reasons to question the actual extent of “trafficking in women.” According to the author, the first problem is that the evidence that is usually offered in support of the “trafficking” claim is from “unrevealed or unverifiable sources” (32). In this regard, the Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women (GAATW) which has undertaken an extensive investigations about the subject, stresses that “finding reliable statistics on the extent of trafficking in women ... [is] virtually impossible” (cited in Ibid.). The GATTW argues this difficulty is partly due to the illegality of prostitution.
The second issue that is raised in connection to how accurate “trafficking” statistics are is the definition that is given to “trafficking.” According to GAATW the “trafficking” statistics that are available, “usually refer to the numbers of migrant or domestic sex workers, rather than” cases of what one might assume “trafficking” is: forced migrations (Ibid). Nevertheless, usually the statistics that are offered for “trafficking” vary greatly. For example, according to the statistics available in Asia for the city of Bombay, the numbers of sexual slaves and prostitutes range from, 100,000 to 600,000. “Such discrepancies should be cause for extreme suspicion of the reliability of the research, yet when it comes to sex work and prostitution, few eyebrows are raised and the figures are easily bandied about without question” (cited in Ibid.).
Last but not least, there are indications that sex workers, rather than sexual slaves make up the majority of this “trafficking.” In their investigation, GAATW found the majority of “trafficking” case involve women who know they are going to work in the sex industry, but are deceived about their working conditions. GAATW also emphasizes that abductions for the purpose of sexual slavery are “rare.”
By reviewing the debates about “trafficking in women” it becomes clear that various groups define this concept very differently. For example, GAATW describes “trafficking in women” as any form of forced labor, as well as coerced prostitution. However, organizations such as GAATW do not include prostitution by choice in their definition of “trafficking” and in general support sex work as a form of labor (Saunders 2005). On the other hand, abolitionists such as the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), include prostitution in their vision on “trafficking.” They argue “prostitution victimizes all women, justifies the sale of any woman, and reduces all women to sex” (emphases added cited in Doezema 2000: 33). Organizations such as CATW, believe there is no such a thing as “voluntary” prostitution. Thus, “trafficking in women,” for abolitionists, includes migrant sex workers as well.
Comment