I have to admit I have fallen under the spell of Hollywood beauty, as I believe most of us have at some point or another. We as women buy the diet products to slim us down, we have tried all the fad diets, bought the "miracle serum" to vanquish those lines, stretch marks, acne and have endured hours of painful and EXPENSIVE torture via the waxing strip all in the name of beauty. Someone once told me that a common term for all of this is peacocking (mostly this is directed at males). Male peacocks have the brightest plumage and during mating times, they strut around with their tail feathers in full view of the dowdy brown and gray coloured females hoping to entice them to mate. Working in a bar, I cannot tell you how often I see this activity displayed on the dance floor. Girls with their short skirts, coiffed hair and high heels all stand around (or dance seductively) in the hopes that some equally pretty boy will make an advance towards them. It's all about looking good to attract a mate (or attention). Having the right jeans, the right body type and the right brand label in your clothes will determine what social class you end up in (especially in highschool). I even see this behaviour in the bars- boys who come dressed down in jeans and a ball cap will get overlooked for the boy in the dress pants, slicked hair and "bling". It's one of the things I love best about being a bartender, I am an amateur anthropologist with a captive sample to study every weekend.


   So a little makeup here, a little perfume there and you have a pretty girl for a night. What happens when make up and perfume don't feel like enough to make that girl pretty? Beauty is one of the scariest concepts in today's society I think. It has so much power over self esteem and personal confidence and there is such an emphasis being placed on looking a certain way that people will do just about anything to achieve perfection. An example of this is examined in Virginia Braun's article, In Search of (Better) Sexual Pleasure: Female Genital "Cosmetic" Surgery. In this article Braun discusses how it is now possible to have your vagina reconstructed to fit the idea of perfection. If you have had some children and want your vaginal walls to be as tight as they were pre-birth, you can have that. Don't like the way your lips hang? You can have those fixed too. Does your lover worship Jenna Jameson? You can have your vagina reconstructed to match hers. But what does this mean? Braun says that the major pull for genital surgery is for heightened sexual pleasure. You can have your G-Spot (which is still under scrutiny as to its actual existence) injected with collagen which is supposed to enhance orgasm. Another draw to genial surgery is to have the ability to fix what you believe is wrong with yourself, and in doing so, self esteem is supposedly increase and you will feel better about your body, thus allowing you more sexual pleasure and freedom. This sounds good to me if you can afford it. If you can afford the incredible medical expenses and healing time (time off work). If you have an extra $30,000 US kicking around, you too could look like Heidi Montag. 

  But when is enough, enough? Hollywood seems to set the standard for beauty and what we should all aspire to be as women. I believe the problem here is, Hollywood has an arsenal of make up experts, personal trainers, chefs, airbrushes, good lighting and MONEY to create the "natural beauty" in our celebrities. The pressure to be a size 0 or less is the new trend and those bombshells of the 1930s-50s at a size 12-14 would be considered fat by today's standards. Cosmopolitan magazine has published an interesting article online about how sizes are created and why 10 years ago you might have been a size 12 and now you are a size 8 but never shifted any weight. Click here.

     There are those in the beauty industry that advocate for natural beauty and for loving who you are, flaws and all. While I really appreciate Dove's campaigns on real beauty, I often wonder if by talking about all the ways we should  be natural is putting just as much pressure on us to be the best "natural us". Do I have to buy Dove to be naturally pretty? I have also noticed (and this is only my opinion) that the models they use for their Real Beauty campaign still adhere to a certain level of prettiness. They do not feature the average size 14-18 sized woman with fat roles and stretch marks, nor people with crooked teeth nor bad acne. I wonder if it is because people still believe that fat people are ugly and they would be disgusted to see them on a billboard. I applaud their intentions to build self esteem in women and I hope it spreads acceptance of all bodies all over the world.                                                                                                                  HOME

     An interesting thing happened today which I feel has sparked a way to look at sexual ethics for me. Up until this point I had been focusing on how to talk about Abortion, Pornography, Prostitution, etc., but then something happened today that turned my head to a new light.

     When you hear the word SEX, what comes to mind? This seems to be the first question that needs to be addressed when discussing anything sexual as this definition is the basis of all others. The biggest problem with defining sex is that it is a very personal definition and therefore will be different for everyone. For some it pertains to one's gender, to others, it is the act of love in a physical way. Something ethereal, spiritual, meeting of the souls. When brainstorming synonyms, thoughts and feelings regarding "what is sex?", these are some of what came up:

Slave to Sex?

     The oldest known profession still practised today comes with it, on-going debates. Is prostitution immoral? Should it be legalized? Is it degrading to women? Does prostitution oppress women? This paper focuses on the last question, which shall be done in four parts. Firstly, this paper shall examine Igor Primoratz's essay, “What's Wrong With Prostitution?”(1). He challenges what he terms The Feminist Critique opinion that prostitution is oppressive to women. Primoratz argues that the Feminine Critique offers several arguments on this topic, but he says these arguments lack conviction to make them believable. The focus of the second part will be on Alison M. Jaggar's “Prostitution”essay(2), where it shall be argued that although Ms. Jaggar does not directly discuss oppression, her exploration of prostitution's moral status (and whether it should be decriminalized) can make for convincing arguments against prostitution being oppressive. Ms. Jaggar looks at the prostitution debate from three viewpoints: liberalism, Marxism, and radical feminism. Thirdly, a critique of the arguments themselves (addressing their strengths and weakness) made by the two featured authors shall be offered. Finally, the author of this paper shall offer her own opinion as to why she believes that there needs to be clarification of the term “prostitute” and its imagery before one can assess whether or not it is oppressive towards women. Also it shall be argued that it is not prostitution that is in itself oppressive, but the socio-economic problems that some women may find themselves in which may lead them into a life of prostitution as a means of survival. She will also argue that there are women (and indeed men) who enter into prostitution of their own free will and without regret. These people offer a strong argument that prostitution does not oppress women if in fact the person entering into it is not forced, tricked or enslaved to participate.


Oppressive? Maybe...But Convince Me

     The main ongoing debate today regarding prostitution is, is it ethical?. This debate is usually between those who believe that prostitution is nothing more than an exchange of service like any other, and is therefore legitimate and should not be interfered with, (as long as there is no injustice, exploitation or fraud), and those who refute this and say that prostitution is essentially degrading and oppressive toward women. (3) To illustrate his stance that arguments made as to why prostitution is oppressive lack conviction, Primoratz challenges the arguments of Laurie Shrage. She claims, “ ...in our society prostitution epitomizes and perpetuates certain basic cultural assumptions about men, women and sex which provide justification for the oppression of women in many domains of their lives, and in this way harm both prostitutes and women in general.”(4)

     Primoratz says that the basis of Shrage's argument is that there are four cultural assumptions made in our society and “these cultural assumptions define the meaning of prostitution in our society.”(5) They are: 1) a strong sex drive is a universal human trait; 2) one's sexual behaviour and history gives one a social reputation (women are valued for their innocence); 3) men are naturally dominant and the sex industry caters to this male dominance; 4) sexual contact pollutes and harms women.(6) Primoratz argues that our society does not in fact agree with these cultural assumptions or their presumed power of thought against prostitution. He would agree that perhaps the arguments that a strong sex drive is a universal human trait and that one's sexual behaviour may allow for one to be labelled (with a bad reputation) are valid. However, innocence is not considered as important in a woman's character as it once was, although promiscuity is still seen as negative. Societies' acceptance of non-marital and adolescent sex would not persist in valuing innocence.(7)

     Primoratz refutes the remaining two ideas that Shrage extends. While Primoratz does not address the sex industry catering exclusively to male dominance, he suggests that perhaps that the notion of men being naturally dominant is outdated and that sexual contact pollutes women is not generally accepted in our society today.(8) The latter argument Shrage offers is the weakest one according to Primoratz “Images of physical assault and imperialist domination certainly are not 'the metaphors we use for the act of sexual intercourse'; the most likely reason people do not is that it would be silly to do so.”(9) Generally when people think of sexual intercourse they do not believe that it is all about the male partner and that the woman is an unwilling participant (which if true, would be rape and not consensual sex). Primoratz continues his debate by stating that there is not only one concept of heterosexual sex in today's society (as defined by Shrage's four cultural assumptions), nor does prostitution reinforce this ideology. Moreover, one cannot prescribe these four cultural assumptions to every case of commercial sex as its “political and social meaning” regardless of the individual's beliefs and values on the subject. Some people may see heterosexual sex according to Shrage's four cultural assumptions and some may not.(10)

     All-in-all, Primoratz believes that if his arguments contradicting the validity of Shrage's debate are correct, then there is no convincing argument being made that supports prostitution is oppressive towards women.


Does Immoral Mean Oppressive?

     While Alison M Jaggar does not specifically focus on prostitution as oppressive in her essay, she uses three separate lenses by which to view its moral status. One can argue that her beliefs on prostitution's morality can be used similarly as arguments as to why prostitution is not oppressive towards women. The three viewpoints she chooses to use are: Liberalism, Marxism and radical feminism, and this essay will look at each of the three viewpoints in turn.(11)

     To begin with, “the standard liberal position on prostitution is that it should be decriminalized.”(12 The American Civil Liberties Union argues, according to Jaggar, that prohibiting prostitution is an infringement on the rights of women to do with their bodies as they like. It also argues that the private sphere of the sex act should not be made public simply because it is commercial, and therefore the government should have to prove that its banishment is beneficial to society before it takes action to do so.(13)

     Secondly, one should consider the prostitution's point of view on the topic of oppression, as some prostitutes engage in this lifestyle by choice without regrets. They view themselves an entrepreneurs and choose to work for themselves instead of having a pimp or working for an agency. One prostitute remarked in Jaggar's essay that “the work was really not tiring, (and) that it was often less humiliating than dating.” The prostitute sees herself as the boss and she may choose with whom to conduct business, under what circumstances and for what fee.(14) It is believed that prostitution should be seen as a legitimate business, a transaction whereby services are traded for payment like any other; the prostitute's main motivation is an economical one. Liberals see the act of prostitution as a business arrangement whereby a contract (verbal) is created between two people to which both parties are bound.(15) One might see this contract as a form of voluntary enslavemen and therefore should not be legitimized nor enforced (16). owever one might also argue that this contract is being entered into voluntarily and is not interminable; the prostitute is not contractually obligated forever, nor is her customer.

     If the Liberal arguments hold true, then one can assume that prostitution is not oppressive because it is one's civil right to do with one's body as one wishes and so the power of choice is within that individual. That individual has control over the “business transaction” and enters into it voluntarily. Therefore, that individual cannot be considered oppressed.

     Next, the Marxist view takes an interesting stance in Jaggar's essay as it places prostitutes in the same classification as a married wife, in so far as a prostitute is not only exchanging individual services, but the same type of tangible and intangible services that a wife would provide her husband in return for economic security. Marxists would argue the only way to distinguish the difference between prostitution and marriage is by looking at the couple's economic status. It is said that where there is property involved (as with the Bourgeois) is there the sense of prostitution in marriage. Where there is not property or wealth involved, the marriage would be seen as more of a mutual inclination.(17) In this sense, it would seem as though the wife is only with her husband as a source of economic status and is therefore somewhat trapped in her marriage out of economic necessity. It could be argued then that one could see a prostitute as in the same situation- that she is reliant on her customers for economic security. It would also seem then that the prostitute is oppressed because she cannot survive economically without her job. However, the counter-argument would be, who is not reliant on their occupation for economic stability? Also, do people really accept placing the prostitute in the same category as the wife? If yes, then what does that say about the institution of marriage?

     The largest and perhaps strongest argument that Jaggar makes from a Marxist perspective is the one that is most difficult to defend against due to the nature of our society. This is the argument that prostitutes, as with all wage earners of either sex, are oppressed by the capitalist regime under which we live. “Under capitalism...workers become mere appendages to their machines, no longer human beings but merely factors in the capitalist production process.”(18) Furthermore, Jaggar discusses Frederick Engels' belief that women are oppressed by the capitalist regime not because they are wage earners as are men, but because they are in fact not. This would be confusing to some, however, the explanation given is that if women are to be liberated, they must be “drawn into public production.”(19) The problem with this argument is that it is outdated. Women have since joined the wage earning work force and therefore would, supposedly one can assume, now simply fall under the same oppression as the wage earning men. Marxism also argues that prostitutes are oppressed the same way as all wage earners in that they are valued not as human beings, but by their market value set by a Capitalist society, and are therefore at the mercy of this market to survive. “Since all forms of prostitution result from inequalities of wealth, such inequality must be eliminated. And in our time it means that capitalism must be abolished.”(20)

     Marxism offers strong arguments that prostitution is oppressive to women. The problem with the arguments is that they use prostitution as an example of how the entire capitalistic regime is oppressive (to all people); it does not single out prostitution as being oppressive in and of itself.

     Jaggar's final viewpoint is that of radical feminism. Contemporary radical feminists believe that most types of interactions between men and women are in some way a form of prostitution. It is believed that these encounters are specifically engineered to maintain the male dominance over women. Radical feminists “see prostitution as an institution to assert the dominance and power of men over women.”(21) As with Marxism, radical feminists blame female oppression on the economic inequalities between men and women, to the point where the only resource of survival for some is to be a prostitute. Radical feminists believe the economic coercion behind prostitution likens it to rape and perpetuates the oppression of women by reinforcing that men are dominant and they are simply sexual objects for men's pleasure. Furthermore, radical feminists believe that as long as there is demand for prostitutes, there will be a supply available. This means that in order to liberate women from their prostitution bonds and subsequent oppression, a complete overhaul of male attitudes towards women and an abolition of the male economic monopoly need to happen.(22) There has always been a double standard set by society in which men are looked more favourably upon when it comes to sexuality than women. For example, an older man may be intimate with a younger woman and be looked upon with favour and envy, whereas an older woman seen being intimate with a younger man, is looked upon with pity as it is assumed that her beau is only using her for a potential financial reward.(23) The problem with the radical feminist viewpoint is that is radical. Its stance is that all oppression of women stems entirely from male dominance. That men dominate completely over women is not a common thought in today's society. To say that men have an economical monopoly is quite outdated. While there may still exist inequalities between men and women in terms of economics, it is not great enough to force a woman into prostitution in order to survive. Blaming men for all the problems a woman may encounter in her life is a rather silly notion and one that requires no acceptance of responsibility on behalf of the woman over her own life. Radical feminists do not allow for the idea that perhaps women do have authority and control over their own lives, and perhaps some women choose the life of a prostitute of their own free will.

The Arguments and Their Authors

     Igor Primoraz's “What's Wrong With Prostitution” section on the oppression of women is interestingly constructed as it focuses mostly on four cultural assumptions discussed by someone else (in this case, Laurie Shrage). Each of the four cultural assumptions have both strengths and weaknesses. The encompassing argument (made by Primoratz) is that most of these assumptions do not hold any weight as the ideologies that once supported them no longer exist. For example, the idea that men are naturally dominant over women may have been true 50 years ago, yet today women are seen as having more equality with men. Also, the sex industry may indeed cater more to men than women yet it is interesting how there is no discussion about the parts that do cater to women. Primoratz does his argument a small injustice as he simply tells the reader that Laurie Shrage points out the idea that the sex industry caters to men yet does not elaborate further. He had the opportunity to take up what could have been a strong argument against ideas of gender inequality within the sex industry yet chose not to. On the other hand, the assumptions that a) a strong sex drive is a universal human trait, and b) one's sexual behaviour and history gives one a social reputation, are perceived as still valid today. Primoratz does acknowledge this in his essay yet only pays further attention to the second assumption. The assumption that a woman's behaviour may give her a reputation may be valid, its adjoining idea that innocence is valued in society is less so. As Primoratz remarked (rather well), innocence is less valued in today's society which accepts non-marital and adolescent sex. Today, a woman can still be seen in a negative light if it assumed she has been promiscuous or is “experienced” in the sex act. Primoratz also remarks that further explanation as to why this is is warranted. (24). Overall, the arguments in Primoraz's essay were well presented and one must concur with Primoraz's findings that when only faced with these arguments, one cannot deny that they lack sufficient conviction to prove that prostitution is oppressive towards women.

     Alison Jaggar's essay “Prostitution” provided not only one, but three interesting takes on prostitution as a moral issue. By using three different viewpoints, the reader is able to have a well-rounded education on the subject. While she does not speak of prostitution as oppressive directly in her essay, several of the discussions Jaggar has can be considered relevant to the topic of oppression.

     The liberal arguments are very persuasive against the idea that prostitution is oppressive towards women as it discusses how one must recognize it as both a business and as a personal choice. The Marxist view on prostitution is more difficult to buy into as its foundation lies in the belief that all of society's problems stem from Capitalism and does not state that prostitution itself is oppressive.

     Secondly, comparing prostitution and marriage is a bit harsh as no one truly wishes to believe that a woman is no better off with her husband than a prostitute is with her occupation. The idea that a woman is economically enslaved to her husband is not a popular view in today's society as women are perceived to have a more equal partnership within a marriage, including financially. As was previously noted, one must wonder about the institution of marriage if one believes that a wife is as much of a perceived slave to her marriage as a prostitute is believed to be enslaved to her profession. In addition, the Marxist viewpoint in its entirety can be considered somewhat outdated in most of its views and therefore not as relevant to today's society as it was 50 years ago. Women are no longer oppressed as Engel suggested because they are members of the work force. However it would seem that once women entered the workforce they exchanged one oppression for another, this time one they share with men. Once again, prostitution is not being argued as oppressive in and of itself; it is just being used as an example of how a Capitalist regime is oppressive to all people and therefore prostitution cannot be deemed anymore oppressive than any other occupation.

     Finally, radical feminists believe that all interactions between men and women are a form of prostitution and that these interactions are specifically engineered to promote male dominance over women. The problem with any radical point of view is that it is radical. In order to agree with the radical feminist point of view one must believe in some of the more radical ideas. One such idea is that all the problems in the world facing women are brought on by men and that all women are oppressed by men. This ideology means that women do not have any control over their own lives nor do they have to take responsibility for their actions. This is a very difficult concept to believe, especially in the 21st century.

     All-in-all Jaggar's essay is very well presented in that she offers a neutral voice to the topic of prostitution. As stated previously, using a three perspective approach to presenting the issues helped the reader to get a full sense of the differing views. Jaggar gives a voice to several differing ideas and opinions on the topic of prostitution without putting any of her own personal views into her essay which helps keep the essay from feeling biased. Also, it must be praised that Jaggar uses the ideas of some less popular viewpoints available to this topic (such as radical feminism) because offering new information that may not be considered mainstream allows one to consider more than what is always offered. The only drawback to using some of the less modern ideas is that they can be found to be outdated and thus weaken the argument being debated in present day.


Only My Opinion

     The question being asked in this essay is: is prostitution oppressive to women? Before this can be discussed, it is important to acknowledge how perception can play a big part in how people see things. For example, when one hears the word prostitute, it is fair to say that the majority of people conjure the image of a drug addicted, potentially diseased, scantily clad, destitute streetwalker who spends her nights walking up and down the streets looking for customers. These women are generally looked down upon as less than desirable and are often the picture presented when one is arguing that prostitution is oppressive. The problem with this is, first of all, streetwalkers are but one type of prostitute. There exist many types and levels of prostitution including those who work as high end call girls and as escorts. These women usually generate a vast income and live a lifestyle much grander than most common working people. Also, nowhere in the readings provided for this paper were male prostitutes discussed. If one is to argue that prostitution is oppressive to women, one must also argue that prostitution is oppressive to men. This would, however, do some damage to the credibility of both the Marxist and radical feminist's arguments as they discuss that it is the inequalities between men and women that make prostitution oppressive.

     Secondly, for some women, being able to call all the shots within one's profession can feel quite liberating. A call-girl or highly paid escort, for example, may procure for herself a clientele with whom she can build a relationship. She is able to pick her encounters and negotiate her fees and generally have complete control over the engagement. When one is financially secure, one can keep up with personal hygiene and making sure that one is physically and emotionally healthy.

     In addition, there is a lot to be said for free will. If one chooses freely to enter into prostitution and does so without coercion, force or trickery, then how can one deem it to be oppressive? Certainly there are those out there who are forced into prostitution through kidnapping, forced substance abuse (someone forcing drugs upon someone in order to keep them addicted) or indebtedness. However, to most, this would not be considered an act of free will, but more of enslavement or coercion. Therefore it would be unjust to call this type of prostitution oppressive as it is not the act of prostitution that is oppressing the “victim” but the circumstances or persons who forced them into it and continues to keep him/her there that is.

     Finally, and, one could argue most importantly, if one is to accept that women prostitutes are oppressed, one must discuss why this is the case. In the end, whether one believes that it is men's economic domination over women, or that all persons fall into oppression by a Capitalist society, one must take a good hard look at the situation these women were put into by society which “forced” them into a life of prostitution as a means of survival. Think of the streetwalker that was presented earlier. She does exist somewhere; in fact, there are probably hundreds of her living and working in the streets of big cities and rural towns all over the country. The question begging to be asked is, how did she come to be there? One needs to examine what kind of a life was provided to her that she found herself in this position. Did she receive all the education she needed while growing up? Did she receive adequate attention from her parents during the years when it was most crucial to have a guiding hand to steer her away from a life of drugs and trouble, or did they both have to work two jobs in order to sustain their family because there was not any help coming from anywhere else? When one considers the life of the streetwalker, one can clearly see that it is not the prostitution that is oppressing her, but the society in which she lives who would rather cast her out than extend a hand to help.

     In conclusion, after exploring all the different viewpoints on the topic of prostitution, one can clearly see that prostitution in itself cannot be considered oppressive. Igor Primoraz's essay, “What's Wrong With Prostitution?” offers up several arguments suggesting that prostitution is oppressive towards women, yet Primoratz counters each of these arguments with the statement that none of said arguments contain enough conviction to make them believable. Alison M. Jaggar's essay, “Prostitution” describes prostitution from three differing views: liberalism, Marxism and radical feminism. Liberalism holds the strongest argument against prostitution being oppressive as that women are free to do with their bodies as they wish and if they so choose to enter into prostitution, cannot be considered oppressed. Marxism holds that all people are oppressed by a Capitalist society that governs them. Prostitution is used only as one example of this and in so doing, does not adequately prove that it is in and of itself is oppressive. Radical feminism argues that all encounters between men and women are a form of prostitution and that women will forever be oppressed by men as long as men consider themselves dominant. The problem with this argument is that it is not a popular idea (and outdated). Finally, if one truly believes that a prostitute is oppressed, one must ask oneself how is it that she became a prostitute? Is it the act of prostitution that is oppressing her, or the society in which she lives?

Notes
1.  Igor Primoratz, "What's Wrong With Prostitution?", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians,   
     ed. Eldon Soifer, 340-356. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009

2.  Alison M. Jagger, "Prostitution", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians, ed. Eldon Soifer,  
     357-370. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009

3.  Igor Primoratz, "What's Wrong With Prostitution?", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians,   
     ed. Eldon Soifer (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009), 348

4. Igor Primoratz, "What's Wrong With Prostitution?," 352

5. Ibid., 353

6. Ibid., 352

7. Ibid., 353


8. Ibid., 353

9. Ibid., 354


10. Ibid., 354

11. Alison M. Jagger, "Prostitution", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians, ed. Eldon Soifer
      (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009), 358

12. Alison M. Jagger, "Prostitution," 358

13. Ibid., 358

14. Ibid., 359

15. Ibid., 359

16. Ibid., 360


17. Ibid., 361

18. Ibid., 362


19. Ibid., 362

20. Ibid., 363

21. Ibid., 364

22. Ibid., 365, 366

23. Ibid., 367

24.  Igor Primoratz, "What's Wrong With Prostitution?", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians,   
       ed. Eldon Soifer (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009), 353


Works Cited

      Jaggar, Allison, M., "Prostitution", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For Canadians, ed. Eldon Soifer,  
     357-370. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009

      Primoratz, Igor , "What's Wrong With Prostitution?", in Ethical Issues: Perspectives For     
      Canadians, ed. Eldon Soifer, 340-356. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2009