This is an introduction to feminist theory and shows both sides of the debate. There is one chapter, Sex, that is of interest to me. She confirms that many of the earliest feminists had negative attitudes towards sexual desire.
“Historians of the first wave generally agree that feminist discussions of sex in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were dominated by the impulse to protect women from sexual danger and to reform ‘the beast in man’ (though there were some feminists who contested this, campaigning for women’s access to birth control, abortion, sex education and the freedom to have sex outside marriage).”
The second wave was more positive about sexuality. There were though feminist ‘sex wars’ in the 1980s.
Pornography is said to influence women to behave in ways that they don’t truly enjoy. For example, a woman posting anonymously on Twitter stated that male sexual partners had criticised her for refusing to participate in group sex.
This seems very odd to me. I have never participated in group sex, neither would I want to. I know that group sex is common in pornography but that hasn’t made me feel that it is common in reality. Very few people have done it or would want to do it. I would estimate that less than 1% of the population have tried it. So why would anyone get the idea that only a prude would not want to participate in it? It seems to me that she should have chosen her sexual partners more carefully, either choosing men who are more intelligent or less selfish.
Sex work and the Nordic model are discussed. According to Cameron there are two reasons why some people want the Nordic model. One reason is that ‘the existence of a market where men can buy sexual consent both reflects and reinforces the inequality between the sexes’.
This argument has never made much sense to me. For it to make sense you would have to show that sex is different from other pleasures in life. I haven’t seen a convincing argument for that. For many people it is different. If you have a fear and disgust of basic human sexuality you will feel that, especially if you have chosen celibacy. Most people don’t feel that way though. We all buy other people’s consent every day.
The other reason is that ‘sex should be an exchange based on mutual desire’. I don’t believe that’s the real reason. I rarely hear that argument. It doesn’t make much sense anyway. If I go on a minibus trip to the Lake District I would enjoy it as would the other passengers. The driver might not. As long as he or she is not exploited and has chosen this way of making money I am happy with that.
If I pay for sex, I will enjoy the sex and she will enjoy the money. As long as we both get what we want then we will both be happy.
The more usual stated reason for wanting the Nordic model is that the welfare of women will be improved. We all want the welfare of women to be improved but only some of us are willing to look at the facts of the matter. Does the Nordic model decrease demand? Do women continue to be arrested? Are they helped to leave if they choose? It’s not so difficult to find the facts if you really want them and you are not gullible.
The real reason why some people want the Nordic model is because they hate men like me. I am the type of man that some women think they have a right to hate. They think that the Nordic model will make life more difficult for men like me, and they don’t care how many women are harmed in the process.
They can’t even get that right. Any sane sober man can avoid detection in Nordic model countries. They will only ever get a fine anyway, unlike the young women who are sent to prison for ‘brothel-keeping’. Not all punters are the same. Some are happy to negotiate with a pimp. Others, like me, prefer to negotiate with the sex worker herself. A woman should not be told ‘If you work here you have to do oral sex without a condom’. She should be able to decide for herself, and I have always been happy to comply with her choices.
Cameron states that the Nordic model decriminalises women. It doesn’t. She writes that it is intended to decrease demand. It doesn’t. Neither is much money spent to help women exit.
We should all agree that sex workers should not be arrested and resources should be allocated to help women and men to exit if they so choose. So why can’t we just do that? Evangelicals like Jim Wells, nuns like the ones who founded Ruhama and Radical Feminists like Julie Bindel would never agree. They would say that we can’t have these unless we also criminalise men who pay for sex. Not only does that not make sense, they are insincere. They don’t care about the women.
Cameron states the advantages of decriminalisation.
“They could set up small businesses or co-operatives with other women, instead of depending on the pimps and organised criminals who are powerful players in the illegal trade.”
On the other side of the argument, women risk being assaulted or killed. No sex workers have been killed in Soho since the 1940s, they are never alone in the flat with a customer.
Germany is not a good place for sex workers, the Netherlands is OK, and things are good in New Zealand. Sex workers can be arrested in Germany and the Netherlands but not in New Zealand. In New Zealand workers reap the financial rewards, not ‘wealthy investors and entrepreneurs’.
The last part of this chapter is all to do with heterosexual sex being ‘inherently problematic’ even when it has nothing to do with prostitution. Some feminists choose celibacy. They don’t think women should be having sex with men. So obviously they think women shouldn’t be having sex with me, whether I pay them or not.
Other feminists choose lesbianism. I was aware of the views of Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Also more recent authors such as Sheila Jeffreys and Julie Bindel. Deborah Cameron mentions two other authors who espoused lesbianism, Monique Wittig and Adrienne Rich.
No comments:
Post a Comment