Bateman 2021

Introduction to “end demand”

 “Sex work has long been seen as a “problem” that needs a solution; a “problem” at the level
of individual sex workers (who have been cast as everything from immoral beings to victims)
and a “problem” at the level of society (destabilising society either by “tempting” men or by
rendering women “sex objects”).”
o “What is, however, increasingly clear is the disparity between feminist demands to
abolish sex work and sex workers’ own demands for rights and respect.”

 The “end demand” policy approach (sex work abolitionism) seeks to strangle demand for sex
(work), thereby ultimately eliminating sex work.
o The presumes a negative effect of prostitution on womankind: Sex workers are seen
as victims of a fundamental violation of women’s rights and a serious form of male
violence against women which is constituted by prostitution.

 Sex workers and sex organisations favour Decriminalization policy above “end demand”.
o They argue criminalising the purchaser of sex, even when the seller of is not
themselves criminalised, pushes sex workers into greater danger.
 “The threat and enactment of police harassment and arrest of sex workers
or their clients displaces sex workers into isolated work locations, disrupting
peer support networks and service access, and limiting risk reduction
opportunities.”

 Why, despite the protestations of sex workers, do feminist groups persist with the “end
demand approach?”
o This is because abolitionists care more for women generally than for the specific
group of women sex workers. Decriminalizing sex work may benefit female sex
workers but would in their view subsequently harm all women by perpetuating the
view of women as sexual objects which importance would surpass the latter.

 In sum, the feminist vein of sex work abolitionism focusses not only on what it sees as the
exploitation of the individual sex worker, but also on the wider consequences of sex work for
the perpetuation of a system—patriarchy—that it holds responsible for the harms inflicted
on womankind more generally (Bateman, 2019).
Sex work vs Care work

 Comparing sex work with caring and cleaning reveals that a set of moral beliefs is implicit to
the “end demand” approach.
o Care work is considered both necessary and morally “good”. It is here, therefore,
that we can find a crucial difference in approach in radical feminism towards the two
forms of “work”.
o “End demand” is indicative of a view that women should not be selling sex, and that
sex should not be open for purchase.
 Society would, apparently, be better of without the exchange of sex for
money, and gender equality would be better served without—rather than
with—sex workers.
o “This therefore brings us to another difference between sex work and cleaning and
caring that could serve to “justify” the abolition of the former but not the latter. The
more one believes that sex—and certainly paid sex—is a “problem”, the more one
can reconcile ending demand for sex work with not doing the same in regard to
cleaning and care work, both of which, like sex work, could be argued to be
nurturing stereotypes that contribute to gender inequality.”

 If, as a society, we were entirely comfortable with sex it is difficult to imagine why a policy
approach which involves criminalising either buyers or sellers of sex would be appealing.
o If we were simply concerned about forced sex work through poverty, we would be
emphasising worker rights, encouraging workers to collectivise, tackling the
inflexibility of the welfare state, lack of access to adult education and employment
opportunities, rather than strangling demand for sex.
o If we were concerned with trafficking, we would be examining our border policies.

“The Cult of Female Modesty”

 Women’s bodies have historically been seen as sinful, and a woman’s respect, worth and
value rests on her bodily modesty.
o A woman finds herself on the continuum between “good girl” and “whore”.

 Bodily modesty was deemed necessary for women to protect themselves from harm—by
keeping their “temptations” under wraps—and for wider social order.
o Immodest women were thought to provoke sin, leading to a breakdown of society.
 Patriarchy benefited: it was able to take what the “whores” had to offer
while at the same time limiting their power, and it gave men a useful
bargaining chip that could be used against all women.

 The only way for women to earn popular respect is to abide by the modesty norms, which
means marking themselves out from other women, engaging in slut-shaming.
o The problem is not “immodest” women but those who deem women to be
unworthy based on what they judge to be “immodest” behaviour; those who, as a
result, see women as ripe for attack and punishment.
  This attitude—one in which immodest women are fair game who “get what they deserve” is
the ultimate problem, and it is a problem rooted in minds, not in immodesty.
o On one level, feminism of course rejects the idea that a woman’s worth hangs on
her body. But, at the same time, it nevertheless judges women based on what they
do with that body, seeing gender inequality as the result of using that body in
“immodest” ways.
 Of course, so as not to appear as if one is blaming women themselves for
the resultant gender inequality, immodest women have to be cast as
unwilling victims. It is simply inconceivable that any woman would choose to
be a sex worker if you believe that a woman’s value rests on her bodily
modesty.
 But once we escape from the “cult of female modesty”, sex workers voices start to make
sense, and the idea of “abolishing” them is revealed for what it is.
o A morally driven and intellectually elitist project in which a group of “clever” women
are ganging up to deny women on the margins of society the rights and freedoms
that they themselves benefit from. It is a battle in which women who monetise their
brains are denying others the freedom to monetise their bodies.

Conclusion

 Radical feminists seem to be returning to a historic ideal, taking the view that women who
reveal too much of their body or present themselves in a sexual way are “objectifying
themselves” to the benefit of men.
o In order to avoid the self-objectifying radical feminists tell women to abide my
certain modesty norms if they are to be respected in the same was as a man. You
must be seen as a brain and not a body and thus not behave like a “whore”.
 This is the cult of female modesty.

 Rather than fighting this cult radical feminists effectively co-opt it and employs its flawed
reasoning to deny sex workers bodily autonomy and blame them for gender inequality
which all women face.

 If any women do deserve blame for gender inequality it is not sex workers or scantily clad
women but, instead, those who propagate the view that a woman’s worth, respect and
value hangs on her body;
o those who believe that women who uncover are “trashy” and that sex workers are
“whores”.
 Ironically, these same women will tell you that they are fighting against the
view that a woman’s worth hangs on her body, while at the same time
pouring shame and scorn in a way that causes the guilt-free mistreatment of
sex workers and numerous others.

 The harm which sex workers face results bad sex laws that leave them operating in the
shadows and from a deep-rooted social belief that immodest women are “trashy” and so
undeserving of respect.
o It is this attitude that radical feminists seem to be complicit in, which is itself at the
root not only of violence towards sex workers but towards women more generally.
  Confronting the “cult of female modesty” can have a transformative effect in
reducing the harm experienced by women in and beyond sex work.

Nice quotes

 “Abolitionist literature argues that the idea that people have “sexual needs” that need to be
fulfilled is a poor argument for maintaining sex work. Conversely, often we cannot exist
unless someone takes on jobs involving caring.”
o “The claim that sex work is unnecessary is not enough to justify abolition. After all,
even if something is not necessary, it does not mean that it is not valuable; sex
creates pleasure, and that’s worth something to the person receiving the stimulation
and orgasm.”

 “[l]egislation on prostitution is not value-free” and that it “sends a signal about what is, and
what is not, acceptable” (All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex
Trade, 2014, p. 47).

 “We must avoid “viewing prostitution as either inherently oppressive or as an expression of

sexual freedom” (Scoular, 2004, p. 349). A sex worker’s financial situation, the legal system
they face, and the cultural baggage—the degree of social stigma—that comes with it will
affect that experience and meaning (Zatz, 1997). These things, however, are all made worse
—not better—by criminalisation.”

 Legal intervention to “End demand” for paid sex doesn’t address economic inequalities to
lead many into sex work. Certainly, it will not be ameliorated by the criminalization of
prostitution which reduces poor women’s options even further.

 The notion that buying sex is equivalent to buying a woman, seems to suggest that radical
feminists themselves—somewhat ironically—see the women involved as just sex object.

 Gabby Aossey writes that “[h]ip Feminist campaigns like Free the Nipple only encourage a
gullible behavior of disrespect for our own bodies, leading to everyone else around us
disrespecting our bodies as well…Muslim woman get respect and are looked at beyond
aesthetics; they are actually taken seriously in their communities” (Aossey, 2017). But this
renewed emphasis on female modesty is not only a feature of religious groups, it also
manifests itself in feminist circles: in the lack of respect radical feminism ofers to “immodest
women”, and most notably sex workers.

 If “immodest" women and sexualised images of women were central to gender inequality,
why are countries like Iran and Pakistan not at the top of the gender equality rankings?
Perhaps it is because what causes most damage to womankind is not women who wander
around scantily clad or who sell sex, but, instead, what happens in people’s minds: the social
belief that a woman’s value rests on her physical modesty.