I've been wrestling over what bothered me about the red light district. I couldn't at first put a finger on it, because I thought it agreed with my philosophical stance for the following reasons:
1. I'm a realist. Prostitution has been and will always be a part of society. There will always exist a black market for paid sex. It's unrealistic to assume that outlawing prostitution will make it disappear.
2. Assuming prostitution will always exist, if it is illegal and therefore clandestine, prostitutes are some of the most at-risk members of the population: medical risks (STDs), exploitation, drug abuse, violence, impoverishment, the list goes on.
3. Legalizing prostitution, therefore, seems to be in-line with my philosophy: it provides a safe environment for an at-risk population without any judgment as to the morality of their job: help everyone regardless of their transgressions, a Christian view I do believe in. Concerns about safety and protection seemed to outweigh concerns about the morality of prostitution in my mind.
4. Furthermore, I wonder also if legalization removes the aspect of exploitation from prostitution. Are prostitutes subject to the same exploitative environment that one hears about in the U.S. through pimps, etc.; or do they indeed enjoy more autonomy in their work in Amsterdam? If it is the latter, theoretically this also takes away some concerns about the morality of prostitution, as in essence I support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. The argument would go in the U.S. that prostitutes aren't making a conscious choice of what to do with their bodies since it's such an environment of oppression and exploitation; absent of this oppression and exploitation, prostitution becomes a woman's rights issue. I doubt Amsterdam is entirely absent of these two factors, but even if it is closer to autonomy it would be an improvement over illegal prostitution operations.
In short, I thought that prostitution legalization here actually fit with my philosophy. Yet, something was nagging at my philosophical subconcious all day, which I think I've nailed down.
1. From above: prostitution will always exist and should be legal to increase safety and (theoretically) remove aspects of exploitation and oppression, returning it to it's place among womens' rights.
2. Yet, does the legalization of prostitution actually increase the amount of prostitution taking place? Does the legalization of prostitution mean that it becomes more acceptable in the eyes of men to purchase women like objects from shop windows? This is where my philosophy starts competing with my morality.
What struck me about the streets of Amsterdam was the number of guys that didn't look like they were normally into prostitutes, who were suddenly into prostitutes. The average Joe was rapping on those red-lit windows. Two conclusions could be drawn:
1. Average Joes seek out prostitution normally; it's my perception that they don't which was wrong.
2. Average Joes see the legalization of prostitution as a way to morally realize or access their dirtiest desires. Legalization makes something previously not okay in their heads now okay.
If I go with my hunch and say that some Average Joes are indeed more likely to seek out prostitution in Amsterdam than places where it's illegal, my entire logical argument for the legalization of prostitution starts to unravel. Why? Because underpinning the concession that prostitution will be a part of society is the assumption that it shouldn't be. We'd like to get rid of it, but oh well, it exists.
But what if the legalization of prostitution increases the usage of prostitution? For instance, if it was legalized everywhere, would more of our average Joes start sleeping with prostitutes? I find this thought disconcerting not because I don't support the right of women to do what they want with their bodies (I do) but rather that I have a hard time separating the issues with commodification of women from the idea of prostitution. As much as I want to set aside my own moral judgments on these women's profession, I can't. I guess seeing the Red Light district made me painfully aware that even if I want to be liberal and open-minded towards prostitution, I still see it as men objectifying and buying women. And the red light district, where average Joes were doing so, nagged at me. Because if it were legal, would more average Joes see the objectification and purchasing of women as a legitimate Saturday-night passtime? Would enough men take a moral stance against a legally-approved industry? Or would legalizing prostitution lead to a normalization of something that in essence I think shouldn't be normalized: seeing women as objects to be bought with enough money? I want to support these women by protecting them, but I still seem to be unable to get past the concern that legalizing prostitution (and therefore more adequately protecting prostitutes) would validate views among men that I don't support.
Or does strolling through the Red Light district, and legalizing prostitution as a whole, merely show in sharper relief those who would purchase a women and those who oppose purchasing a woman on other grounds than simply that it is illegal? Does it make men acknowledge openly what they're doing by bathing them in red light? Maybe that's not a bad thing either.
I'm still contemplating. But the Red Light district was thought-provoking, at the very least. If nothing else, visit it for that reason: to really examine your own views towards the industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment