On the Sex Trade
The existence of the sex trade is a blight on modern society and today presents one of the most glaringly obvious examples of inequality between the sexes. A few months ago in Galway, Ógra Shinn Féin passed the following motion:
The full decriminalisation of those who sell sex.
High quality harm reduction services for those in prostitution in conjunction with exiting - support including housing, legal advice, long-term psychological support, education and training and addiction services.
The purchase of sex to be a criminal offense.
Anti-sex trafficking legislation to be strengthened and enforced.
Social protections for at risk groups to be strengthened to an adequate level.
Recognises that full decriminalisation and legalisation of prostitution has been a disaster for women’s rights, with rape, human trafficking and violence against women increasing in almost every instance of the law being liberalised.
Defines sexual consent as being: freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic and specific, and that the purchase of sex is incompatible with this definition
This Comhdháil recognises that the sexualisation of women places men in a position of superiority and impedes class struggle, and members will therefore strive to create and sustain a safe and misogyny free atmosphere within the republican movement and in our communities.
The motion proposed was a result of extensive research and speaking with prostitution survivors, there was debate on this motion and that is what has encouraged me to write this piece.
The issues of contention on this very important issue are far too often the subject of misinformation and misguided opinion. It is incumbent on socialists to establish a set of ideologically robust principles that promote the socio-economic wellbeing of working-class women, in an attempt to help clarify the socialist position on the sex trade, I make the following statements:
The sex industry as it stands today is misogynistic to its core, where men are nearly the exclusive buyers of sex, and working-class women nearly the exclusive sellers of sex. When we analyse the sex industry, we must do so in full acknowledgement of this reality. Working class women are the primary victims in the sex trade, and any attempts to centre men, or middle and upper class-women in this discussion are at best woefully misguided and at worst sinister attempts to further suppress the voices of working-class women. Patriarchal capitalism is the reason why the sex trade exists.
There are a number of ways in which advocates of liberalising prostitution attempt to centre men when it comes to this issue, one of these ways is the “Disabled men have a right to sex” argument, notably it is a point of view taken not by disabled people’s groups, but able-bodied liberals attempting to justify the sex trade. The argument, which predicates itself on the offensive notion that disabled people are incapable of forming partnerships outside of economically coercive circumstances, is grotesque. In the end, it all comes back to that precept which feminists have fought against for decades; that men’s sexuality is untouchable and that it should take precedence over the rights and autonomy of socially disadvantaged, prostituted women.
Sexual consent and its definition is something that must be considered when discussing the sex trade. In order for affirmative sexual consent to be established, it must be freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic and specific.
Reducing sexual consent to a financial contract between two people would go against at least three of the five above metrics. Do liberals really mean to say, “well actually, if you’re a working-class woman with few options left, this definition of sexual consent doesn’t apply to you”?
The “choice” faced by women selling their bodies is to either have sex with men for money, or go without roof overhead, and food in belly. There is no circumstance where this economic coercion can be ignored. Coercion is incompatible with sexual consent, sin é.
The problem is that those advocating a liberal position rather than a socialist position on this issue would seek to centre the experience of middle- and upper-class escorts as representative for all women who are prostituted. The reality is that the representative experience is one marred with emotional abuse, physical abuse, rape, trafficking, disease, drug abuse and economic deprivation, as socialists we endeavour to apply the lens of class struggle, and recognise that the women we ally ourselves with are those who must on a daily basis face the daunting choice to either afford the rent, or take back control of their bodies.
The notion that the commodification of women’s bodies can somehow be reformed to the point of acceptability is farcical, someone leveraging their economic power over another person in order to get sex is a power dynamic that is entirely unacceptable.
We are socialists, we are by very definition partisan, we do not represent, nor do we seek to represent all people. Our party’s political interests are the interests of the working class, this remains the case when we analyse the sex industry.
The sex industry is one which victimises working class women, and warps men’s perception of women, further entrenching misogyny and exploitation of women, we are therefore opposed to its existence and will do whatever possible to reduce the exploitation of the working class.
To close, the liberal position on prostitution ignores material conditions in favour of fantastical scenarios that have never existed in any of the countries that have actually implemented the laws that these people advocate for. What has happened where these laws have been implemented, is that instances of rape, human trafficking and sexual harassment have all skyrocketed... along with the profits of the brothel owners.