I find it interesting that the phrase "violation of consent" is most often used when it is a person's lack of consent that is being violated. Yes, I know, "consent" is shorthand, referring to a person's agency of consent - the ability (and requirement) to approve of certain types of actions before they are carried out - the freedom of an individual to choose whether or not to participate. But while a violation of consent occurs when somebody says "no", and you behave as though they had said "yes", it also occurs when somebody says "yes", and you consider them to have said "no". This isn't to say that if somebody wants to do something, you have to do it with them - as all parties must be consenting - but rather that you are not permitting them to do something they want to do. Usually this is due to personal prejudice, and wrapped in the language of protectionism ("it's for your own good"). Multiply this by a whole population, and you end up with a systemic injustice that mirrors rape culture (but by forcing nos instead of yeses), promoting a repressive regime that seeks to limit and control the things people can choose to do.
Consider the difference between sex work and "human trafficking". The human trafficking debate annoys me, despite the fact that these are people allegedly trying to "rescue kidnapped slaves" (the more virtuous a person's deeds sound, the more skepticism should be applied to them - I prefer a hero who does good deeds without boasting to somebody overly concerned with seeming virtuous), because all too often it's used as a cover for a moralizing campaign. The trafficking activist's argument relies on the assumption that women (especially) cannot consent to sell their sexual services. It doesn't matter whether you've been kidnapped, or you've willingly entered the sex trade, because to them it's all the same. Want me to support anti-trafficking measures? All you have to do is come out in no uncertain terms and declare that you support the decriminalization of prostitution (which is the truly humanitarian - and logical - position). Then I'll believe your concern over "kidnapped sex slaves" (versus women who choose, for one reason or another, to become prostitutes) is genuine. Show me that you can tell the difference.
If your platform is that you don't want women to be so desperate as to feel their best or only option for survival is to work in the sex trade, then you fight the conditions (e.g., poverty) that lead to this desperation. You don't attack the sex workers themselves, and you don't attack their clients, either, in the naive belief that if a woman is dangling from a rope over a cliff, then she will somehow benefit from you swooping in to...what, sever her lifeline? I don't believe that jailing prostitutes (and their clients) is acceptable collateral damage, or that "ending demand" for the sale of sex is either practically possible, or even ethically justified. The best thing anyone can do to improve the sometimes harsh conditions of sex work - including reducing the prevalence of abduction and forced slavery (however prevalent it may or may not be) - is to decriminalize it. Give women who sell sex recourse to law enforcement when they are being mistreated, without fear of being thrown in prison themselves. Respect the sex worker, whether or not you respect the work. Listen to their own feelings about what they do. Above all, honor their agency, and their consent. Otherwise, you're no better than the alleged slave traders themselves, denying women's consent, and treating them like objects.
This issue frustrates me, because it's one of many where semantics rules the day - the language is manipulated in such a way that to take the only truly noble position is to sound like an asshole ("you support sex slavery?"), and the noble-sounding position is one that denies reality and obscures the truth. I've been called some pretty mean things for voicing my doubts about the anti-trafficking mentality, but that just goes to show that these people are leading with their emotions, and not reason. My heart's in the right place, too. I oppose kidnapping and sex slavery (except, of course, in the form of fantasy and/or roleplay) as much as anyone. But as a proponent of the rights of sex workers, I do not see anti-trafficking activists having a good record of understanding the issue of consent; so their claims of "rescuing victims" (which often results in a lot of sex workers out of work if not behind bars) are skeptical at best. Condemning human trafficking is an easy way (too easy) to get good PR, dealing with a controversial subject (that's bound to draw headlines), with a lot of moral baggage. You simply cannot construct a robust position on the issue without addressing that baggage, that will not be fatally hijacked by every member of society who wants to associate any and all sex work with scandal and sin. It's like a super happy fun slide for moral conservatives who want to stamp out prostitution in all its forms.
I feel bad for the individuals genuinely concerned for any and all hypothetical victims forced into so-called sex slavery, but the fact that they are naive and their cause is tightly clenched in the talons of corruption does not exonerate their counterproductive efforts, nor does it give them free reign to insult skeptics in dehumanizing terms and still claim moral superiority. Until anti-trafficking activists separate themselves from anti-prostitution rhetoric, "human trafficking" can be no more than a buzzword used disingenuously by moralizing agents (and unfortunate naifs) to crack down on sex work indiscriminately, and further sully its reputation in the eyes of the public. If you really care about victims kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, stand up and do the right thing - disavow the moralists who are muddying the waters. Until you have the confidence to do so, don't be surprised if I doubt your commitment to "virtue".
No comments:
Post a Comment