Selling Sex Is OK and Child Abuse Isn’t

by Will Wilkinson on March 15, 2008

I wanted to reply to Ross’s post on the so-called Wilkinson-Howley worldview, but I had to go to L.A. for a little political theory conference at UCLA, where I am now. Let’s see if I can clarify a few things. Ross writes:

Given the premises of the pro-prostitution worldview, what’s so abusive and damaging about incest and molestation in the first place? If there’s no moral distinction between giving a handjob in exchange for twenty dollars and getting paid twenty bucks to wash dishes or mow lawns, then why is there a moral distinction between a father who teaches his daughter how to pound nails and one who teaches his daughter to do something more intimate and (to go all wisdom-of-repugnance on you) disgusting? I understand that the kids involved aren’t “consenting adults,” but if selling sex is just like selling labor, and adults force kids to perform all kinds of menial tasks as part of their education, why can’t adults force kids to have intercourse too – especially if they’re safe about it? If selling sex is no big deal because sex itself is no big deal, what’s the big deal about incest?

I found this comment … vexing, to say the least. I think Andrew’s reply to Ross’s previous post suggests the obvious response Simply reformulate Ross’s question to see how immensely tendentious and confused it is:

If there’s no moral distinction between one man giving a handjob to another man and a woman giving a handjob to a man, then why is there a moral distinction between a man giving a handjob to small boy?

I think we can all grasp that it possible to reject some moral distinctions and accept others. In this case, it would seem that Ross understands the answer perfectly well. Children are not consenting adults. So there you have it.

Since he had the answer, I do wonder why he asked the question. Ross’s subsequent chain of reasoning is a disaster that does very little to help him out. I think it is fair to reconstruct the argument like this.

(1) Selling sex is a form of work. (By stipulation)
(2) It is permissible for parents to make their children labor as part of their education. (By convention)

Therefore, (3) It is permissible for parents to make their children do sex work as part of there education. (By fallacious inference)

But (4) Obviously (3) is repulsively absurd.

So, (5) What?… Selling sex is not a form of work? (Reductio!)

Forgive me if I do not understand this argument. In order to derive (3), Ross would need (2) to say that parents may make their kids do any kind of work as part of their education, which is obviously false. We all know that there are many things it is not OK for kids to do, or for adults to do to kids, that it is OK for adults to do, and to do to each other. Sex is one of those things. This needn’t be difficult. And, since no one was previously talking about children, again I have to wonder why Ross brought it up. I mean, I don’t think he’d stoop so low as to insinuate that people who think adults are capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare, and should not be subject to paternalistic interference, cannot see what’s wrong with fucking their own children. So what was that about?

Sex work is work. It is not always pleasant work. It is very emotionally complicated and requires some degree of emotional compartmentalization and the selective hardening of certain natural human sentimental dispositions. Surgeons, hospice workers, police officers, lots of people, must learn how to cabin off certain sentiments and to develop a bit of a callous in order to do their jobs. This takes some degree of emotional maturity, which is one reason why we encourage kids to sell lemonade, but not to perform surgery on people gushing blood from a gunshot wound, or practice their sexual technique with Uncle Ralph.

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Ross's argument seems similar to one that I've see Bryan Caplan ridicule:

    Something must be done.
    This is something.
    Therefore, this must be done.

    Ross's is:

    Parents can make their kids so some kinds of work.
    This is some kind of work.
    Therefore, parents can make their kids do this.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, Ross's question can be tweaked and his intent preserved. Should it be legal for a 19 yr old daughter (or whatever the age of majority is in your jurisdiction) to have sex with her father for money?
    • ^
    • v
    Fred, Start with the simpler question: Should it be legal for a 19 y/o to have sex with one of his or her parents? Yes. Should it be legal to do it for money? Yes. Would doing either be effed up? Yes. Would a law banning this likely prevent anyone tempted to do this from doing it. No.
    • ^
    • v
    I am pro-legalisation...

    I did pause when I saw Ross' question but found your answer convincing. Something still bothers me though..

    There is that other question few bloggers are approaching... even if they are legal, would you use one?

    Most people wouldn't hesitate to answer `Yes', even if they believe legalisation is necessary to empower and protect the sex workers. Many people would say no, because they are in a relationship.

    I am single, so I can't use that explanation... but if sex is no different from a massage, getting someone to build your house, or getting someone to cut your hair, why is it exclusive to relationships?

    I think this is the thing that distinguishes prostitution from other jobs.

    Every other aspect of a relationship can have a substitute. Siblings/Family/Friends can provide you with an income, you can hire a domestic worker, a nanny to raise your children, a teacher to teach them. You can get emotional support from a psychologist, and love and affection from friends.

    IF there is nothing wrong with getting sex from a prostitute... and the next stage is legalising the business of `being a stud', or `pregnancy for sale'...

    at what point do relationships (with A significant other) become obsolete?

    This doesn't sit right.
    • ^
    • v
    I meant..

    Most people WOULD hesitate to answer `Yes’, even if they believe legalisation is necessary to empower and protect the sex workers. Many people would say no, because they are in a relationship.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, the better way to restate Ross' argument would be this:

    (1) It is permissible for parents to make their children use their bodies in many ways (to study, to mow the yard, to clean up the dishes, to clean their rooms, etc., etc.).

    (2) Sex is morally indistinguishable from any other "use" of the human body.

    (3) If (2) is true, then there would be nothing wrong with parents asking their children to engage in sexual activities. (This wouldn't have to involve the parents themselves; say the parents told one child to masturbate the other child -- doing the other child a "great kindness" in Will's words).

    (4) If (3) seems repulsive, as it does to many people, then maybe you should rethink this whole argument that sex is morally indistinguishable from any other "use" of the human body.

    (5) More than that, once you start thinking about how sex is different from almost all other routine uses of the human body (for example, its extreme impact on the emotions and hormones, its potent power to cement together relationships or to break them apart, etc.), then you might end up somewhere other than strict libertinism.

    (I say "libertinism" because libertarianism would only mean, as a theory of government, that the government shouldn't regulate sex; libertarianism doesn't in any way require you to take the moral stance that all handjobs are always a sweet favor.)
    • ^
    • v
    John Doe: you're missing the point and caricaturing Will's argument. It's irrelevant whether sex is "morally indistinguishable" from other uses of the body. All you need to observe to refute Ross's argument is that sex is *practically* distinguishable in that it requires special kinds of maturity, emotional and physical, that most other uses of the body do not.

    Moreover, sex is not the only type of use-of-the-body that has such special maturity requirements. You can't teach your kid to be a coal miner or a firefighter or even a wine critic. Yet no one suggests that these should not be morally (or, a fortiori, legally!) acceptable professions for adults. "Good, unobjectionable stuff for adults but not suitable for children" is not a category made up by libertines; it's a category everybody recognizes, which we libertines merely want to expand a bit.
    • ^
    • v
    "Surgeons, hospice workers, police officers, lots of people, must learn how to cabin off certain sentiments and to develop a bit of a callous in order to do their jobs"

    And they manage to do this, while the overwhelming mjority of prostitutes do not.

    "Children are not consenting adults. So there you have it... This takes some degree of emotional maturity, which is one reason why we encourage kids to sell lemonade, but not to perform surgery "

    Question begging. You have not shown most adult women have any more capacity to "deal with" prostitution than children have the capacity to "deal with" blowjobs.

    This is an empirical (not philosophical) justification on your part, and the empirical evidence does NOT support you. Prostitutes do not "deal with" their job. That is a fact. They lead tragic, short, dysfunctional lives.

    Age of consent laws are predicated on the same logic as outlawing prostitution: stopping people from making decisions when we know, with high probablity, that they will make decisions for themselves that - due to inherent limitations in judgment - will lead to extrememly harmful outcomes.

    The adult-child distinction is itself a *utilitarian* distinction. It's based on a fictional, essentialist understanding of children and their capabilities vis a vis adults, poor reasoning about "free-will" (There is no magic quality called "free-will" that adults have and children don't), and a theory that restricting certain classes of autonomy will not "spill-over" into more totalitarian-like laws restricting other classes of autonomy. But it's a *useful* distinction because it allows us to stop people from making certain classes of decisions, when we know these decisions will overwhelmingly lead to bad outcomes.

    Allowing children to learn hand-jobs will have equally predictable consequences as allowing women to prostitute themselves. The only difference is that we know prostitution leads to *worse* outcomes for women than child sex abuse leads to for children!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al.

    And prohibiting prostitution will have no more or no less logical or obvious totalitarian "spill-over" than age of consent laws.
    • ^
    • v
    Rain, There are a lot of very real facts about development that really do distinguish adults from children and it's fanciful to think otherwise. I agree that given developmental variety, line-drawing exercises are bound to be somewhat arbitrary, but it is possible to do it in a way that respects regularities about development while minimizing unnecessary and damaging paternalism.

    Do you really have empirical evidence of the effects of prostitution, controlling for the influence of the status quo illegality and stigma? Where may I look at it?
    • ^
    • v
    Trevor,

    why is it [sex] exclusive to relationships?


    It isn't. Prostitution isn't the only instance of sex outside of an emotional relationship. Casual sex of all sorts - hookups, no-strings-attached, fuck buddies, friends with benefits, casual encounters - is on display all over the internet on "dating" sites and craigslist, not to mention on most college campuses.

    at what point do relationships (with A significant other) become obsolete?


    Just because you can get all of the constituent parts of a relationship by other means (well, except for the romantic emotional parts) doesn't mean that the sum of the parts is no greater than each part individually broken down. It's nice to be able to share all the constituent parts with one (or more!) romantically, emotionally connected partner(s).
    • ^
    • v
    "There are a lot of very real facts about development that really do distinguish adults from children and it’s fanciful to think otherwise"

    Yes it would be fanciful, and let's not hint that I suggested otherwise. But laws based on this are necessarilly utilitarian. If children weren't emotionally or physically hurt by sexual experiences then it wouldn't make any sense to appeal to any such physical or cognitive differences to justify regulations against giving them such experiences.

    "Do you really have empirical evidence of the effects of prostitution, controlling for the influence of the status quo illegality and stigma?"

    I can provide plenty of citations that prostitution has uniquely horrifying emotional and physical consequences for most prostitutes in every permutation - including legal and illegal, street and brothel, etc. Here is one review, that deals with this topic specifically.

    http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/FarleyVAW.pdf
    • ^
    • v
    Rain And,

    Can you find an unbiased source for your claim? The "review" you link to is from an organization whose stated goal is as follows:

    "PRE’s goal is to abolish the institution of prostitution while at the same time advocating for alternatives to trafficking and prostitution - including emotional and physical healthcare for women in prostitution."

    They therefore have a vested interest in presenting research finding that women who engage in prostitution are harmed by it. Other studies have found the opposite.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

View My Stats