Basic human needs
Another contradiction in the Amnesty / free market position on prostitution, besides the one between “sex should be enthusiastically consensual” and “sex work is a job like any other job” position, is that between intimacy and rape.
That is…Amnesty said in an early position paper that sex is a basic human need, and at least some fans of the “let the market in sex be free” position endorse that claim. Critics point out the need can be met without requiring the help of another human being, and proponents say no it can’t, because the need isn’t just for orgasm, it’s for intimacy.
But if the crucial aspect of sex is intimacy, how do you account for the pervasiveness of rape as an act of war? How do you account for the IS men who rape “infidels” in the form of Yazidi girls on the grounds that they are polytheists and thus unbelievers and thus fair game? How do you account for the way violence is so close to sex in much porn? Brain circuitry, people explained last time I asked that question, and it makes sense – in the brain sex and violence are tightly linked. Ok, but then where does intimacy come in? That is, where does it come in as an inherent part of the “basic human need”? Where does it come in in such a way that men have a basic human need to use women for sex?
Doesn’t intimacy imply an emotional connection? To say you get intimacy from paid sex (just a job remember) seems counterintuitive. More to the point, anything I’ve ever heard suggests that most of those on the paid side of sex actively avoid intimacy. Even those who provide the ‘girlfriend experience’ are only providing a simulacrum of intimacy, not the real thing. That seems somehow even shallower than just paying for sex.
It does, doesn’t it.
Again, the arguments and claims all seem to draw on the most elite (privileged) form of sex work, while ignoring the reality for the vast majority of unprivileged sex workers. No doubt some very well-paid independent sex workers provide real intimacy, but is that the norm? Not from what I know. (Admittedly that’s all second-hand, but there’s a lot of second-hand information on the subject.)
Are people really arguing that? It’s a sign of a sick culture to think that someone can purchase intimacy.
(…But then, I already knew it was a sick culture.)
This is funny. To think men fuck whatever to satiate a need for intimacy. How detached are these people?
Can you imagine the ads if this were true? “Colombian beauties in your area, very compassionate and understanding”. “Open your heart to an exotic teen TONIGHT!”
Hahahaha José – well said.
From what I’ve read, it’s actually not all that uncommon for prostitutes to have some clients who just want to talk.
How much talk therapy amounts to the same thing, I wonder. Paying somebody for intimacy.
(Yes, I know they’re supposed to be trained professionals who are helping you Get Better. Given the track record of talk therapy, though–think psychoanalysis–I suspect it often comes down to paying someone to listen to you.)
Putting aside coercion — no work of any kind should ever be coercive — why is therapeutic massage ok and sexual massage not? If all done voluntarily?
“But if the crucial aspect of sex is intimacy, how do you account for the pervasiveness of rape as an act of war?”
Seems like a non sequitur.
Good sex has or may or often have “intimacy.”
As well some sex “acts” — e.g. Intercourse — can be simply a physical act or one of love and affection.
I think that Intention has a lot to do with it.
Yeah and apparently only men should be entitled to this kind of ‘intimacy’. As if women don’t need intimacy and affection and all those things.
There is never any shortage of excuses to sacrifice women on the altar of the Cock.
Oh, great. Now I have that Coelho book Once Minutos seeping back into my brain. Thanks a heap, people.
The point in decriminalizing prostitution is to protect women from pimps and rape, not address the economic inequality that puts women in the position to have to survive by sex. That’s a different issue.
I’ve possibly misread you, but aren’t you getting things the wrong way around in your final paragraph? Isn’t the claim better understood as being that intimacy is the basic good, and that sex is a way to realise that? In that case, the fact that sex can be a weapon as well is neither here nor there on the intimacy point. It can be for intimacy in some (most, one might hope) cases; it can be for the polar opposite in others.
Of course, it’s still a bollocks argument. I’m not sure that intimacy is a basic good; but even if it is – as others above have said – it’s not at all clear that intimacy for which you pay is worth the name. (Though, on the other hand, I guess the illusion of intimacy might be good enough, from the punter’s PoV… But then, would the illusion ever be convincing enough?)
Enzyme – I don’t know. Maybe it is. But Amnesty said sex is a basic human need, as part of its case for making it a free market. It wouldn’t have worked to swap intimacy for sex in that claim, because if intimacy is the goal why on earth talk about prostitution?
I agree with Ophelia that the “sex is a basic human need” argument for prostitution stands up to any level of examination, so to my mind the discussion of intimacy is not pertinent to any debate that I want to engage in.
In my country, New Zealand, prostitution was legalised in 2003. I don’t recall the “sex is a basic human need” point ever being made. The motivation was more that prostitution had been going on since the arrival of Europeans, despite various aspects of it being illegal. Furthermore in the previous few decades, the police had stopped enforcing some of the laws very aggressively and were operating what almost amounted to a de facto registration and licensing scheme. (I suspect this had worked reasonably well at limiting some of the harms of prostitution, but this sort of thing is open to abuse in various ways.) So, the law having failed to eliminate the illegal activity, it was judged better to make the activity legal, but make coercion of sex workers and under-age sex work illegal.
A decade later, I think most people consider the legalisation to have been a good thing. Whether there’s more or less prostitution than there used to be, I have no idea.
This “basic human need” formulation that Amnesty is pushing strikes me as some combination of problematic, unworkable, and incoherent. Others have remarked on some of the issues with it.
I’d rather address the issue of prostitution from a standpoint of harm reduction. Given that prostitution exists, what can we do to reduce the harm that it causes? Does making it illegal exacerbate or mitigate those harms? (My guess is that making it illegal does more harm than good.)
A “basic human need” is not necessarily the same thing as a “basic human right,” but the one normally entails the other. E.g., food and shelter are considered “basic human rights” precisely because they’re “basic human needs.” So, dusting off my libertarian hat from ten years ago…
The main problem with describing X as a “basic human right” is that the concept of “basic human rights” entails that others are obligated to provide that right. If you’re entitled to food, or medicine, or clothing, then others are obligated (and can rightfully be compelled) to provide those things to you, whether they want to or not, and regardless of what reasons they might give for trying to refuse.
Ergo, if sex is a “basic human right,” then someone somewhere is obligated to fuck you. If nobody wants to, then too bad: somebody must, and can if necessary be forced.
It seems to me that discomfort with the “basic human need” formulation is precisely the unspoken assumption that this translates into a “basic human right,” and the whole idea of being entitled to sex is a core premise underlying rape culture. It also raises questions (that seem to be going mostly unspoken as well) like: What if a person is repulsive, and nobody wants to fuck him? What if he’s dangerous? How the hell does his “basic human need” get met in any way that isn’t horrifying?
If we can talk about needs that don’t entail corresponding rights, it might be less disturbing. A psychologist will probably tell you that sex is a basic human need in that people generally want it really really badly, and if they don’t get it can experience suffering or even psychological harm. As a statement about the human psyche, I don’t see any reason to dispute it; it’s only if someone tries to translate that into an affirmative right to have sex that it becomes a problem.
But if we talk about sex as a psychological need only, without assuming that this entails a right, then it loses its force as an argument for legalization. You may need it, but if nobody wants to satisfy your need voluntarily, then tough shit.