Prostitution of Women: A Job or a Social Harm?

Is prostitution a job or a social harm? Can prostitution be considered merely a profession alongside other jobs, independent of public morality? Hossein Ghazian, a sociologist, argues that in all professions, individuals sell their bodies or parts of their bodies. In contrast, Nira Toohidi, a professor of women's studies at California State University, asserts that the institution of family and the dignity of women are at stake. This week's debate on taboo topics revolves around prostitution: Nira Toohidi: The reality is that for many women's rights advocates, especially feminists, the issue is not that simple. There is a theoretical and philosophical discussion here, and one can say a value-based aspect is raised regarding how we should approach the 'institution of prostitution' and what actions we want to take for its problems. One approach I separate is our fundamental opinion about prostitution. Do we want to accept this issue by naming it a job and deem it acceptable in society? Or do we want to reduce its harms? Personally, I believe that it is a historical reality that exists in all societies, and we should treat this issue as a sociological reality and find short-term or medium-term solutions for its problems and harms, which mostly affect women. However, in the long term, I believe prostitution is not simply a job; it is an institution resulting from patriarchal and male-dominated relations. Ultimately, prostitution and sex work should lead to its eradication. Let me pose the same question to Mr. Ghazian. Mr. Ghazian, you heard Ms. Toohidi's remarks; what is your view? Can prostitution simply be a job? Hossein Ghazian: If we look at the issue logically and conceptually and assume that a job is doing something in exchange for payment, then prostitution is also a job. It does not differ from other professions in this regard because sexual services are provided through the direct or indirect offering of parts or sections of the body, and in return, payment is received. Therefore, from a conceptual and logical perspective, it is a job like other jobs. However, whether it is an 'exploitative' or 'harmful' job, who it harms, and who benefits from it are practical and social issues that need to be addressed. But conceptually and logically, in my opinion, it is a job like other jobs and does not differ in this regard. Mr. Ghazian, the points you made regarding who benefits, what harms exist, etc., are also present in other jobs. For example, in football, we see athletes using their bodies; in cinema, actors use their bodies, and it is said that there is a mafia, corruption, behind-the-scenes issues, and harms. Why do these issues become so prominent when it comes to prostitution as a job that it can even affect the classification of this phenomenon as a job or not? Ghazian: It does not matter how you perform the work in exchange for payment or what the peripheral issues are. Are you selling your body or your mind? Or which part of your body are you selling? All of us who are employed are, in fact, selling our bodies. We sell part of our 'body' and sometimes our entire body. If we consider the mind as part of the body and temporarily set aside this duality of mind and body, then we are all selling our bodies. Scientists sell the upper and northern parts of their bodies, which is their brains; football players sell their legs and chests or heads, which are primarily used in the game; theater and cinema actors sell major parts of their bodies. All of us sell parts or sections of our bodies, directly or indirectly, and receive wages in return. The nature of the exchange in prostitution does not differ from the nature of the exchange in other jobs. I initially pose this question to Ms. Toohidi. If we accept that prostitution is the selling of the body and can also be a job, what issue connects this 'prostitution' to the issue of human dignity and even produces an emotional interpretation? Do you think that by selling 'sex', a woman sells her dignity as a commodity and is harmed for this reason? Toohidi: You see, the discussion is not just an opinion; the historical reality is that prostitutes have never held a respectable and suitable position in society, in any society. They are the weakest, most vulnerable, marginalized, and most despised social groups, and unfortunately, the burden of humiliation and blame has fallen on the prostitute, not on the buyer. The issue is not that simple. If it is a job, why are we discussing it? Why is it such an issue in the world? All of us who are employed are, in fact, selling our bodies. We sell part of our 'body' and sometimes our entire body. If we consider the mind as part of the body and temporarily set aside this duality of mind and body, then we are all selling our bodies. Scientists sell the upper and northern parts of their bodies, which is their brains; football players sell their legs and chests or heads, which are primarily used in the game; theater and cinema actors sell major parts of their bodies. All of us sell parts or sections of our bodies, directly or indirectly, and receive wages in return. The nature of the exchange in prostitution does not differ from the nature of the exchange in other jobs. Ghazian: The issue is not that simple; even if we mechanically compare prostitution with other jobs, we see that a scientist who sells his mind and body and work is respected in society, but a prostitute is not. Or a worker is respected, but a prostitute is not. This has been the case throughout history and societies. Therefore, this issue has an ethical dimension - ethics does not fall from the sky, although it is influenced by religious and spiritual views, but these religious and spiritual views are also influenced by the larger society's ethics - part of it also relates to the fact that women, unlike other workers, when they provide this service, are humiliated alongside it, both by the buyer, who turns them into an object to be used mechanically, and by society. This is a power relationship; this issue of power should not be overlooked. Secondly, this type of exchange is not merely a work exchange. Sexual relations are fundamentally one of the closest relationships for humans because they deal with the most sensitive parts of their bodies, and this should occur due to sexual and emotional attraction. It is not like eating. A relationship that is supposed to be human becomes an object. Since you raised points that I do not want to overlook - we will certainly address the relationship of oppression and power in this issue - I want to return to Mr. Ghazian. Ms. Toohidi's argument is that yes, it can be a job, and if it is a job, as you compare it with an individual, a worker, or a scientist, these individuals can have a respectable life as citizens, but a prostitute cannot. This leads me to the question of why the majority of people in society generally consider prostitution an immoral act - as Ms. Toohidi also pointed out - even the buyers of sex, the customers of these women, generally judge them morally? Ghazian: If we want to answer the 'why' of this entire affair in one word, that word is 'civilization.' One of the important aspects of civilization is regulating moral systems. For example, at one time, humans ate food with their hands; civilization gradually transformed this into an indirect relationship between the body and food. We establish this relationship through spoons, forks, etc., and an individual who does not adhere to the civilized norms today is someone we can condemn morally or behaviorally. Because they do not behave according to the norms and standards that civilization has created. Even if we want to mechanically compare prostitution with other jobs, we see that a scientist who sells his mind and body and work is respected in society, but a prostitute is not. Or a worker is respected, but a prostitute is not. This has been the case throughout history and societies. Therefore, this issue has an ethical dimension. Regarding this matter, the issue is indeed like this. A set of evaluative and moral norms is placed on this matter and says that it is true that humans own their bodies, but the geography of the body is sellable everywhere except for sexual areas, without any basis. As mentioned, ethics does not fall from the sky. Humans create a set of rules around things and turn them into civilized laws to protect what they desire. Like the family issue; gradually, these ethics have changed. Therefore, I see the circle of families has changed, and the ethics surrounding families have changed. The same applies to prostitution. However, there has been no change regarding prostitution, Mr. Ghazian, why? Ghazian: There have been tremors. Because other factors have also contributed to this; including the patriarchal social structure and the culture that patriarchy distributes. Because the main beneficiaries of sexual services in society are men, and they are the ones who have arranged these civilized rules to their advantage. You, Mr. Ghazian, point to a point that brings me back to the discussion that Ms. Toohidi also raised; of course, Ms. Toohidi also referred to the emotional aspect of the issue, which you examine very devoid of this aspect. She said that sexual relations are not like eating. I will return to this and talk to you... Ghazian: I also have something to say in this regard... Ms. Toohidi: My problem with Mr. Ghazian's justification is that if we proceed with this view, we should gradually arrive at the law of the jungle and the relationships of animals with each other and say that humans are also animals. The side effect of his speech is that ethics is an additional thing in societies. While we cannot imagine any society without ethics. Humans are social beings; we can reduce sexual relations to a purely mechanical relationship like eating food - as we do in the sale of bodies - but we have a very powerful institution in front of the institution of prostitution called the family. One of the problems of the institution of prostitution is that it harms the institution of family. That is, especially from the perspective of women, in any tension that arises in the family, a man can easily leave the family sphere and satisfy his sexual needs with other women, but a woman cannot do this. Women see prostitution, especially as a threat to their lives. In Iran itself, a man can easily do this; of course, they have also given a religious form to prostitution in the name of 'Sigheh', meaning a man can always have sexual diversity - but a woman cannot; neither legally nor morally. Women do it in practice, but morally they are more blamed and ostracized than men. Let us return to Mr. Ghazian. Mr. Ghazian, you refer to a society before civilization and devoid of ethics, as Ms. Toohidi speaks; could your discussions lead to this? And then also about the issue of removing emotions from sexual relations, what do you have to say about these matters?