Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBateman, Victoria
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-04T12:00:40Z
dc.date.available2022-01-04T12:00:40Z
dc.date.issued2021-12
dc.identifier.issn1868-9884
dc.identifier.others13178-021-00612-8
dc.identifier.other612
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/331853
dc.descriptionFunder: Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000622
dc.description.abstract<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Sex work has a long history and takes different forms, but the associated precarity and danger, particularly where poorer women and minorities are concerned, is undeniable. There is growing evidence that decriminalisation reduces harm, and, indeed, it is the policy approach favoured by sex worker groups. Despite this, many feminists instead seek to “end demand” for paid sex, recommending legal penalties for sex buyers, with the aim of abolishing sex work altogether.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Method</jats:title> <jats:p>This paper takes a comparative approach, examining why “end demand” is applied to sex work but not to care work. Abolition is typically justified both in terms of reducing harm to sex workers and to women more generally, with sex work’s very existence being thought to perpetuate the notion that all women are “sex objects.” Women are, however, not only exposed to harm within care work but are also commonly stereotyped as care givers, and in a way that has similarly been argued to contribute to gender inequality.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>By comparing sex work with care work, this paper reveals the logical inconsistency in the “end demand” approach; unlike with sex work, there is little push to criminalise those who purchase care or other such domestic labour services. By revealing the moral nature of abolitionist arguments, and the disrespectful way in which sex workers are characterised within radical feminist literature, it argues that, rather than reducing harm, the “end demand” approach perpetuates harm, conspiring in the notion that “immodest” women are the cause of social ills.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Reducing the harm that sex workers—and women more generally—face requires feminists to challenge “the cult of female modesty”, rather than to be complicit in it.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectSex work
dc.subjectRadical feminism
dc.subjectEnd demand
dc.subjectNordic model
dc.subjectDecriminalisation
dc.subjectModesty
dc.subjectStigma
dc.titleHow Decriminalisation Reduces Harm Within and Beyond Sex Work: Sex Work Abolitionism as the “Cult of Female Modesty” in Feminist Form
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2022-01-04T12:00:40Z
prism.endingPage836
prism.issueIdentifier4
prism.publicationNameSexuality Research and Social Policy
prism.startingPage819
prism.volume18
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.79303
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-06-23
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s13178-021-00612-8
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidBateman, Victoria [0000-0003-3830-3077]
dc.identifier.eissn1553-6610
cam.issuedOnline2021-07-15


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record