1 Regulating Sex Work Adrienne D. Davis VERY ROUGH DRAFT ...

prostitute, while suffering stigma herself, may be thought to perpetuate gender
hierarchy.” 324 Another philosopher, Margaret Radin, posits a “domino effect,” in which
[fill in]. 325 Finally, Laurie Shrage offers particularly harsh criticism: “Just as an Uncle
Tom exploits noxious beliefs against blacks for personal gain, and implies through his
actions that blacks can benefit from a system of white supremacy, the prostitute and her
clients imply that women can profit economically from patriarchy.” 326
A related concern is that legalized sex markets will yield another externality—the
intensification of current race and gender norms that feminists find repugnant.
Mainstream sex markets value and valorize mainstream beauty norms. These shift over
time, but some, for instance youth and whiteness and “ability,” remain fairly static.
Hence, as discussed in Section III, non-white women, older women, and disabled women
all find themselves disadvantaged in sex markets. Not only is it more difficult for them
to find work, but they are often paid less, labor in less savory markets, and find
themselves consigned to niche or fetish markets that may or may not require stereotypical
performances that many workers find offensive. Of course, it is not inexorable that
legalization will reinforce market norms. However the last fifty years have seen limits of
feminist efforts to perform counter-education projects in the pornography and exotic
dancing markets. For all of the above reasons, many feminists contend the externalities
warrant sex work’s on-going criminalization. It is unclear how the externalities
associated with sex work will weigh against discerned benefits, which will need to be
clearly articulated.
Of course, others strongly resist the attributions of these externalities.
Responding to Radin, Sylvia Law observes that:
Images and reality of degradation of women, violence, and exploitative sexuality
are pervasive in U.S. culture. But it is difficult to see commercial sex as the main
culprit. Despite the fact that the U.S. is expensively committed to the prosecution
of commercial sex, the commodified discourse that Radin fears is pervasive in the
magazines at the supermarket check-out line, on commercial airlines, in network
television, and, in more explicit forms, on cable TV, the Internet and at
newsstands. Indeed these pedestrian forms of sexual commodification may be
more pernicious than commercial sex simply because they are so ordinary. It is
not clear that legalization of commercial sex would lead to an increase in sex
commodification talk, even if advertising were not banned. 327
324324 Nussbaum, supra note [x], at 705. [Stigma rationale for prohibiting sex discrimination (doctors and
flight attendants) w3ould seem to be strong re strippers! (“the social message that women are primarily
objects for men's sexual gratification” Yuracko 151); Mikulski 20 “If there was one thing I could do, it
would be to get rid of the stigma.”)]
325 [add Radin citation]. But see [add citation] (contending that Radin’s “’domino effect’ argument
implicitly suggests that the exploitation of mostly poor women that results from the criminalization of
commercial sex is counter-balanced by benefits to people whose sexual and economic lives are closer to the
visionary ideal she articulates.”) (footnote omitted).
326 Shrage, supra note [x], at 356-57. But see Chancer, supra note [x], at 164 (“Shrage’s blaming of the
prostitute for “Uncle Tomming” and reinforcing a patriarchal system makes no more sense than it would to
accuse other underground economic workers of collusive capitalism.”).
327 Law, supra note [x], at 538-39 (footnote omitted). Chancer concurs:
In terms of gender, the stigmatization also singles out prostitutes from other women who also use
their bodies to reap rewards in a society common with Hollywood actresses for beauty, for
example, with models, singers, Madonna (her ‘good girl’ name purposefully ironic in this context)
55