Prostituting for Charity
A pregnant woman in underpants on all fours in a cage on the sidewalk.
A woman wrapped in cling film to resemble cuts of meat in a supermarket.
Mel B gets her “tits out for trafficking.”
Most of us have come to expect the exploitation of women’s bodies to sell everything from cars to cleaning products - but for charity?
Julie Bindel takes PETA and other charities on in Prostituting for Charity, published on truthout.org.
As a young and idealistic vegan, I was shocked when Pamela Anderson posed naked for PETA. But I was too embarrassed to complain. I figured I would sound prudish, square, or worst - jealous of her “sexy” body and ashamed of my own.
I’ve been trying to figure out if pornography can be feminist. When Julie Bindel confronted many of these companies and charities, she heard over and over, “It was their choice to pose/run/be in a cage naked.”
Choice. Is that the key?
Many people believe that sex workers can be empowered by stripping, live or for a camera, or being paid to have sex. And I believe being naked in front of friends, strangers, a camera, etc. really can be an empowering step for the scores of people who are told that their bodies are shameful. Loren Cameron’s Body Alchemy: Transexual Portraits is a great example of this. The Womyn’s Center art show at Earlham College is another.
But in a consumer culture, how empowering can stripping and prostitution be? Where is the power? If customers don’t like the look, style or responses of the strippers at a club, they’ll go somewhere else. If the management understands why, the strippers will be fired.
If the customer doesn’t like the look, style or responses of a prostitute, the prostitute won’t be hired or paid, and a real need for money hasn’t been met.
Is it possible for commercialized sex to be empowering/feminist in a consumer culture?
Filed under: articles on April 15th, 2008 by Anna Lisa
This is a really good, thought-provoking post. I’ve never been convinced by the “sex work can be empowering” argument, partly because it just doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny and partly because the people I hear or read making it are often men or sex workers. One might think that if sex workers themselves are making the argument, then it must be true (because who would know better?) but the prevalence of childhood abuse (of various kinds), substance abuse (of various kinds) and plain old fashioned psychological defensiveness make me think that perhaps they’re not the best judges.
I, too, have been made uncomfortable by ads and campaigns by PETA and others that use the femaie body to make a political point. If it’s not exploitive, then where are the male bodies? And where is the line between that ad and every other ad that looks the same but is for commercial gain? Is that the difference, the “righteousness” of the cause? And, if so, is that justified?
Does one’s concern for animal welfare require that one put one’s feminism aside, and not judge PETA by the same standards we judge Chevy, or Absolut, or Ax? I don’t want to have to choose which one is more important to me, animal welfare or feminism. Ideally, they should be part of a bigger umbrella of compassion towards all our fellow creatures.