Summary Of Whether From Reason Or Prejudice By Martha Nussbaum

Prostitution is a topic that has been the subject of fierce debate and seemingly endless controversy. Martha Nussbaum addresses this topic in-depth and touches on many arguments against legalized prostitution in her article “’Whether from Reason or Prejudice’: Taking Money for Bodily Services.” One of Nussbaum’s main points in her article is to address one commonly used reason to justify the stigma placed on prostitutes – which is that they sell their bodies. Nussbaum points out that virtually everyone will sell their body for a living in one way or another, save for the few people with inherited wealth. Nussbaum’s principal motive in this article is to “investigate the question of sexual ‘commodification’” by discussing prostitution (412).

Ultimately, Nussbaum comes to the conclusion that the continued criminalization of prostitution only serves to further injure those who choose to follow this career path. Nussbaum argues that legalizing prostitution will help these women, since they won’t be hunted by the police, but, rather, helped by them if need be. She goes on to discuss six different types of professions that require bodily service in one way or another, and contrasts and compares these professions to that of the prostitute. First, Nussbaum discusses the factory worker and how both are low paying professions that entail some health risks, though a factory worker, unlike a prostitute, will not face potential violence. Then, she compares the prostitute to the domestic servant, and notes that both workers are hired by clients who then tell the workers what to do. Next, she writes about the nightclub singer and how both the nightclub singer and the prostitute will use their bodies to provide pleasure to others, with the customer’s pleasure being the focus and ultimate goal. However, the nightclub singer does not have to worry about social stigma. Nussbaum then goes on to discuss the similarities and differences between a prostitute and a professor of philosophy, before discussing the comparison between a prostitute and masseuse. She notes that both the masseuse and the prostitute will use the skills that they have honed to create bodily pleasure for their customers, but a masseuse is considered a professional with dignity in a legal trade. Finally, she compares the prostitute to a hypothetical “colonoscopy artist,” who tests previously-untested instruments for money, and she notes that both workers consent to bodily invasion, though the colonoscopy artist does not face the potential of violence (Nussbaum 415). Nussbaum then launches into a discussion and dissection of seven different arguments that justify the criminalization of prostitution, and she carefully goes through each one to explain why these arguments do not hold up.
The first argument that Nussbaum brings up is one that is centered around the health of prostitutes – “prostitution involves health risks and risks of violence (423).” She concedes that there is truth to this argument. It is well known that prostitutes are especially vulnerable to health risks due to the nature of their work. Sexually transmitted infections are common, and many cannot always be prevented through the use of condoms and other protective measures. However, the continued criminalization of prostitution does nothing to help those who unintentionally acquire such infections, since it prevents adequate health checks and allows the continued existence of pimps. Legalization of prostitution would allow the government to focus its energies on ensuring adequate health checks and better protecting prostitutes from the prospect of violence. As Nussbaum notes, “risks of violence can be far better controlled when the police are the prostitute’s ally rather than her oppressor (424).”
The second argument that Nussbaum critiques is one that complains about the lack of autonomy for prostitutes.

“The prostitute has no autonomy; her activities are controlled by others (Nussbaum 425).” There is legitimate reason to be concerned about the level of autonomy that prostitutes have – seemingly they have very little. However, when put into a broader context and compared with other professions, the amount of autonomy possessed by prostitutes is not so small. Nussbaum brings in the examples of factory work and domestic service to help illustrate her argument. She points out that a factory worker will have little to no autonomy at all – typically, they do the same motions repeatedly for the entirety of the shift and have virtually no variation, nor any power to do something different. The domestic servant, similarly, does not possess much autonomy. The domestic servant works at the behest of the client(s) and will typically have a list of things to take care of, leaving little room for any decision-making by the servant. So while a prostitute might not have a great amount of autonomy, there are many legal professions that have a similar, or even smaller, amount of

autonomy.
Next, Nussbaum considers the argument against prostitution regarding the invasion of one’s bodily privacy. “Prostitution involves the invasion of one’s intimate bodily space (Nussbaum 425).” It is true that prostitution centers around the invasion of bodily space – it is inherent in the profession. However, the simple fact that one’s bodily privacy is invaded is not sufficient to ban the entire practice of prostitution. Nussbaum compares the prostitute to the hypothetical colonoscopy artist to make her point. While it is true that the colonoscopy artist’s body is invaded, it is completely consensual. If we ban prostitution on the grounds that it is wrong for one’s bodily space to be invaded, then we must ban all other professions in which a person’s bodily privacy is invaded – which include this hypothetical colonoscopy artist. While we may find prostitution gross or repugnant, it does not mean that we should ban it on this simple basis.
Nussbaum then moves on to the argument that prostitution makes it more difficult for people to create and maintain close, intimate relationships. “Prostitution makes it harder for people to form relationships of intimacy and commitment (Nussbaum 425).” Nussbaum correctly points out that people in countries with legalized prostitution still fall in love and get married. Also, she notes that reading a novel by Jackie Collins will not eliminate any desires for someone to read something written by Proust. Similarly, people who want intimate relationships characterized by commitment will continue to seek out such relationships. The presence of one option does not require the removal of another. Nussbaum also questions who would benefit from the abolishment of prostitution – prostitutes and would-be prostitutes or middle-class women? It is unlikely, as Nussbaum argues, that the criminalization of prostitution would improve the “human relations” of prostitutes, because it necessarily perpetuates the stigma against them. It could be argued that it would benefit middle-class women, but few people would argue that we should limit the choices of poor people even further and make it harder for them to escape poverty solely to benefit middle-class women and their relationships.
Next up Nussbaum focuses on the argument that prostitution alienates sexuality and turns her body and acts into commodities.

“The prostitute alienates her sexuality on the market; she turns her sexual organs and acts into commodities (Nussbaum 426).” This is plainly untrue. The nightclub singer does not alienate her voice when she receives payment, and the professor does not alienate her mind when she receives her check. Just as the professor is able to use her mind outside of her specific profession, the prostitute is able to maintain her sexuality and use it as she sees fit outside of her prostitution. And there is nothing wrong with receiving payment for sexual services – just as there is nothing wrong with being paid to sing or write. It creates freedom for the individual to further their talents and

ambitions.
Nussbaum next focuses her attention on the argument that prostitution perpetuates male dominance. “The prostitute’s activity is shaped by, and in turn perpetuates, male dominance of women (Nussbaum 429).” As Nussbaum argued earlier in her article, prostitution is shaped by a number of factors – such as the “perception that female sexuality is dangerous and needs careful regulation; that male sexuality is rapacious and needs a ‘safe’ outlet; that sex is dirty and degrading, and that only a degraded woman is an appropriate sexual object (429).” Nussbaum grants that prostitution is heavily shaped by male dominance. However, other institutions are heavily influenced by male dominance, as well. One example is that of marriage – which is unequal in regard to domestic violence and marital rape. Though to banish marriage on these grounds “would be an excessive intrusion upon liberty, even if one should believe marriage irredeemably unequal (Nussbaum 431).”
Finally, Nussbaum addresses the argument that any deals or bargains struck within the confines of prostitution are not true bargains because prostitution is not something that people do willingly. “Prostitution is a trade that people do not enter by choice; therefore the bargains people make within it should not be regarded as real bargains (Nussbaum 431).” Here, she concedes that if a woman is forced into prostitution in some way, then the woman’s choice is not a real choice. If a woman enters prostitution because there are no better economic options, it may fulfill the conditions of autonomy but none of it “counts for a great deal, if in fact the struggle for survival gives them just one unpleasant option (Nussbaum 432).” We must remember that the sad reality is that many women simply do not have better options, and that we must not criminalize prostitution because this would cut down the number of options these women have even further, thereby further hurting the poor woman.
There are a number of arguments against some of Nussbaum’s positions. One comes from Margareta Winberg, the Former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, who argues that prostitution must be abolished in order to effectively fight the sexual exploitation and trafficking in women and children. Her position is only further supported by “the fact that many women in prostitution in countries that have legalized prostitution are originally victims of trafficking in women (ProCon).” Winberg clearly believes that it would be more beneficial to abolish prostitution since it would likely cut down on human trafficking, rather than legalizing prostitution and potentially helping poor women.
Another argument against the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution is that would lead to an increase in child prostitution. The legalization of prostitution in the Netherlands provides an excellent sample case to study to determine the truth of this argument. After the legalization of prostitution there, child prostitution skyrocketed. It is estimated that the amount of children involved in prostitution increased by more than 300% during a five year period between 1996-2001 (Embrace Dignity 7). Interestingly, one argument made prior to the legalization of prostitution in the Netherlands was that it would decrease the level of child prostitution. However, this was clearly not an accurate prediction.