Speaking on social issues can cause a lot of controversy in whatever scenario you are in.  Whether it is a family function, work environment or with your friends’, people can feel very strongly towards one side or the other.  Athletes are often put in very difficult situations when it comes to these issues.  Athletes have a large following and are often thought to be role models for us, and if they act too strongly to either side, they might get some push back from the media.  At the same time if athletes don’t do anything then might get criticism for not using their platform to lead others to what they believe is right. 

The biggest athlete as of late to take a stance on a social issue was Colin Kaepernick protesting in support of Black Lives Matter in the 2016 football season.  Colin Kaepernick received lots of criticism from people in media accusing of him being anti-American, however he felt that this was a peaceful way to call out the mistreatment of Black Americans in our society.  He was not thought highly of for what people believed as the wrong time to protest, however his protests are the base for what athletes protest for today.  During the most recent NBA season many protests took place with the same beliefs as Kaepernick had.  There was a difference in the way in which people thought of these players.  The media was a lot more supportive of their beliefs and weren’t as critical.  This shows the progress that has been made over the last four years.

In the Time article by Sean Gregory the main focus is an interview with Jason McCourty and how he feels that the protest of Colin Kaepernick and George Floyd are similar.  McCourty believes that both of them were protesting the cops use of authority as a whole rather than just the specific action.  Athletes have grown to be bolder in their views and not listen to those who want them to “stick to sports.”  The athletes aren’t concerned with how many people, but rather want to see real change by seeing a decline in police brutality and innocent lives being lost.  In the article he makes a great point about how he sees the other side of wanting to keep politics out of sports.  Showing the other side of the argument provides ethos by showing that people don’t want politics when they watch sports.  He goes one step further by saying that it isn’t about politics to them, it is their lives at stake.  Overall the aim of this article is to show us how athletes standing up for their beliefs is not to just gain attention, however, it is their life they are fighting for.  This contributes to the conversation by advocating for athletes to stand up for their life. 

Michael Jordan is arguably not only the best basketball player of all time, but best athlete to ever play sports.  His on the court play is really how he got his name, Jordan steered clear of politics and black advocacy during his time playing.  Jordan was quoted saying “I never thought of myself as an activist. I thought of myself as a basketball player,” he said. “I wasn’t a politician. I was playing my sport. I was focused on my craft.”  This quote shows that Jordan didn’t want to get involved in social issues of the time.  Jordan didn’t want others to not like him because of his political views.  The article from The Undefeated criticizes Jordan for not showing his political beliefs to the public.  The most famous instance of this is when he was asked to support a political candidate, Harvey Gantt, from North Carolina who was running against a historically racist white Republican.  Jordan was quoted saying “Republicans buy sneakers too.”  Michael Jordan was more concerned by making money and not wanting to hurt his profit by making some folks uneasy about his words.  By avoiding these controversial topics, he was able to remain neutral to the public eye and become a brand for himself.  Jordan generated more than $3 billion dollars in the most recent fiscal year.  All of this was because of this because he remained neutral and didn’t broadcast his views to the world.  In this text by Jesse Washington, he points out something that I think is very interesting.  He thinks that Jordan wanted to use his power in his own way and not be told what to do.  He probably hated Jesse Helms, but because he was asked to support him publicly, he didn’t want to.  I believe that this is a little not fair.  If you are so self-centered about yourself that you can’t show your views, it is a problem.  I believe that the reason Jordan didn’t support him was because he didn’t want to support something he didn’t know about.  After this came out Jordan remained “uncontroversial – but not uninvolved” as Washington points out.  I really like this quote, it shows that somebody can have views, but not want everybody to hear about them.  Jordan hosted many events for Obama in his campaign to be president as well as donated lots of money to various groups in support of black lives.  Overall, I believe that this article does a good job of showing both sides of Jordan, in ways he did good and times that he might have made a mistake.  At the end of the day people get to have their own opinions and it is up to them how they express them.

The next text that contributes to the conversation is a video from Ketra Armstrong, a Professor of Sport Management and Director at Center for Race and Ethnicity in Sport at the University of Michigan.  Ketra points out the power of the institution that sport is.  Sports impact on a daily basis culturally, socially, psychologically, and politically.  All of these things together make it a very powerful platform to communicate messages.  I think that is a very important thing here.  Ketra is showing us that all types of people watch sport, therefore messages can speak to many people.  Sporting events are the most watched thing of entertainment.  All of these things that come together make it that we can talk about controversial issues like race and politics.  Ketra makes a fabulous point about that black athletes make up a majority of the sport, and other members of the community feel connected to them because of their race.  Athletes spend much more time in their community rather than on the field.  So, when they’re decorated in their element of blackness and they’re not associated with a team, they’re subject to the same types of harassment and violence that the other members of their communities are.  This is the reason that it is acceptable to speak out on these issues.  This claim that is made is very important to note because often times we don’t see them as community members, but rather as athletes.  This video by Ketra Armstrong strongest piece is the tone it shows.  The tone is very upfront and bold which helps us understand the problems in the world.  Her audience is also one to note.  She is talking to those who think athletes should “stick to sport” and “shut up and dribble” which she does a very good job with her logic and logos.  She makes this easy to understand and puts it in real world applications.

  The final piece that I looked at was research from Pew Research Center specifically the graph that are shown.  The first graph is the US views towards athletes speaking out publicly among political issues based of age, race and political party.  The data that I find most intriguing is how different the political parties are.  For example, 31% of Republicans say it is not acceptable to speak out and 12% say very acceptable while 5% of Democrats say not acceptable at all and 52% say very acceptable to speak out.  To me I am confused how just because of the political party makes you think one thing or another.  The chart also points out that the older you get the more likely you are to not want the athletes to speak out.  I think that this is because as young adults we are so in search of what we think it right and interesting in learning that we want to hear all sides of the argument.  I believe that this graph is very logical and makes it very clear to point out the trends in the United States.

After doing the analyzing of different texts I think it is important to see what role athletes play in our country.  They are often very highly paid and widely followed.  We place lots of importance on sports and athletes.  When speaking on controversial issues it can be a little awkward and when it comes to athletes speaking out, they can take a lot of heat for it.  Many times, they are told to not involve politics in sport, however this is their life that they are fighting for.  As of recent we have seen a shift in how social issues are dealt with.  Igniting with the death of George Floyd many leagues have allowed their athletes to speak out, along with making changes across the league.  This has gone a long way to help improve the treatment of all people.  While there is a lot more work to be done this is a good start to the conversation of activism in sport.

Speaking on social issues can cause a lot of controversy in whatever scenario you are in.  Whether it is a family function, work environment, or with your friends’, people can feel very strongly towards one side or the other.  Athletes are often put in very difficult situations when it comes to these issues.  Athletes have a large following and are often thought to be role models for us, and if they act too strongly to either side, they might get some push back from the media.  At the same time if athletes don’t do anything then might get criticism for not using their platform to lead others to what they believe is right. 

The biggest athlete as of late to take a stance on a social issue was Colin Kaepernick protesting in support of Black Lives Matter in the 2016 football season.  Colin Kaepernick received lots of criticism from people in media accusing of him being anti-American, however, he felt that this was a peaceful way to call out the mistreatment of Black Americans in our society.  He was not thought highly of for what people believed as the wrong time to protest, however, his protests are the base for what athletes protest for today.  During the most recent NBA season, many protests took place with the same beliefs as Kaepernick had.  There was a difference in the way in which people thought of these players.  The media was a lot more supportive of their beliefs and weren’t as critical.  This shows the progress that has been made over the last four years.

In the Time article by Sean Gregory, the main focus is an interview with Jason McCourty and how he feels that the protest of Colin Kaepernick and George Floyd are similar.  McCourty believes that both of them were protesting the cops use of authority as a whole rather than just the specific action.  Athletes have grown to be bolder in their views and not listen to those who want them to “stick to sports.”  The athletes aren’t concerned with how many people, but rather want to see real change by seeing a decline in police brutality and innocent lives being lost.  In the article, he makes a great point about how he sees the other side of wanting to keep politics out of sports.  Showing the other side of the argument provides ethos by showing that people don’t want politics when they watch sports.  He goes one step further by saying that it isn’t about politics to them, it is their lives at stake.  Overall this article aims to show us how athletes standing up for their beliefs is not to just gain attention, however, it is their life they are fighting for.  This contributes to the conversation by advocating for athletes to stand up for their life.

Michael Jordan is arguably not only the best basketball player of all time, but the best athlete to ever play sports.  His on the court play is really how he got his name, Jordan steered clear of politics and black advocacy during his time playing.  Jordan was quoted saying “I never thought of myself as an activist. I thought of myself as a basketball player,” he said. “I wasn’t a politician. I was playing my sport. I was focused on my craft.”  This quote shows that Jordan didn’t want to get involved in social issues of the time.  Jordan didn’t want others to not like him because of his political views.

The article from The Undefeated criticizes Jordan for not showing his political beliefs to the public.  The most famous instance of this is when he was asked to support a political candidate, Harvey Gantt, from North Carolina who was running against a historically racist white Republican.  Jordan was quoted saying “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Michael Jordan was more concerned about making money and not wanting to hurt his profit by making some folks uneasy about his words.  By avoiding these controversial topics, he was able to remain neutral to the public eye and become a brand for himself.  Jordan generated more than $3 billion in the most recent fiscal year.  All of this was because of this because he remained neutral and didn’t broadcast his views to the world.  In this text by Jesse Washington, he points out something that I think is very interesting.  He thinks that Jordan wanted to use his power in his way and not be told what to do.  He probably hated Jesse Helms, but because he was asked to support him publicly, he didn’t want to.  I believe that this is a little not fair.  If you are so self-centered about yourself that you can’t show your views, it is a problem.  I believe that the reason Jordan didn’t support him was that he didn’t want to support something he didn’t know about.  After this came out Jordan remained “uncontroversial – but not uninvolved” as Washington points out.  I like this quote, it shows that somebody can have views, but not want everybody to hear about them.  Jordan hosted many events for Obama in his campaign to be president as well as donated lots of money to various groups in support of black lives.  Overall, I believe that this article does a good job of showing both sides of Jordan, in ways he did good and times that he might have made a mistake.  At the end of the day people get to have their own opinions and it is up to them how they express them.

The next text that contributes to the conversation is a video from Ketra Armstrong, a Professor of Sport Management and Director at the Center for Race and Ethnicity in Sport at the University of Michigan.  Ketra points out the power of the institution that sport is.  Sports impact us on a daily culturally, socially, psychologically, and politically.  All of these things together make it a very powerful platform to communicate messages.  I think that is a very important thing here.  Ketra is showing us that all types of people watch sport, therefore messages can speak to many people.  Sporting events are the most-watched thing of entertainment.  All of these things that come together make it that we can talk about controversial issues like race and politics.  Ketra makes a fabulous point that black athletes make up a majority of the sport, and other members of the community feel connected to them because of their race.  Athletes spend much more time in their community rather than on the field.  So, when they’re decorated in their element of blackness and they’re not associated with a team, they’re subject to the same types of harassment and violence that the other members of their communities are.  This is the reason that it is acceptable to speak out on these issues.  This claim that is made is very important to note because often we don’t see them as community members, but rather as athletes.  This video by Ketra Armstrong’s strongest piece is the tone it shows.  The tone is very upfront and bold which helps us understand the problems in the world.  Her audience is also one to note.  She is talking to those who think athletes should “stick to sport” and “shut up and dribble” which she does a very good job with her logic and logos.  She makes this easy to understand and puts it in real-world applications.

  The final piece that I looked at was research from Pew Research Center specifically the graph that is shown.  The first graph is the US views towards athletes speaking out publicly among political issues based on age, race, and political party.  The data that I find most intriguing is how different the political parties are.  For example, 31% of Republicans say it is not acceptable to speak out and 12% say very acceptable while 5% of Democrats say not acceptable at all and 52% say very acceptable to speak out.  To me, I am confused about how just because of the political party makes you think one thing or another.  The chart also points out that the older you get the more likely you are to not want the athletes to speak out.  I think that this is because as young adults we are so in search of what we think is right and interesting in learning that we want to hear all sides of the argument.  I believe that this graph is very logical and makes it very clear to point out the trends in the United States.

After analyzing different texts, I think it is important to see what role athletes play in our country.  They are often very highly paid and widely followed.  We place lots of importance to sports and athletes.  When speaking on controversial issues it can be a little awkward and when it comes to athletes speaking out, they can take a lot of heat for it.  Many times, they are told to not involve politics in sport, however, this is their life that they are fighting for.  As of recent, we have seen a shift in how social issues are dealt with.  Igniting after the death of George Floyd many leagues have allowed their athletes to speak out, along with making changes across the league.  This has gone a long way to help improve the treatment of all people.  While there is a lot more work to be done this is a good start to the conversation of activism in sport.

Works Cited:

https://time.com/5846354/colin-kaepernick-george-floyd-nfl/

https://online.umich.edu/collections/democracy-and-debate/short/role-of-sports-social-justice/?playlist=understanding-the-issues

We finally have answers about Michael Jordan and ‘Republicans buy sneakers, too’

Most Americans say it’s OK for professional athletes to speak out publicly about politics

For hundreds of years as technology has developed, the media and the news have snuck their way into professional sports culture to report the actions of athletes on the field, but more importantly, the actions of these individuals off the field. In many cases being an athlete and a celebrity come hand in hand, but they are still real people with their own opinions and political beliefs. This brings up the controversial topic of athletes involving political opinions in their workplace.

Generally speaking, many fans and players prefer to use sports to disconnect from the real world and take a breather from the stressors of life outside the game. However, in more recent times the drama of politics has consumed a big part of professional sports and many ask if that is really necessary. News channels such as FOX, call out ESPN for being the biggest culprit of distracting the sport culture with politics. Due to the division families and teams, some former NFL players and sports analysts such as Jason Whitlock believe that anything unrelated to the game should be dealt with in the locker room and “outsiders should not be blamed.”

On air the Fox News reporter states, “The politicalization of sports … an epidemic thats been flooding Americas favorite past times.” To the audience the use of tone shows the solemnity of losing the past time aspect of sports. The action of watching sports and coming together as friends and families has drastically changed in the recent years. These people that came together are now being divided because of their political opinions that are addressed during these events. Another major argument that Fox introduces is that people do not turn on the television at the end of the day to be told what to do and how to act. When all people want to do is watch sports, it is not beneficial to be shoving political views into the faces of these viewers.

Jason Whitlock makes another good point in his interview and says that ESPN came out and basically explained that if an individual disagrees with some of these protests then they are considered a racist. He explains that this is completely wrong and may persuade people that do not agree to stop watching ESPN or sports in general. Absolutely no one wants to go on and have their opinions disregarded and be called a racist.

However, on the contrary many individuals do not only believe that political affiliation with sports is appropriate, but many think it is necessary to use the viewership to prove certain points to the audience in times of current political crisis. The whole year of 2020 has brought some very extreme political topics to the table which may severely effect how sports are played. Whether it is Covid-19, police brutality, or kneeling during the national anthem, it is safe to say the world is changing drastically which puts companies such as ESPN in a weird position with their former “stick to sports” mantra.

ESPN has always been the leading company for sports coverage and it is the first thing that comes to mind for the topic; however, they have recently received a substantial amount of backlash for changing the morals of their company. All throughout the existence of ESPN they have wanted to create a community of sports watching that helps the audience detach from the outside world. As shown in the article above, multiple years ago the company even stood against the tweets of an employee because they were politically abusing President Trump. To prevent potential backlash and to support their company morals they condemned this social media post. In this same time frame ESPN came out with a poll asking the audience their opinion on the the topic. Nearly all the votes were in favor of not covering politics and from that day forward the company launched their “stick to sports” agenda.

The reason this idea of politics in sports becomes so controversial is because of the increasing amount of “bad news” in current times. So much crime gets swept under the rug and this NBA season in the bubble players showed particular anger in this lack of coverage. After the police killing of George Floyd the NBA came up with the idea of putting phrases and names of victims on the upper back of the players jerseys that could be customized by each athlete. This idea was initially to promote the awareness of police brutality, but soon turned into the fight against any type of inequality. However, as the fight against police continued the players began to further revolt which eventually led to boycotting playoff games and exiting the court before tip-offs. Some fans were against this action saying it was not the right thing to do, but the players felt like it was the only way to gain attention and publicity. Most fans however supported this because they too want equality just like many Americans. Turning back on the “stick to sports” slogan from years previous seemed like the only option for ESPN and that is exactly what they did. To this day ESPN said it will cover any political event as long as it involves sports, as the two are intertwined.

This photo is a powerful image that was circulated around the internet to spread awareness and to inform people of the current times. This image is very symbolic and meant to use pathos to strike emotions into the reader. The picture shows multiple NBA players kneeling, wearing “Black Lives Matter” t-shirts with their head pointed down to the floor to strengthen the impact of their main point. In this particular image the only person with their head not pointed downward is one of the two black men in this picture. This may be a coincidence but it also makes a strong point to the reader either saying we all have to battle this as a country and citizens should not disrespect each other, or that it is important to stay strong and do not put your head down in times of hardship. Overall, the photographer of the photo does a brilliant job at using rhetorical skills to strike pathos into the audience.

Many American citizens take the patriotism very seriously and veterans fall deeply into that group of Americans. Many people kneel during the national anthem to protest against the flag and the United States as a whole. Some athletes protest the anthem to call attention to issues of racial inequality and police brutality, while others kneel because players like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf believe the flag is a symbol of “oppression and racism.” The idea of kneeling during the national anthem is one of the most controversial sub-topics in the politics vs. sports argument. This is because there are people who put their life on the line for the country and feel strongly about ideals of the flag that people disrespect on national television. This tends to cause veterans to speak out and share their opinion about how certain athletes make them feel.

About four years ago, Colin Kaepernick was all over the news because of his idea of kneeling during the national anthem. Initially, many people seemed to be against Kaepernick saying that he took the lighthearted characteristics out of the game. He seemingly ruined his career and ended up being unsigned because he was “bigger than the game” and teams did not want additional locker room distractions. It was not until recently that many athletes followed his lead and began taking the initiative to further pursue the practice of kneeling.

This political cartoon, like many others, have pieces that symbolize more than what meets the eye. This being said, the information given through the cartoon can be argued for both sides of this controversy. It is shown that Colin Kaepernick is able to gain the attention of other celebrities such as Lebron James and President Trump. This supports the idea that politics should be involved in sports because it is able to start a conversation that may not have been brought to the attention of people such as Trump and James. However, this cartoon also implements a bag of money that Kaepernick is kneeling next to. This supports the opposite side saying that politics should not be involved in sports because it takes away from the game and causes players to become distracted by potential profit that make come from speaking out or involving politics in the way they play the game. This is a perfect political cartoon because it is able to support both sides of the argument and use rhetoric in an unbiased fashion.

Although many believe that kneeling is disrespectful to Americans, especially veterans, people are willing to listen. Veterans and people that fight for our country are so important and prevalent in this argument because they live, fight, and die for the flag of the United States. As a result, when these athletes make their sport political and kneel during the National Anthem the opinions of these veterans may easily change about the particular athlete or the country overall. For example, army veteran Rocio Serna did not necessarily agree or understand with what Kaepernick was doing, but she still gave her attention without taking complete offense. Instead of fighting against Kaepernick, Serna seemingly agreed with his ideas but not so much with his actions. She describes how it is beneficial for celebrities to bring the elephant into the room because then people are more willing to talk about it.

However, not all veterans feel as positively about these outbursts by Kaepernick and the NFL. Green Beret veteran Michael Rodriguez agreed that Colin was completely in his rights, but he believes that the flag represents liberty to all the citizens instead of this idea of police brutality that these players are protesting. Rodriguez wants it known that the flag is supposed to symbolize everyone who has fought for any type of right that we have as a country. He goes as far to say that Americans do not know what oppression truly is and that we as a country are in a bubble and live a sheltered life compared to other countries.

“What if we had 100,000 Muhammed Ali’s?” -Tom Wicker (NewYork Times)

While many of these political controversies are relatively current, when the media first became involved with boxing star boxer Muhammed Ali he almost ruined his career due to sharing his beliefs through the media. Young or old, these athletes are still humans with cultural, religious and other beliefs. Muhammed Ali marks a great beginning of politics in sports with not only being involved with fighting against racism, but also anti-war efforts due to his religious beliefs. Not many people in this time period were able to stand up and use their fame to address controversial political topics. In this video it clearly shows the consequences that Ali faced such as three years in jail for dodging the draft due to his beliefs.

Finally, the fanbase of the NBA might be starting to show their opinions on the whole situation with politics and sports. There have been many claims by fans that the NBA has simply become “too political.” As shown in the article by Forbes even President Trump tweets that people are tired of watching the “too political” NBA. Thirty-eight percent of the randomly selected 2,000 people claimed that they watch less basketball because it has become too political. This is hurting the profits of the NBA and has contributed to one of the least profitable seasons in decades. These statistics of NBA profits are more than just numbers to the sport as a whole. This poll was created to settle the argument of politics in sports by getting the opinions of the public. The NBA seems to want to make this conversation about the sports community rather than the advocacy of political discrepancies that take over American news everyday. They used this topic to show their audience that the league cares about them and all of the viewers of the NBA.

In conclusion, as media and sports have developed, political conversations have become increasingly affiliated with sports and the athletes. Since sports are so popular, these athletes are idolized by many people around the world and this causes the analysis of every move an athlete makes. While their main job is to perform at maximum potential, athletes still have political views and opinions that sometimes interfere with the sport. This raises the controversy whether politics should be involved in sports or if fines should be given out for those that want to spread their beliefs.

Though often considered one of the oldest professions to exist, prostitution has a history fraught with legal implications, moral debates, and deeply-rooted stereotypes. During the 18th and 19th centuries, prostitution was mostly legal in America and brothels were common. Even as prostitution was declared technically illegal, it didn’t vanish but rather confined itself to red-light districts that government officials turned a blind eye too. However, as the nineteenth century progressed, individual states as well as Congress created laws illegalizing prostitution. Now, it is only legal in one state: Nevada. Currently, prostitution is typically branded as a misdemeanor crime while pimping and pandering (the business side of sex work) are felonies. On the other hand, in many European countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, prostitution is a legal, regulated industry.

With 42 million prostitutes in the world and 1 million of them in the US, the debate around sex work has wide-ranging impacts, especially for minority groups such as women, people of color, the lower-class, and the LGBTQ+ community. How best to treat sex work legally and the larger implications of the topic has led to fiery debates and differing opinions even within ideological groups such as feminists.

An Inherent Sign of Inequality

In the article, “Why Prostitution Should Never Be Legalized” by feminist Julie Bindel, prostitution is established as a cruel and damaging industry. Not only should it be illegal, it should be eradicated. Contrary to other views that depict sex work as an opportunity for women’s empowerment, she claims that it is a consequence of a patriarchal society that takes advantage of vulnerable women.

Her research into movements and organizations that support the decriminalization of sex work, such as Turn Off the Blue Light in Ireland and the International Union of Sex Workers in London, found that most supporters aren’t actual sex workers. Rather, they’re pimps and customers, the people that get the most out of the legalization of prostitution. This is in an interesting find because clearly those that benefit from prostitution have an inherent bias towards it regardless of its effect on society or sex workers. However, these few cases cannot be proven typical of all movements and organizations that support the legalization of sex work, and Bindel might be choosing examples that match her narrative.

[Decriminalization] is not the way forward – unless we want to make it easier for the men who run the global sex trade to make more money out of women’s bodies.

Julie Bindel

Her words establish that a primary concern of hers (and abolitionists- the people that advocate for the eradication of prostitution entirely) is that decriminalization will enable men to further the power gap between the sexes. Pimps, brothel-owners, and other men with authority in the industry are Bindel’s main enemy, and she views them as abusers and users. While others may argue that sex work and prostitution is an opportunity for women to embrace their sexuality and use it for their own profit, she claims that it is the male overseers and organizers that profit the most while they pedal women as their product.

Furthermore, her argument carries a slightly condescending tone towards prostitutes as it establishes her moral compass in regards to women doing as they please with their bodies. She says that prostitutes sell their bodies “like burgers,” which insinuates that prostitutes reduce themselves to cheap, unhealthy, and desirable objects. This is regardless of how prostitutes see themselves. She also critiques society in that it views flesh as a “commodity.” It is a means to attain money because it has been reduced to the level of that of inhuman materials like steel or wood.

A Real Job

The biggest arguments for decriminalizing sex work are that this would protect sex workers and promote equality, which are showcased in the article “Sex Work is Real Work and it’s Time to Treat it That Way” by LaLa B Holston-Zannell. She utilizes a logos approach that largely avoids the conversation of the morality of sex work, which leaves her perspective less open to opponents. However, though Holston-Zannell makes reasonable inferences about benefits, there is little hard evidence or statistics to back up these conclusions.

If sex work were to be decriminalized, Holston-Zannell reasons that sex workers would face less violence, both from the police and their clients. In either case, the illegality of sex work forces sex workers to occasionally endure violence or coercion in order to avoid arrest. If arrest was no longer a fear, sex workers could report cases of assault and violence against them without consequence.

The article was posted in June of 2020, which was shortly after the murder of George Floyd by police and the ensuing surge in popularity of the Black Lives Matter Movement. This led to increased social awareness of police brutality and abuse of power. The article cleverly connects to that issue, expanding the idea of police corruption beyond race and into other groups of people that fall victim to a white and male dominant society.

In addition to connecting the sex work debate to the police brutality controversy, Holston-Zannell implicates its effects on the LGBTQ+ community and trans women of color in particular, thereby widening the stakes of the debate to a larger group of affected people as well as making her argument intersectional. According to her, sex workers are more likely to be part of the LGBTQ+ community, and anti- sex work laws reduce incomes from sex work, which push subgroups already more effected by poverty deeper into it. She also points out that black trans women of color are often profiled as sex workers by police, fostering an environment of fear and distrust with the police. The criminalization of sex work contributes to the problem of mass incarceration, as well as disproportionately impacting trans women of color too.

The author alludes to her personal stakes in the argument when she uses “we” to refer to black trans women. This can potentially build her credibility because she is more aware of how the nuances of race and gender identity affect the sex work conversation.

Holston-Zannell’s points emphasize that she values improving the lives of and protecting sex workers. She does not speculate on sex work’s more general effects on the health of society, nor does she deeply examine whether sex work is immoral or not. She is chiefly focused on helping sex workers, potentially failing to recognize other implicates and nuances or general patterns.

From the Perspective of a Sex Worker

Juno Mac’s Ted Talk on “The Laws that Sex Workers Really Want” advocates for the full decriminalization of sex work, and many of her reasons align with Holston Zannell’s. She effectively summarizes why full criminalization (all involved can be arrested), partial criminalization (the buying and selling of sex are legal but other activities like brothel-keeping are not), and criminalization of buyers are not in the best interest of sex workers:

Fear of law enforcement makes [sex workers] work alone in isolated locations, and allows clients and even cops to get abusive in the knowledge they’ll get away with it. Fines and criminal records force people to keep selling sex, rather than enabling them to stop. Crackdowns on buyers drive sellers to take dangerous risks and into the arms of potentially abusive managers. 

Juno Mac

However, she also explains why legalization and regulation of the industry is also not the best solution. This may seem surprising to some because on the surface, it sounds like this is what sex workers would want or what is the most effective at keeping sex workers safe. Mac counters this by arguing that only rich brothel owners would be able to easily navigate the restrictions and fulfill the requirements caused by regulation. Poor sex workers, often from marginalized groups, would likely still take the illegal route out of desperation, and as a result, they’d face the same issues and risks that they did when sex work was criminalized.

Though Mac favors decriminalization as the ideal solution , her main point is that lawmakers and all people should listen to sex workers in regards to the issue of sex work because they’re the “ones most affected by these laws.” It is not the house mom or accountant or celebrity that see their lives and livelihoods threatened by how sex work operates in the world or how it is legally treated. It is sex workers with the most at stake in this conversation.

If you care about gender equality or poverty or migration or public health, then sex worker rights matter to you. Make space for us in your movements. That means not only listening to sex workers when we speak but amplifying our voices.

Juno Mac

Through connecting sex worker rights to multiple other issues such as race, gender, and class, Mac creates higher concern for an issue that most people don’t think about. It is an interconnected issue and all people, sex workers or not, should care about it if they care about human rights and equality (this puts pressure on activists and the like who have not participated in this discourse). Still, she emphasizes that boosting the voices of sex workers is most important in this issue. The priority is not other people’s feelings and morals.

From the Perspective of an Ex-Prostitute

The opinion piece “Buying Sex Should Not Be Legal” by Rachel Moran takes a starkly different approach to the issue than Mac. Moran argues that full decriminalization will do more harm than good.

The effort to decriminalize the sex trade worldwide is not a progressive movement. Implementing this policy will simply calcify into law men’s entitlement to buy sex, while decriminalizing pimping will protect no one but the pimps.

Rachel Moran

Like Bindel, she believes that legal acceptance of prostitution gives men a sense of having the right to women’s bodies. However, framing men as an enemy or opponent in unsubtle terms (Bindel more carefully references the patriarchy, so that her enemy is a societal phenomenon, or targets men at the top of the sex work industry specifically) opens her argument up to defensive attacks from men, who perhaps might lay blame on prostitutes for their choices.

She also ties in the issues of class like Mac, but to a different end. She argues that those who willingly consent to sex work ( as a rebuttal to one argument in favor of sex work because women consent to it) are white and middle class women often part of escort agencies, while the majority of sex workers are the unprivileged, poor minority that might have been forced or coerced into the trade.

 Their [white women in escort agencies] right to sell doesn’t trump my right and others’ not to be sold in a trade that preys on women already marginalized by class and race.

Rachel Moran

Her own harrowing story follows this pattern. After the death of her father and inability of her mother to care for her, she ended up on the streets and was pimped out at the age of 15, leading to great effects on her mental health. This experience is much different that Mac’s, who chose to join a brothel as an adult woman in order to pay the bills. It is this difference in background that likely contributes to their difference in opinion. Not all sex workers experience sex work the same way.

Moran’s proposed alternative is an approach that Mac shot down. She advocates for the criminalization of sex buyers and legalization of sex selling, often referred to as the Nordic model because this system was implemented in Norway. This solution is less likely to trap women in the sex industry while decreasing the market demand and hopefully reducing the industry as a whole.

According to Moran, sex work is inherently coercive. She doesn’t have a negative perception of sex itself, but she views sex work as entirely different than normal, consensual sex and entirely different than “ordinary employment.” Prostitution involves “ritual degradation” by strangers using women’s bodies “to satiate their urges.” Her tone demonizes sex buyers and portrays prostitutes as victims, which is sharply different than how some prostitutes/ sex workers view themselves, as working women doing what is necessary to make ends meet.

Her opinions represent a rift in agreement amongst feminists. Most modern, third-wave feminists believe in women’s sexual freedom, but not all feminists see sex work as part of this liberation. In Moran’s eyes, sex work is so unlike typical sex that the issues are separate. Opposing feminists might argue that banning sex work is an effort to control women and how they chose to use their bodies. However, the arguments of Bindel, Holston-Zannell, Mac, and Moran all appear to agree that regardless of one’s opinion on sex work, it is a women’s issue and the debate’s outcomes chiefly affect women. Thus, it should be women’s voices that are listened to, even if those voices speak in favor of differing solutions.

Putting It All Together

A key difference in the source materials, two of which that support decriminalizing sex work and two of which that do not, is the label placed upon the subject of the debate. Sex worker or prostitute? Supporters of decriminalization tended to use the term “sex worker”, which suggests that sex work is a legitimate form of work and is merely an exchange of goods and services, as is every other career. On the other hand, opponents of decriminalization tend to use the term “prostitute,” which carries with it a long history and a negative connotation that is very much associated with the poverty, violence, and the poor conditions some prostitutes experience.

Though each text clearly leans in one direction or the other, each does so for different reasons and places importance on different values. Bindel cares about the patriarchy and how sex work enforces it while Holston-Zannell prioritizes the well-being of sex workers. Mac emphasizes the necessity of listening to the voices of sex workers while Moran advocates for the end of of an exploitative, predatory industry above all else. All seem to care deeply about the issue and the people involved, but their personal histories and knowledge have led to radically different ways of approaching the problem. This makes the discussion of sex work particularly complex. Those that have similar values may have different solutions, and those proposing the same solution may do so out of different values.

It seems that the only wrong answer is thinking that there is only one right answer.

Citations

Bindel, Julie. “Why Prostitution Should Never Be Legalised .” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 11 Oct. 2017, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/prostitution-legalised-sex-trade-pimps-women.

Holston-Zannell, Lala. “Sex Work Is Real Work, and It’s Time to Treat It That Way.” American Civil Liberties Union, http://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/sex-work-is-real-work-and-its-time-to-treat-it-that-way/.

Lubin, Gus. “There Are 42 Million Prostitutes In The World, And Here’s Where They Live.” Business Insider, 17 Jan. 2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/there-are-42-million-prostitutes-in-the-world-and-heres-where-they-live-2012-1.

Mac, Juno. “The Laws That Sex Workers Really Want.” TED, Ted Conferences, http://www.ted.com/talks/juno_mac_the_laws_that_sex_workers_really_want/transcript?utm_campaign=eNewsletter.

Moran, Rachel. “Buying Sex Should Not Be Legal.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 29 Aug. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html.

“Prostitution Is Legal in Countries across Europe, but It’s Nothing like What You Think.” Business Insider, 13 Mar. 2019, http://www.businessinsider.com/prostitution-is-legal-in-countries-across-europe-photos-2019-3.

Schwartzbach, Micah. “Prostitution Laws.” Criminal Defense Lawyer, Nolo, 7 Oct. 2020, http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Prostitution.htm.