Liberal Choice Feminism and the “Girlboss-ification” of Sex Work: The Harms of Being Uncritical and the Question of Empowerment and Choice

I argue that liberal choice feminist arguments are insufficient to justify the normalization and “empowering” narrative of sex work, as they fail to address the larger inequalities impacting sex workers and women in general. Rather, sex work reinforces the objectification of women, as it reduces them down to only the sexual aspects of their bodies and their ability to sexually gratify men. Further, sex work relies on and upholds the subordination of women by men as a result of economic inequalities between men and women and ideologies which claim that men have a ‘right’ to sex. Therefore, the argument by liberal choice feminists that sex work is empowering and should be normalized is false, as sex work causes further harm to women, both women who are sex workers as well as those who are not as they are still affected by the consequences and implications of sex work on women as a whole. In discussing sex work, I am discussing the selling of sexual acts in exchange for payment. Commonly understood as prostitution, sex work has been the term used more commonly in feminist circles in order to avoid the derogatory nature of the term prostitution. Sex work also includes more ‘modern’ digital forms of sex work, such as pornography and ‘camming’ sites such as OnlyFans in which women can sell their own nudes, videos, and other forms of virtual sex. This distinction and inclusion is important to make as the selling of sex does not change depending on the circumstances in which it is accessed. The exploitation of the woman’s body remains present regardless of where or how the act takes place (Dworkin 2-3).

Liberal choice feminism places focus on individualism and consumerism, as well as frames the choices made by women for themselves as always being inherently feminist by virtue of the fact that the woman has made the choice for herself, by herself. To judge the choices made by a woman for herself is wrong, as there is no one way of enacting feminism and thus it is an individual experience and process of decision making, according to liberal feminism (Thwaites 57-58). This is evident in feminist discussions of sex work, with liberal feminists often emphasizing the individual woman and her right to choose how to sell her body and make money. In addition, and perhaps even more importantly, liberal feminism often frames sex work as sex positivity, pushing the idea that this form of sexual expression for women should be celebrated as it promotes increased bodily autonomy and empowerment for women (Hewer 9). In regards to legal ideologies and arguments, liberal feminism advocates for the decriminalization/legalization of sex work in tandem with the normalization of sex work more broadly by changing the common negative attitudes associated with sex work (Anderson 751). 

Liberal feminism argues that sex work is a site of empowerment for women due its encouraging sex positivity, the idea that sexual expression is good for humans and should therefore be celebrated in the many forms it occurs (Hewer 8). Sex positive feminism positions women who have sex based on their own desires as being feminist due to their engaging in sex in transgressive, non-traditional ways. Liberal arguments claim that due to sex workers engaging in these non traditional ways of sex (that is, non marital and non monogamous), their bodies become a sight of social change, as they are challenging dominant, heteronormative, patriarchal notions of sex (Hewer 9). These arguments, while valuable, are not entirely convincing nor logical.

To say that sex work promotes sex positivity is incorrect, as sex workers engage in sex with their customers as a form of labour, not for personal pleasure or desire, thereby not fitting the common definition of sexual positivity. While liberal feminists may counter this argument by defining the need/want for money as a part of sexual desire, there are further arguments made by liberal feminists that counter this, namely the claim that sex work is just another form of labour and selling the body in commerce; just as one sells their body to their office job, sex workers sell their body to their customers (Anderson 751). These arguments appear to contradict each other: is sex work just another form of labour and making ends meet, or is it a way of expressing sex positivity and sexual desire? To say that it is empowering due to its promotion of sex positivity would be to admit that sex does have value and importance specific to itself. If not, then why the need for sex positivity in the first place? Sex positivity, especially in feminism, comes about because sex is often a place of oppression. To be sex positive, and to argue that sex promotes human flourishing and is therefore a good thing, is to affirm the idea that sex has value/importance and is not as simple as just another use of the body, hence why sex work is said to promote sex positivity. If this is true, it is illogical to say that sex can be treated as just another form of labour, as this claim eliminates any inherent value that sex holds. These arguments posed by liberal feminists contradict each other as well as the concepts on which they are predicated. 

To view sex work as just another form of labour does not align with the argument that it promotes sex positivity, and this is especially so when considering the economic factors that push someone into sex work. The primary purpose of sex work is labour in exchange for payment. Even in more ‘modern’ forms of sex work, such as digital pornography and OnlyFans, their popularity among sex workers is due to monetary and economic needs, with some women claiming they make more in a couple of days on OnlyFans than they would in any other job outside of sex work (Boseley). This is a common claim of sex work of any kind, that it is the only profession in which a woman can make more than a man. It is this claim that is often used in defence of sex work, when in reality it should be a cause for question. Is it not questionable that the only place a woman can make more than a man is when she is providing him sexual gratification? This is a claim of exploitation, rebranded as one of empowerment in order to keep women in their role of subordinate to men.

Alternatively, to view sex work as women expressing their own sexual desire, and thereby promoting sex positivity, also raises problems as it views women’s sexuality as being service orientated, especially in heterosexual relationships/services (Hewer 10). This once again reinforces male domination and the idea that a man has an inherent right to sex with a woman. Not only this, but it essentially turns a woman’s sexuality as being something that can be purchased by a man. While liberal feminists may argue that women are benefitting from this, as they are in control of their own bodies and making a profit off themselves, this commodification of the female body also allows for men to profit off of sex workers, such as pimps and those behind the camera in pornography. While the concept of the pimp was originally meant for the protection of sex workers from their male customers, this still presents an opportunity for these men to profit from these workers’ sexuality.

This issue of men profiting off of women sex workers is particularly evident in previously mentioned ‘modern’ digital forms of sex work, as many industries are run by men, while women are exploited on screen in order for other men to purchase and take pleasure in. The creator of Pornhub as well as its parent company, Mindgeek, was created by men; OnlyFans, despite not originally being made for sex work, but is now known for and makes the majority of its money from sex workers, was founded by a man and its parent company is owned by a man. How empowering and sex positive is digital sex work for women when it is men who profit off of it? In the age of digital sex work, men are not only benefiting sexually from sex workers as customers, they are benefitting economically. This inherently upholds a system of patriarchal oppression in which women are subordinate to men physically, socially, economically, and sexually. Sex work is dependent on these inequalities (Anderson 752), and so long as sex work exists, so long as men can pay for access to a woman’s body and her sexhood, she wil remain subordinate to him and these inequalities will continue to exist. 

Another issue with liberal choice feminism is its emphasis on choice itself and this is especially so in regards to sex work. Choice feminism acts from the idea that there can be no “standard” one way of enacting feminism and thus each woman must make decisions for herself. So long as the decision she makes is for herself, it cannot and should not be questioned because each woman knows herself best (Thwaites 57-58). While the idea of choice feminism may appear positive at first due to its supposed acknowledgement of the various experiences of each woman, it lacks the needed criticality to make proper change for women and thus allows for the continuation of traditionally sexist/patriarchal ways of doing and being under the guise of it being a woman’s choice (a choice which is assumed to be inherently feminist). 

Firstly, to assume choices made by women are inherently feminist, and consequently to therefore condemn any critique of them, allows for patriarchal ideals which oppress women to continue. In the example of women taking their husband’s surnames that is described by Rachel Thwaites, she explains how when a woman changes her last name under the argument that it is simply her choice, choice feminism does not allow for critique of this choice as doing so would make one a “bad” feminist for criticizing the actions of a woman. However in not allowing the critiquing of this choice, we also disallow the critiquing of the institute of marriage and its patriarchal origins. This choice is influenced by norms and traditions and to not question them is to allow them to continue without regard for the gendered issues surrounding them (63-64). This logic can be applied to the issue of sex work, especially the claim that it is the oldest profession in the world; by framing the choices made by a woman for herself as inherently feminist, we frame one’s choice to be a sex worker as being inherently feminist as well as disallow any critique of this choice despite its inherent roots in patriarchal tradition and normalcy of male domination. To use the claim that sex work is the oldest profession is to give in to ideas of tradition by essentially saying that it has been around forever so it cannot be changed and we cannot get mad at it. One of the aims of feminism is to make active change against sexist ways of life and to allow these choices to occur without question for their sexist implications arguably goes against this. If we do not question sex work because it is one’s choice and use the claim that it has been around forever (ie: is a sort of “tradition”), then how can we justify questioning any other sort of sexist traditions? 

The concept of choice is another issue in sex work due to the nature of sex work and the factors which influence one to partake in it. Many women resort to sex work because they are of lower economic class and have few other options for work (Open Society Foundations). The fact that women ‘choose’ sex work in order to avoid poverty and afford to survive raises the question of whether it is truly their own choice. This, coupled with choice feminism removing the need to question following a traditionally patriarchal path (Thwaites 63), makes it especially difficult to understand it as simply a choice of one’s own free will. This is one main issue with liberal choice feminism, the fact that it does not take into consideration the factors that influence one’s “choice” to become a sex worker. Instead, it ignores these factors and instead argues that it is empowering women, as well as advocates for its normalization, rather than addressing the harms facing women before and during sex work. Of course, every woman’s experience is different; some women dislike their sex work, some are indifferent, and some enjoy it (Open Society Foundations). It seems unfair and illogical, however, to promote the normalization of the conditions faced by women before and during their lives in sex work because some women enjoy it. While this may be true, it should not negate the abuse inherently present in sex work (Dworkin 3) and it certainly should not normalize them either. 

Having now discussed the various arguments and related critiques of liberal choice feminism regarding sex work, we arrive at the issue of potential solutions. Liberal feminism advocates for the full decriminalization and legalization of sex work in order to better protect sex workers, as it is due to their criminal status that causes increased harm and does not allow for them to collectively organize for better working conditions or go to the police when they are harmed on the job. Alongside legalization they push for the normalization of sex work and reformation of the general public’s views on sex work (Anderson 749). While the decriminalization of sex work can be beneficial to sex workers’ safety, the violent conditions which they work in and come from should not be normalized in doing so. Additionally, the normalization of sex work would not aid in addressing the factors that both lead women to sex work nor the violence that they experience in the job, thus weakening the argument for normalization (Anderson 749-750). 

The common argument challenging the legalization of sex work is to instead criminalize the purchasing of sex, thereby putting the responsibility on the (male) buyers of sex work, while also not normalizing the conditions faced by current and potential sex workers. At first glance this method may appear preferable, it also raises complications as it does not actually abolish or even reduce the rates of sex work (Open Society Foundations). This is likely because, or further proves, that it is not the law that influences sex workers’ “choice” to partake in sex work. It is their lower economic status and their living in poverty that influences their “choice”. Evidently, no amount, or lack thereof, of laws, restrictions, and criminalization surrounding sex work is going to fix the problems that create sex work in the first place such as poverty and pre-existing inequalities between men and women (Dworkin 10). What this leads to is a need for feminist emphasis on the improvement of living conditions for women in order to reduce the rates of sex work and the inherent dehumanizations present in it (Dworkin 8). In order to do this, or at least aim to do this, feminists must continue to advocate for increased areas of opportunity, empowerment, and enrichment for women by remaining critical of how certain activities (such as that of sex work) are rooted in misogyny and violence and therefore further perpetuate sexism and uphold male domination. Therefore, it is unreasonable to frame a woman’s choice as inherently feminist, as choice feminism does, as it does not properly address the sexist implications and roots in said choice, nor does it address the influences that lead one to “choose” sex work, thereby proving how liberal choice feminism’s arguments advocating for sex work are insufficient and how sex work should not be viewed as an empowering “choice” for women.