Full Description
Is it wrong for a man to buy sex from a woman? In this book, Holly Lawford-Smith argues that it is wrong: commercial sex is quintessentially hierarchical sex, and it is wrong both to have, and to perpetuate a market in, hierarchical sex. Angie Pepper argues that it isn't wrong: men are permitted to buy sex from those women who freely choose to sell it.
Important but different interests are at stake in these two positions. According to the first, we should prioritize the interest of all women in securing a society that has achieved equality between the sexes, and we should make the changes needed to get there including prohibiting men from buying sex from women. In contrast, the second position prioritizes the protection of individuals' rights to engage in consensual commercial sex exchanges and demands that we strive for gender equality without compromising these rights. The two authors debate the ethical issues involved in the decision to buy sex, arguing passionately for very different conclusions, in a way that is lively, constructive, and sure to leave readers with a lot to think about.
Key Features:
Focuses on the pressing moral issue of whether we're morally permitted to buy sex
Advances two different normative ethical approaches to the issue and develops two competing arguments
Demonstrates how philosophical debate on controversial topics can be productive and easy-to-follow
Provides a glossary with definitions of key terms that are bolded in the main text
Includes section summaries that give an overview of the main arguments and a comprehensive bibliography for further reading
Contents
Foreword by Michelle Madden Dempsey Part I: Opening Statements 1. It Is Wrong To Buy Sex
2. It is Not Wrong to Buy Sex Part II: First Round of Replies 3. No Such Thing As A Good Sex Buyer: First reply to Angie Pepper 4. Why It's Still Not Wrong to Buy Sex: First Reply to Holly Lawford-Smith Part III: Second Round of Replies 5. What Women Owe to Each Other: Second reply to Angie Pepper 6. Finding Common Ground: Second Reply to Holly Lawford-Smith
