Prostitution: Good or Bad?

While reading Wilson’s “The Invisible Flaneur,” I felt compelled to focus my blog this week on the issue of prostitution. It’s such a complicated, multi-layered issue that continues to spark debate among women, and as a feminist myself, I find it difficult to attach myself to one specific camp, be it pro or con. Wilson gives readers a variety of theories regarding women in the “new public sphere,” particularly how the patriarchal system of 19^th century Paris served to exacerbate the exploitation of women’s bodies for the sole purpose of male “consumption.” She begins to explain the flaneur as “a man of pleasure who takes visual possession of the city, who embodies the male gaze.” He represents masculine freedom and mastery over women, who are rarely seen outside the domestic sphere without a protective companion. She points to the division between public and domestic domains, implicitly noting the divide between masculine and feminine spheres, respectively.

However, she uses the arguments of critics Griselda Pollock and Janet Wolff to dispute the binary, insisting that the home was also controlled through patriarchal ideology, calling it the “workplace” of women and the site of unwarranted sexual attacks. Wolff even insists that women were essentially excluded from the public sphere as a whole, and they only existed as “signs” denoting their husbands’ wealth and social standing. Still, Wilson turns her argument around and challenges Wolff’s theories. With the growth of white collar opportunities for women and the creation of the department store, Wilson notes that women could now invest in the commercial culture of the city. They could shop or “simply stroll, look, and socialize,” just as the male flaneur. Here, she sets up her overall intention, which is to discredit the gendered notion of the flaneur while establishing the possibility of the feminine flaneuse.

In regards to prostitution, women were now allowed to participate in the system, becoming both product and consumer simultaneously. Grahame Shane, reviewer of the book, Postmodern Cities and Spaces, notes that Wilson’s article “shows the personal and societal logic which drove the creation of such milieux at a particular time and space. Wilson’s characters, whether flaneur or flaneuse, prostitute or customer, are multidimensional, as is her city, becoming a commodity to be consumed like any other” (Shane). Of course, I can see the logic in the postmodern feminists’ outcry for blasphemy. It’s too conspicuous to argue against the exploitation and male dominance over women when it comes to prostitution, pornography, and the like. But I also see how Wilson’s examination of societal evolution lends itself to the changing opinions of female prostitution.

In researching this idea further, I came across critic Maggie O’Neill, who like Wilson, focuses on the changing structures of socio-economic processes to “avoid viewing prostitution as either inherently oppressive or an expression of sexual freedom” (O’Neill). Is this possible? Can prostitution ever be regarded as good? My gut reaction is to say no. How could it be? Still, I also understand the female taking control of her own body, using it the way she wishes without the consent of societal mores. I’m all for women taking responsibility and authority. And yet, I’m stuck on the domineering male influence underlying the entire practice. I’m split, and I don’t think this is an issue that can be easily solved. 

Works Cited

O'Neill, Maggie. Prostitution and Feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Print.

Shane, Grahame. Rev. of Postmodern Cities and Spaces, ed. Sophie Watson and Katherine Gibson. Los 

     Angeles Forum for Architecture and Design 1997, Summer ed. Print.