Is prostitution an individual’s right to self-determination or does it undermine social morals and ethics?

The legality and morality of prostitution has been hotly debated in recent years, with the Supreme Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Prostitution Act. Sex trafficking is a matter of human dignity and ethics, and sex should not be a commodity to be traded, which can lead to social materialism and moral harm if allowed. We propose that prostitution should be prevented by improving special laws and changing sex education and social awareness.

 

Recently, the unconstitutionality of the Special Law on Prostitution has been challenged by the Supreme Court, and the debate over whether prostitution is legal or illegal has intensified. Around the world, the acceptability of prostitution is highly debated, and the treatment of prostitution varies widely, from no regulation to the death penalty. In Korea, the original regulation was to consider sex trafficking as an illegal act and to punish both buyers and sellers of sex, but this led to a controversy: “Isn’t it a violation of the individual’s right to self-determination to prevent sex trafficking when it is a sexual act between adults without exploitation or coercion? In response, I believe that sex should not be a commodity to be traded and that prostitution should be stopped, and I will give my reasons why.
Most fundamentally, sex should be valued as part of the process of creating a life. The act of sex itself is a life-and-death ethical issue that is worth protecting because it has enough integrity in the human consciousness to be worth protecting. Sex, and sexual relations, should not be treated like a commodity. If we look at other current laws, Article 65(2) of the Labor Standards Act states that “An employer shall not use a woman over 18 years of age who is not a pregnant woman in a business that is harmful to health or dangerous to the functions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” Similarly, other laws recognize sex as something to be protected, and buying and selling sex is not an act of protecting it and should not be done.
Furthermore, if prostitution is allowed, the nature of prostitution, which requires only the body, will attract people who want to make money in a short period of time. The industry would naturally grow, as people would be able to make money in a short period of time and with little preparation. In fact, in Australia, the number of brothels more than doubled in the decade after legalization in 1989, and large-scale businesses with hundreds of sex workers emerged. This increase in the sex industry can lead to a number of problems, the biggest of which is that it creates a perception in society that sex can be bought and sold. This is undesirable because it extends materialism to the realm of sex, which means that if you have the money, you can do anything.
These arguments are very moralistic, which makes them very difficult to answer when you dig into each one with the question of why. For example, we might ask, what are the problems with thinking of sex as a material thing in society? I think that if materialism is allowed to enter the realm of sex, it can lead to the problem that in extreme cases, men can have the perception that they can have women if they have money, and it can lead to a more broken world.
Some people may argue that the morality of sex trafficking is understandable from a libertarian point of view, since the buyer pays and the seller pays, and since it is a bilateral agreement, it does not violate autonomy or consent. However, this is incorrect from two perspectives. One is that the agreement between the two parties is not a bilateral agreement on equal footing. Here’s an example. A male director is looking to cast one of three actresses in a movie and says he will only cast the actress who has sex with him. The actress agrees to have sex and gets the role. Is this kind of coercion morally acceptable? I don’t think so. Sex trafficking is not much different from the above example. The sellers of sex, who have to decide whether or not to make a living from it, are socially disadvantaged, while the buyers, who can afford to pay for sex, are socially advantaged. One might ask, then, is it morally right to buy and sell sex between two economically equal men and women, i.e., when it is consensual and on an equal footing? This is a very valid question because not all sex workers are desperate to make a living. However, I don’t think this is the case either.
Relatedly, the second reason why sex trafficking is not morally right is that just because it’s consensual doesn’t mean it’s right. In Michael Sandel’s What is Justice, he gives the example of consensual cannibalism. In a nutshell, a man advertised in the newspaper classifieds for someone willing to be eaten by him, and a man responded. The cannibal killed, cooked, and ate his victim, and the case went to trial and resulted in a life sentence. Why was this man sentenced to life in prison? Because murder is a violation of human dignity, regardless of consent. Similarly, sex trafficking is one of those things that should not be done, regardless of consent, because it uses a woman’s body as a tool for the sexual services of another.
There are also many other practical problems with sex trafficking. Because sex serves as a tool for the most fundamental human purpose: reproduction, there is always a risk of reproduction, or pregnancy. No matter how much contraception is used, there is always the possibility of pregnancy, and the biggest problem with this is that neither the buyers nor the sellers of sex are willing or ready to take on the role and responsibilities of potential parenthood. To take these risks and irresponsibly engage in prostitution for the sake of each other’s greed is an assertion of freedom without responsibility and should be condemned. The vast majority of people who engage in prostitution are people of reproductive age, and they are making the mistake of acting simply to make money without considering these responsibilities.
Some opponents of prostitution argue that the law is ineffective and should be repealed, citing the increase in the number of prostitutes since its implementation. However, while this may be a reason to amend the law, it is not a reason to make the law unconstitutional. In the case of Sweden, the rate of sex trafficking decreased when the law was enforced in a way that only penalized buyers, rather than both buyers and sellers.
As you can see, sex trafficking is a mix of moral and practical issues. And considering that there has been a system of parasitism since ancient times, and that prostitution has been tacitly practiced even after the Japanese occupation and Korean independence, it is unlikely that it will be easy to stop prostitution due to human characteristics. In the past, sex trafficking was often used as a slave for women and human rights were often violated in the process of sex trafficking, so it was unconditionally prevented from the standpoint of protecting women’s human rights, but in recent years, the public’s interest in whether or not sex trafficking should be prevented has increased due to the change in the pattern of sex trafficking. When we think about the meaning of sex and the problems that would arise if we allowed prostitution, we believe that prostitution should still not be allowed, but we need to improve the special law on prostitution to improve the current situation.
As you can see, the issue of prostitution is not just a legal debate, but also involves deep moral and social issues. When we consider the various positions and arguments surrounding prostitution, we come to the conclusion that it is not right to allow prostitution. To solve this problem, it is necessary not only to improve special laws on prostitution, but also to strengthen sex education and change social awareness. Continuous social efforts and attention are essential to preserve the dignity and ethics of sexuality.