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.