Sex In The Public Square - Sex Work - Comments

The need for caution in sex work law reform

Michael — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:26:50 -0700

Unfortunately, Working Girl, there is a lot of confusion around the law relating to sex work in each country and the terminology. In most countries in the world, the US being a notable exception, selling sexual services is not prohibited. However much of the activity is, such as communicating with clients (soliciting), using any premises (bawdy house, disorderly house, brothel), any form of organisation (living off the earnings), or movement from one place to another (trafficking).

Removing these from the Criminal Code is called decriminalisation. However as soon as you do that - ie it becomes 'legal' you run into new legal problems, because you are now running a business, and therefore subject to labour law, business law and zoning regulations. So in the end decriminalising sex work, still end sup with laws. In practice, countries like New Zealand and parts of Australia have left your typical independent working girl (or 2-4 working together) alone, and just regulated larger businesses such as brothels, massage parlours, strip clubs, saunas and escort agencies.

As a personal service business, health and safety regulations would apply as they do to restaurants, hairdressers and cosmeticians. Sex workers do not respond wel to be told what to do, so Libertarian, we recommend minimal regulatins. Requiring regular health inspections is an invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination and ineffective. Sex workers on the whole are careful and clean. If anyone should have health inspections it should be clients.

The age issue is a tricky one, and we should not be too rigid about it. Consider what other trades have age regulations, but also people's civil right to earn a living. Whether as self employed independents, independent contractors or employees, sex workers and sexual service businesses would be subject to income and business taxes.

Incidentally trsansmitting STIs is not a crime, but knowingly doing so is. Violence is already criminal. For a thorough handling of these subjects see Beyond Decriminalisation . See also Sylvia Law's paper on this.

Terms and conditions for decriminalization/legalization

Elizabeth — Sat, 10 May 2008 10:35:48 -0700

A working girl: I think your question is so important! Those words are used to describe so many different approaches, and not all are equally helpful, to say the least.

I'd love to see a system that decriminalizes the act of transacting sex, and then works on sensible application of labor, health & safety and zoning laws.

Legalize what, exactly?

A working girl — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:26:04 -0700

As a working girl, I'd like prostitution legalized, too. However, when people talk about legalizing prostitution, they often only mean to legalize brothels and agencies. In a sense, "pimping" would be legal. If people want to legalize independent prostitutes working on their own with a business license (just as freelancers and contractors of in all fields), then I'm all for it. Unfortunately too many people think prostitutes should be managed by others, and so when I hear "legalization," I cringe.

Legalise it

libertarian — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:06:56 -0700

A lot of middle aged men out there are teenage boys under the skin. We can huff and puff puritanical about that till we're blue in the face, or we can chose the path of least damage. Legalize brothels, require that the girls use condoms and undergo frequent medical inspections, require that sex workers be at least 21, and most of all, TAX THE TRICK MONEY just as we tax fags and booze. In exchange, the working girls would enjoy the full protection of labour law and the criminal code. In particular, johns who beat up or infect girls would be prosecuted.

thoughts on WNYC show

kerwynk — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:25:54 -0800

First of all, thanks very much to Audacia for handling the show so deftly - very nicely done.

One of the main concerns I have with the anti-trafficking legislation is that it encourages policing activities that are actually counter-productive for the overwhelming majority of sex workers. But understanding why this is true requires that one have a realistic understanding as to the diversity of working conditions within the sex biz.

Earlier in the show, Sonia Ossario claims that only an extreme few (those "jet set call girls") have control over with whom and where they have paid sex. She states that "the vast majority of women and girls who are in the sex industry...don't have that luxury. [They] are trafficked here [or] work in brothels." There's a lot wrong with this picture, not the least of which is that it fails to include males (something I hope we chat about more within the forum this week). The equation of trafficking with literal "slavery" serves to further escalate both the rhetoric and the legislative proposals required to engage with what is understood to exist, and also further divorces the NYC-NOW analysis from reality.

At one time, and to some extent again today, the focus in prostitution policy was on street-based workers. Most researchers agree that street-based workers now make up only about 15% of the total of sex work. Street-based workers are themselves divided in their conditions, with many "classes" of strolls and of workers on the streets, and with only a subset facing stereotyped conditions of miserable homelessness with lots of drug use. Another group of people (mostly female, but also including some men) does not do sex "work" exactly, but trades sex for drugs rather than for cash. In terms of sex worker activism, I'd argue that people living in extreme forms of poverty and/or with intense drug involvement should in many ways be a higher priority than middle-class folks who are doing well. How Ossario thinks that increased criminalization will help the most destitute of the poor - especially when most people in this group cannot afford so-called "pimps" (and are therefore not "trafficked") - is beyond me.

There are indeed some people who might benefit from increased criminalization, namely people who are indeed held directly against their will in actual slave-like conditions. To me, however, this is where the numbers seem to be awfully thin. What realistically happens with anti-trafficking legislation is that lots of brothels where migrants work are busted, and no one is "rescued" because so very few are victims of the sort imagined by Ossario. So while such raids might indeed get lucky and actually help someone, they harm many others along the way (by arresting them and potentially rendering them subject to deportation) - is this an effective use of the police in a fight against "slavery"?

Even people who genuinely need the police may suffer because the anti-trafficking approach as currently constituted stigmatizes and punishes the group that would be most able to see if someone was in trouble and most able to tell the police: clients. Even if one thought that prostitution were a negative, one could still reach out to clients in order to solicit their aid in monitoring the brothels. The approach of NYC-NOW takes the opposite tack, and instead works to make it more difficult for sex workers to work (e.g. by trying to convince newspapers to end all advertising), thus making it more difficult for people to work independently and making people more vulnerable, not less.

One basic problem is that so many people are ready to believe that "the overwhelming majority" of sex workers live in slave-like conditions. People don't think of the approximately 20% of sex workers who have middle-class backgrounds (even if they're not exactly part of the "jet set"), and that the overwhelming majority of people who are more working-class and yet work independently or in underground brothels are not in any way "enslaved," even if the work might kind-of suck. Anti-trafficking approaches as currently constituted make conditions worse for this vast majority, not better, and only offers dubious benefits for - at a guess - 250 people in the US today.

I guess I could go on and on here, and I've already written a lengthy thread, but I'll just end with one final point. The difficulty with the NYC-NOW position - aka the CATW position - is that they are using the issue of trafficking to fight against the entire sex industry, or rather to get the police to wage their fight. As Ossario states, "it's hard to separate" trafficking from the general sex business. Send the police against all of it, I suppose! Well, it seems to me that it is usually pretty easy to distinguish slavery from other forms of exploited wage labor. Migrant workers on factory farms sometimes face literal slave-like conditions, for example, and when they do, the police should help them. The vast majority of these workers, however, face something horrid, but not slavery. Raiding every single farm with migrant workers is not only an inefficient waste of one's police force, it is a tactic that harms many other workers by putting them at risk for deportation. A truly better plan for this majority who suffer from extreme economic exploitation, but not "slavery," would be to legalize their entry into the US and enforce a good labor standard (not that this is likely right now, but one can dream......). In what world is it impossible to tell the difference between the two types of oppression? Only in a world in which sex work is already such a degraded and un-thought-through possibility that it becomes impossible to imagine that someone might rationally choose it.

If people are concerned that bad economics forces people into prostitution, then "anti-trafficking" is a terrible means to address that possibility. If people are concerned with outright slavery, then I suggest they adjust their tactics to create a policing system that does not punish hundreds and hundreds in order to help a rare individual (shall we raid every home in the US in hopes of finding a kidnapping victim?). If, on the other hand, NYC-NOW is merely interested in confusing people and pushing their own anti-sex work agenda in the muddle, then they are doing a very good job of it. We need to figure out how to do better.

Sorry for the ramble....

References? Assumptions?

Elizabeth — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:26:49 -0800

Two things I find troubling about this post. One is the absolute lack of references/links back to source material. There are a lot of claims here and no way to check any of them. Where did the original story come from? Where is the evidence of the "thousands of otherwise honest workers" who've lost their jobs or the millions of dollars of lost merchandise? Where can we learn about the private security companies that send investigators out there to tempt men into giving stuff away for a blow job?

The second thing that bothers me here is the essentialist assumption "women are wired to sell sex and men to pay for it," and that in addition men are so weak as to be unable to say no.

So, Melpol, welcome to Sex in the Public Square. Can you provide any documentation of your claims? And can we talk about these reductionist ideas about men and women and sex?

Elizabeth

JanieBelle — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:39:25 -0700

You are very welcome. Glad to (try to anyway) help.

I haven't had that problem yet, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it.

Thanks

JanieBelle — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:36:30 -0700

Thank you Kochanie. I did sleep well, and did not wake up with said hangover. Still, I'm a bit lethargic today. In fact, I'm ready for a cat nap. (or in my case, a Kate nap)

Y'know, my previous comment was really, really funny last night when I posted it...

I guess the operative word in that comment was "drunk". ;)

Sleep well, Janiebelle.

Kochanie — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:23:03 -0700

And may you wake without the hangover which you would not have if you did not drink the wine you did not drink (smiles knowingly).

Kochanie

Thanks

JanieBelle — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:46:01 -0700

I'll have to come back to read this again when I haven't drunk the wine that I haven't drunk because I am of course under the legal drinking age and would never drink the wine that I haven't drunk.

Just so y'know.

I so kill me.

Kisses,

JanieBelle

New trafficking legislation that does not punish sex workers

Kochanie — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:52:25 -0700

Elizabeth and JanieBelle,

Here's the information I tried to send yesterday.

In Illinois new anti-trafficking legislation was signed into law which:

Defines trafficking crimes so local law enforcement officials can identify victims and respond.
Makes it easier for law enforcement and social services to partner to help victims.
Enhances prosecutorial tools by ensuring punishment is commensurate with the crime.

The pdf version of HB 1469, which can be found here, does not appear to contain the same restrictive measures against massage parlors and escort services or advertising for these services that the New York chapter of NOW was recommending. The anti-trafficking bill is part of a larger initiative in Illinois called Rescue and Restore which has the following goals:

Reach out to potential victims with hotline information.
Educate potential first-responders about trafficking.
Collect data on the issue.
Prosecute offenders.
Coordinate services for victims.

From what I have seen of the training materials for law enforcement, the dignity of the victims is a primary concern. My recent post at Figleaf's blog, Activism that does not hurt sex workers, describes another Illinois law, the Predator Accountability Act, which allows sex workers, both adults and children, to use the civil courts to obtain monetary damages from those that exploited them. Only a few other states have similar legislation.

I remember that you were also interested information for teens who were involved in sex work. In the same post referenced above, I included a link to the site called the Young Women's Empowerment Project, an organization that provides non-judgmental harm reduction for young women involved in the sex trade.

Also, if you follow the links to the site for the Chicago Foundation for Women, which is a leading player in the anti-trafficking initiative, there is a discussion on the legal treatment of minors that are U.S. citizens and those that are foreign born, another question you raised. The U.S. minor forced into the sex trade has legal protection until the age of 18, but could face criminal prosecution after attaining the age of 18. The foreign born minor receives temporary citizenship that would not automatically expire at age 18.

Hope this helps.

Kochanie

Missing comment

Elizabeth — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:32:40 -0700

Kochanie, I've checked the queues as well and found no sign of your comment.

JanieBelle, thank for jumping in to help. Community! Cool!

Kochanie, as far as I know there is not a link-limit on comments or posts, but if there were, I'd think you'd get a message telling you your comment couldn't be accepted.

Has anybody else had this problem?

And Kochanie, can you try reposting your comment and also sending me a copy of it by email?

Missing Comment

JanieBelle — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:15:16 -0700

Kochanie, I just checked the moderation and spam queues, but although I saw a genuinely spam comment, I didn't see yours. Don't give up hope quite yet though, as it may just have something to do with permissions I don't have or something. Add that to the fact that I'm still finding my way around...

Perhaps Elizabeth might yet find it.

Anti-Trafficking Legislation

Kochanie — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 06:36:20 -0700

Elizabeth,

First of all, congratulations on the launch of this new site!

Earlier this morning I tried to submit a comment but could not. The problem may have been due to the three links I included, which may exceed the default limit for your software. Could you check in the spam filter if it is there, before I write it again? Thanks!

Kochanie

political fear

RC — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:36:28 -0700

The amsterdam case is interesting. I always see this through a church-state lens. I've spent time with politicians and the reason I don't see any sensible legislation coming around (at least in most states) is the constant fear of being mauled by right wing groups that are always scanning for the hot button issues that bring down candidates. "Candidate X voted for the prostitute protection act!" is a mailer no politician will risk. If left wing religious groups took up the cause, things might get interesting.

ps - go Audacia!