Tea, Consent, and Commercial Sex

You may have heard about the video which explains sexual consent by making an analogy with tea:

I like the use of analogies and metaphors to get a point across. I also enjoy tea better than the average American, some acquaintances saying my love of tea could rival that of the British and Irish. With that in mind,…

Let’s say that someone has heard about my knowledge and skill regarding tea, and would not only like me to brew and serve some tea for them, but would be willing to pay me for it. I give it a moment’s thought, and agree. The table is set, the tea is brewed and served with suitable edibles, the whole experience enjoyed by my guest, who pays the agreed-upon remuneration plus a gratuity.

Not bad.

So, why not make this a business? I spread the word about my willingness to make and serve tea to paying customers, from word-of-mouth to the World Wide Web, and build a customer base. I set some limits on what I will and won’t do, establish a schedule of fees for different levels of service, and build a base of regular and occasional clientele. Sometimes I enjoy it, sometimes it’s tedious or even annoying – but so long as no one uses force or deceit to get me to make them tea, or doesn’t pay the agreed-upon fee, I’m good.

Now imagine that I run into people who have a problem with this. Some argue that, to “protect” me and/or my clients, I need to be licensed – not the same kind of licensure that a restaurant or catering company goes through, but special licensing through the police, along with excessive and intrusive health checks, severe limits on advertising and location, and constant political and social scrutiny. Others would argue that, while there’s nothing wrong with serving tea for free, as soon as you exchange it for money, some nefarious force robs tea-service-sellers of consent, and all tea-service-buyers are selfish and abusive, not to mention the people who run those filthy teahouses, so let’s “rescue” the poor tea-service-sellers and punish those nasty buyers and bosses by making it a crime to pay for tea service, or living off the avails of tea-service-selling, because you should only consent to making or having tea when you truly love the other person.

What about if a tea-service-seller argues they’re not being forced, they don’t hate what they do, the majority of their clients are not abusive assholes, and they don’t need the police or anyone else interfering in their business? Well, the ones who argue that all tea-service-selling is a form of modern-day slavery dismissively argue that those poor sellers are “not representative” and deluded by “false consciousness,” so no one should listen to them. The stigmatizing narrative of the “anti-sellers” even begins to negatively affect the sellers’ community, yet still they persist and protest, based on the basic premise that the only people who get to decide who has tea with whom, and under what terms, are the people themselves.

Money is not magic. It doesn’t have any mysterious power to erode or negate consent. And if it’s possible to give and receive something consensually, then it’s also possible to buy and sell it consensually.

Advertisements

Five Suggestions for Improving Review Boards

Review board are both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, they provide a convenient means for sex workers and clients to connect and negotiate. The down side, however, is that they are clearly structured to the advantage of certain clients – self-described “hobbyists” – and to the distinct disadvantage of service providers. Having read the complaints that sex workers post on their own blogs and zines, and compared this to how similar sites work in other industries (e.g., restaurants), I’ve decided to offer some recommendations on how review boards could do a better job for everyone. These are not gospel, and I certainly welcome comments from both providers and clients. I just hope these ideas spark some constructive conversation:

  1. Scoring should be based on quality, not quantity – One of the worst practices on sites like The Erotic Review is scoring providers based on what particular acts they are willing to do. Sex workers rightly complain that this puts pressure on them to engage in practices that they may not be entirely comfortable doing, especially with relatively new clients. That also violates a basic tenet for evaluating any provider in any industry: It’s not about how many things you do, but how well you do them. Many escorts who critique this system point out that theirs is a highly personalized service that is well-nigh impossible to rate by a numerical system. I’d therefore recommend that any “scoring” system depend on a few basics, such as prompt arrival for outcalls, a clean and comfortable incall, the provider’s demeanor, and the client’s impression of the experience. Yes, these are subjective, but the same qualitative approach holds true for any industry.
  2. Vet written reviews before posting – Two major problems that sex workers have in this area are fake reviews and “blow-by-blow” accounts of every aspect of a session. The first goes against the very reason that review boards are supposed to exist; the second is unnecessary, and even dangerous given that law enforcement tends to snoop on these sites to find easy ways to meet their arrest quotas. It would therefore make sense for all written reviews to be moderated, checked for veracity, and edited to remove excessive detail. Even better, board administrators could offer guidelines for writing reviews, based on input from sex workers.
  3. Set up a better system for handling complaints – This is one problem area for both providers and clients, who express frustration that complaints are either not listened to or are met with overly defensive responses, even getting people banned from a board just for trying to get a problem rectified. Given that so many boards are run by a single proprietor, it’s no wonder this keeps cropping up. A sole proprietor sees their operation as “their baby”, and may resent having anyone tell them how to do things better. Unfortunately, the longer you run any business in this manner, the better the odds that you’ll run it into the ground. I’d strongly recommend that board administrators retain at least one person to serve as an arbiter or ombudsperson for fielding complaints. When a complaint involves a problem with board administration, apologize and work to solve the problem. When it involves a dispute between two or more board participants, listen to all sides and help them reach a fair resolution. And makes sure to post an easy-to-understand guide for filing complaints and what board participants may expect.
  4. Make clear that certain things will get you kicked out … and mean it! – While many complaints require a personalized approach to resolve, certain behaviors are clearly off-limits, and should be stated as such, and any penalty attached to it enforced whenever a violating occurs. So if you make it clear that threatening another board participant will get you banned, and someone breaks that rule, ban them. If attempting to post a fake review gets you suspended for the first offense and banned after the second, follow through whenever it happens. Of course, this doesn’t mean your ombudsperson should take any allegation at face value; they still need to make sure the complaint itself is valid. But once you’ve determined that someone did violate a “hard-and-fast” rule, enforce the rule. And yes, I’d add making false complaints among them.
  5. Providers need a voice in the decision-making process – Yes, I saved this for last because I’m well aware that the last item on the list is often the most remembered. Let’s face it, review boards are not just a benefit for clients of escorts and other service providers. They are a significant benefit for providers, even with the flaws I’ve highlighted here. If review boards are going to serve their participants better, then all participants need to have a voice within their administration, and not just certain clients. At a minimum, at least one current or former provider should be on the management team of any such enterprise, and their input should be required when proposing and deciding on any policies for the board’s operation.

There you have it, folks. Kick these ideas around, ask questions, offer any critiques you may have. Hopefully, such discussions will bear fruit, either from existing boards changing how they operate, or new alternatives springing up.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: If You Can’t Arrest Them, Rob Them

Since the United States criminalized prostitution a little over a century ago, police have used the standard methods of enforcing these laws – citations, arrests, fines, and jail time. When radical “feminists” decided that men needed special treatment, they created “johns schools” to indoctrinate them with distorted and false information, along with carefully selected horror stories to induce even more shame.

Lately, however, cops have employed another tool that doesn’t require any conviction, trial, arrest, or even proof of wrongdoing. And, if that’s not enough to get you burned up, police and prosecutors actually get to benefit financially every time they use this.

I’m talking about civil asset forfeiture – a procedure introduced by the Federal government in the 1980’s as a weapon in their “War on Drugs”, and now being used and abused all over the country. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, which requires arrest and conviction on a criminal charge, the civil version allows police to seize cash, cars and other property by merely suspecting criminal activity. In effect, they are “arresting” your property, even if they never arrest you.

But it doesn’t stop there. While our criminal courts presume that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, the administrative hearings for determining the outcome of assets seized under these laws presumes that your property is guilty until you prove otherwise. These hearings are also not presided over by a judge, but by either a prosecutor or a specially contracted attorney, both of which have a stake in keeping your assets in the government’s hands, because the law allows local police and prosecutors to keep most or all of those assets, and contracted attorneys are paid on a commission basis based on the amount they rule to be forfeited.

Hello, Mister Fox, will you please guard our henhouse?

Think about it. You’re driving in your car. The police pull you over on some pretext, and start asking you questions; they may even ask you, point-blank, if you have a large amount of cash in the vehicle. Then they tell you that they “suspect” that your money or car is being used for some criminal purpose, and seize them. But don’t worry, there will be a hearing where you will have to prove that the cops are wrong before you’re able to get your stuff back – and the person in charge of the hearing has a vested interest in keeping your stuff.

Sex workers, their business associates, their clients, their family members and even people who have been wrongly accused of prostitution-related offenses have been frequently subjected to this legalized form of robbery. And I’m sure that Swanee Hunt, Dorchen Leidholdt, Donna Hughes, and other “abolitionists” will argue that such blatant violations of privacy and due process are necessary to combat a greater evil and “keep women and girls safe”. Obviously, none of them have been pulled over and had their money or other property taken on mere suspicion. At least not yet.

Benjamin Franklin rightly warned that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Unfortunately, too many people in this country across the political spectrum have failed to heed this. The abuse of civil asset forfeiture not only robs people of their belongings, but of their privacy, dignity and autonomy. Not only must we abolish laws against the consensual exchange of sex for money, we need to abolish the laws which allow cops to become robbers, threatening us all.

Stop Singling Out Street-Based Sex Workers

As I write this post, South Australia’s Legislative Council approved a bill to decriminalize prostitution. The next step would be a vote in that state’s House of Assembly. One of the reasons to be optimistic is that every attempt to amend the bill was defeated, including one that would have kept street-based sex work illegal. Similarly, social conservatives in New Zealand have been trying to get a ban on street-based sex work in Christchurch, without considering the various factors behind the problems involved (e.g., loss of public lavatories and other facilities due to earthquake damage).

Too often, moderates propose a “compromise” which excludes streetwalkers from the rights and recourse to be given other sex workers. Escorts and brothel girls? Sure, let them be legal. But not for those who ply their trade on the street. If other sex workers are able to do their business indoors, then so should they – not out in the open like that.

One of the times I heard an acquaintance make such an argument, I couldn’t help pointing out the irony that he’d just bought a hot dog and a soda from a vendor on the street. Yes, we allow folks who might afford a cart to sell food or hats or other goods out in the open, applaud the initiative of kids who offer their services mowing lawns or shoveling snow, and even let our neighbors sell all sorts of items from their yards or garages – but when the same principle is applied to commercial sex, too many of us still take exception.

When moderates separate street-based sex workers from others in their profession, they are helping to perpetuate the twin stigma of whorephobia and whorearchy. It’s bad enough that prohibitionist fanatics exploit their stereotyped image and marginalized status as fodder for propaganda. When they are singled out by appeals to respectability, they open the door to undue restrictions on all sex workers, and the problems that are likely to spill over from that. From banning commercial sex on the street, to restricting where incalls may be located, or that “legitimate” sex workers be registered and subjected to invasive mandatory health checks, legalization schemes never seem to stop at the street corner.

The major objection given to allowing street-based sex work is the “nuisance factor” perceived to be associated with it, especially when it takes place in residential areas. Establishing a commercial zone away from residential ones makes sense, but these are often implemented poorly, with said zones often having their own problems. If local governments want such a scheme to work, then they need to involve sex workers in the process of determining the best site for such a zone, as well as any resources they would need (such as drop-in clinics and help centers, SRO hotels providing short-term rentals, and access to public transportation). Local authorities also need to facilitate dialogue between sex workers and other members of the community, so that all sides may better understand one another’s needs.

The idea of viewing and treating street-based sex work as different from others does nothing to alleviate the risks involved. If anything, removing both legal restrictions and societal stigma is essential to finding ways to remove other obstacles to their health and safety. Decriminalizing the commercial sex industry means decriminalizing it in total, and not merely those we perceive as somehow more acceptable.

A Paradox of Prohibitionism

The reader will note the use of the singular article in the title, as there are indeed many paradoxes to the anti-prostitution position. For this post, I’ll be discussing one which recently has come to the fore.

Prohibitionists have crowed repeatedly how their “end demand” strategy of targeting sex work clients for punishment and derision is “the most effective means” to achieve their desired goal of “ending the sex trade”. Recently, however, I’ve noticed many of these groups lamenting that sex trafficking is on the rise, even in Sweden where “ending demand” became law and public policy almost two decades ago. So, how is it that this strategy is being adopted at an increasing rate, based on claims of success, yet the evil of sex trafficking and exploitation has also increased, indicating failure?

The first likely response to this paradox is to allege that “the problem is bigger than we thought” – that all the figures cited as to the number of people and amount of profits involved were too conservative. Such a claim would make sense, except that the peer-reviewed research of scholars indicates that such estimates were not only unreliable, but frequently exaggerated. See if you’re able to follow the logic: Prohibitionists make claims about the definition and scope of sex trafficking, which legitimate researchers find dubious and likely overblown, so the same people who made the original claim now turn around with even higher numbers, again without solid substantiation.

Another problem with the original trafficking claims is that the activists who make them frequently conflate consensual sex work with sex trafficking, either for ideological reasons or as a blatant public relations ploy (see page 17 of 20 in the paper hyperlinked here). So, is it likely that what prohibitionists are doing is stretching the definition of “sex trafficking” even further, to include legal forms of sex work such as web cam performance and stripping? You already have groups linking porn to trafficking, again with little to no substantiation. Plus, on even more extreme fringes, there are those who would argue that egg donation and reproductive surrogacy ought to be banned as “human trafficking”. This begs the question of where the definition of trafficking will ever end, if at all.

It seems the most obvious reason for claiming an increase in sex trafficking is to mobilize more people to do more work and give more money to one’s anti-trafficking organization. Such appeals to urgency are not new, but eventually lose their effectiveness. Think of it – how long do you expect volunteers to work, or donors to give money, while you continually claim that the problem they’re fighting is continually growing? Sooner or later, repeated use of this tactic leads to more questions, greater scrutiny, and abandonment by once-committed individuals who now feel used and deceived.

Finally, I’d like to propose the possibility that the problems related to the commercial sex industry may indeed be getting worse to some degree – but because of prohibitionist strategies, not in spite of them. This would fit with historical precedents, such as the banning of alcohol in the United States from 1920 to 1933, the exorbitant taxation of tea in Great Britain up to 1784, and other instances of excessive government control leading to increased problems from smuggling and adulteration to corruption and violence. Once one realizes that exploitative practices in otherwise consensual activities are not prevented by prohibition, but exacerbated by it, the paradox disappears. Would that the scales fall from puritanical eyes.

The Big Lie of “Partial Decriminalization”

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. – George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

Two kinds of language are often employed in propaganda: simple yet emotionally loaded, and seemingly sophisticated obfuscations. The former is most frequently used by opponents of sex workers’ rights, especially in appeals to “fight human trafficking”. Yet it is careful use of the latter which has allowed prohibitionists to sell the so-called “Swedish Model” as an alternative.

Specifically, prohibitionists have marketed this scheme as “partial decriminalization” – the supposed decriminalization of those who sell sex, while outlawing those who would buy sex. It’s appealing on two levels. First, it plays upon common stereotypes of the prostitute as victim and “john” or “punter” as lecherous deviant. Second, it appeals to both misgivings about the status quo and uncertainties around full decriminalization. But it also depends upon a suspension of basic logic, and ignorance of both the full legal context and real-life implications, behind this model.

In the first place, whenever an action is made a crime, any other actions necessarily linked to it are also outlawed. This is why a person who knowingly buys stolen merchandise is just as culpable as the one who knowingly sells it. Likewise, it inevitably becomes impossible to separate the sale of sex from its purchase; outlaw one, and the mirror image is complicit in its commission.

Further, the Swedish Model is not limited to just a ban on buying. Sweeping laws against “brothel-keeping” and “living off the avails of prostitution” also remain in place, and are used to penalize sex workers and deprive them of safety. Thus the full legal context of this scheme reveals it to be near-total criminalization, nowhere near the supposed “middle ground” that its proponents would have people believe.

The proponents of this scheme would argue that “prostituted women” would no longer be the targets of police, but instead would be offered social services to help them exit. That’s the theory – but reality is a different matter, with police in Sweden and Norway routinely watching and intimidating sex workers, even bullying their landlords to get them evicted. As for the social services, that only applies if the sex worker repents and embraces the government’s party line; otherwise, they are refused help, even denied condoms to help protect them from HIV and other STIs under the rationale that, because “prostitution is inherently dangerous”, there is no point in helping them reduce any risk of potential harm.

It is a lie to repeatedly refer to the “Swedish Model” as a form of decriminalization, because in fact it still gives police the power and authority to control sex workers. If those who sell sex are to be free of such control – and the abuses that inevitably come with it – the answer is full decriminalization of consensual commercial sex, allowing existing laws against assault and exploitation to protect them. This is what has worked in New Zealand and New South Wales, and what sex workers themselves rightly demand.

Inherently Harmful?

A key component of prohibitionist ideology is the assertion that commercial sex is “inherently harmful”, with variations such as “inherently violent”, “inherently degrading”, and so forth. This is the apparent justification behind rejecting any attempt at harm reduction or reform. In their minds, amelioration is pointless because it’s not just a case of prostitution having “bad things” associated with it, but that prostitution is inherently bad.

Ask the question of what makes selling sex “inherently” bad for the seller, and you hear one of several theories about what sex “really is” or “ought to be”, and how applying that theory to something other than sex isn’t right because “sex is different” because, well, it just is, okay? Yeah, prostitution is “inherently” bad because sex is “inherently” different.

you-keep-using-that-word

For an action to be inherently bad or harmful, then there must be unavoidable negative consequences in every case regarding said action. Consuming sugar, for example, is not in itself harmful. Indeed, we depend upon glucose to stay alive, and it’s only when the amount consumed becomes so large as to overwhelm the metabolism that harm is created.

On the other hand, being hit with an axe is inherently harmful. Even if the edge is dull, and the force not too great, it’s still sufficient to cause pain and possibly a bruise. Certainly better than losing a body part or bleeding to death, but harmful nevertheless. That doesn’t mean, however, that axes themselves are inherently harmful, and indeed properly using one brings about benefits. Also, even though using an axe in this way causes harm, there are a few contexts where doing so constitutes a lesser harm than not doing so, such as amputating a trapped limb where the alternative is abandoning the person to die.

Prohibitionists will often respond by posing the loaded question: “So, are you saying that prostitution is harmless?” To which I would explain that commercial sex, like any other activity, carries a risk of potential harm, and that any actual harm is dependent upon many factors, some simple (using condoms) and some complex (psychological disposition). For some people, consensual sex work is not only very low risk, it may actually provide benefits. A 1986 doctoral dissertation by Dr. Diana Prince, for example, indicated that 97 percent of escorts surveyed experienced increased self-esteem after entering the profession. For others, sex work is either the best available or least deleterious option available to them. To date, I’ve yet to see a reliable study showing anything more than ten percent of prostitutes being forced, while a number of studies reveal that many people choose to enter commercial sex for a number of reasons.

So the available evidence does not support a hard-and-fast dictum that selling sex is inherently harmful. Instead, we see a complex continuum of diverse experiences. That leads us to the question of which approach best applies to all such contexts; more specifically, who is best qualified to determine whether a person may engage in sex work. Given that our society regards both sexual and commercial interactions as generally best decided by those autonomous individuals so involved, it follows that such a principle extends to the buying and selling of sexual services, with any regulation for health and safety being formulated and implemented primarily by the individuals engaged in said work. In short, the full decriminalization of sex work by consenting adults, which provides the fullest range of options for both preventing and ameliorating any potential harm that may occur.

Of course, the prohibitionists would have none of this, and even some well-meaning moderates and liberals would call for some degree of government regulation and containment (“legalization”). The problem with any form of criminalization and stigmatization is that it deprives those involved in sex work of the tools they need to minimize the risk of potential harm, from negotiating power to legal recourse. And while legalization may ameliorate some conditions, too often it leads to a “back-door criminalization” for many sex workers. This also applies to those who have been coerced into selling sex, as Amnesty International notes:

[C]riminalization of sex work can hinder the fight against trafficking – for example, victims may be reluctant to come forward if they fear the police will take action against them for selling sex. Where sex work is criminalized, sex workers are also excluded from workplace protections which could increase oversight and help identify and prevent trafficking.

If anything, the prohibitionist drive to continue criminalizing commercial sex is what is inherently harmful to sex workers.

The Demons of Prohibitionism

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. – Eric Hoffer

During the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn’t enough to raise the alarm about isolated sociopaths using pentagrams and occult practices to control others. No, the crusaders warned of massive conspiracies, infiltrating all levels of society and government, exploiting and killing who knows how many innocents. The fact that they had no real evidence to support their claims did not deter them. After all, simplistic messages are much more effective at rallying people to your cause – and raking in the bucks.

Fast forward to the present day, and we see the same tactic being employed by those seeking to “abolish” commercial sex rather than assure greater safety. In their case, the principal “demons” are those who supposedly seduce or coerce women and youth into selling sex – the evil and abusive pimp. In the minds of prohibitionists, virtually all prostitutes are under the thumb of some pimp or other procurer who sends them off to be degraded at the hands of some desperate “john” or face hideous consequences.

But just as the conspiracy theories of the satanic panic eventually unraveled, so we’re beginning to see with the distortions of the prohibitionists. Not only is the stereotypical pimp a rarity, but in many cases where a third party helps with bookings or other aspects of the business, it’s the sex worker who is the boss.

In 2008, the John Jay College of Justice in New York City published a report on minors involved in commercial sex (click here for a copy). The results contradict many of the assumptions around sex work and survival sex, including the involvement of so-called pimps, referred to by the authors as “market facilitators”. According to this study, only ten percent of underage people who sell sex in NYC work with such a facilitator, and only eight percent reported being coerced by one. Indeed, 84 percent of female youth in the study had never even encountered a pimp.

Now, if a vast majority of runaway, throwaway and neglected teens who engage in selling sex do so without a pimp or “facilitator” around, it follows logically that adults who enter sex work are doing so in similar fashion, and in similar numbers. While many use social media and other online platforms to connect with clients, some will hire people to do web design and screen calls. These third parties may be “living on the avails of prostitution” but they hardly fit the stereotype of a controlling pimp.

Of course, it’s all too easy for prohibitionists to argue that anyone taking a percentage of a sex worker’s earning is “exploiting” them, especially at the rates that some insist upon. Setting aside the numbers for a moment, think about what’s going on. Person A is looking for clients, and Person B is offering to use their skills and time to help Person A to do so more effectively and safely. Why shouldn’t Person B receive payment for such services? Literary agents receive commissions for helping authors to get published, art dealers get a cut for selling a painting, and so forth – and we generally consider such arrangements to be acceptable business practices, so long as both parties mutually agree to the terms.

Yes, in some cases, the arrangements between sex workers and such market facilitators could be more fair. But this reality only strengthens the case to decriminalize the commercial sex industry. Let’s stop demonizing those who facilitate the affairs of sex workers and their clients, and provide all of them with greater transparency and accountability.

Mandating Tests for Sex Workers Doesn’t Get a Passing Grade

[Originally posted December 20, 2016]

Often when I engage in conversations with folks about sex work and public policy, I’m asked how I feel about mandatory testing of sex workers for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). And, when I answer that I don’t support such measures, they’re frequently astonished. “I thought you said that you support harm reduction methods! So why not this? Wouldn’t requiring sex workers to be regularly tested reduce the spread of HIV and other STIs?”

No. Testing doesn’t “prevent” anything. It provides information towards that end, and only if it’s done right.

Let’s take the argument for mandatory testing to its logical extreme. Sex workers are a relatively small segment of the total number of sexually active people out there, and according to the best studies out there, contribute very little to STIs overall, and virtually none of HIV transmissions. So if we were to mandate STI testing, then it makes sense to do that for all sexually active adults and adolescents, not just sex workers. Of course, it’s reasonable to assume that a significant number of people would lie about being sexually active, in order to avoid being tested. The answer then would be to test everyone from the age of thirteen up.

This would, of course, be met with a number of objections, from cost to loss of freedom to invasions of privacy. And yet, some would still argue that, since STIs constitute an “occupational hazard” for sex workers, then mandatory testing therefore qualifies as an occupational health and safety measure.

But again, this doesn’t make sense when applied to comparable circumstances. Hospital workers, for example, are exposed to far more diseases, some of them far more dangerous, and far more often. Yet hospitals do not regularly test every employee for every disease they might have been exposed to. Instead, they find it more effective to implement preventative measures, much as full-service sex workers use condoms and other safer sex measures to reduce the risk of contracting HIV or other infections.

There’s also the question of how such measures are best mandated and enforced. More often, they are mandated as a condition of employment rather than by legal regulation; even when laws or government regulations are put in place, it is usually left to employers to maintain and enforce, with government agencies making spot checks or responding to employee complaints. Also, the most effective systems are when lawmakers institute a general mandate to assure health and safety, while leaving specifics to another body which may adapt more quickly to changes in evidence as to the best means of assuring this.

An example of which I’m personally aware is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). I’ve been trained and recertified many times over the years, and have noticed how the protocols change as new evidence comes in, most significantly the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). While there are laws determining who may train and certify people, those laws do not specify the protocols for performing CPR; instead, the groups that train and certify pay attention to new scientific data, and update protocols accordingly.

Compare that system to how Nevada mandates STI testing for sex workers in their legal brothels. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that people with multiple sexual partners should be screened every three to six months, based on the best available medical studies; more frequent tests do not produce more reliable results. Nevada’s legal requirements, relatively unchanged since 1937, are that women working in brothels are required to have weekly medical exams, and at their own expense. With consistent condom usage, and STI rates reported at zero, where is the sense in having sex workers required to be tested at thirteen times the rate recommended by public health officials?

There is no good reason to impose such a requirement on sex workers when other people in similar circumstances are not similarly required. To impose such a burden is nothing more than discrimination, rooted in stigma and unnecessarily perpetuating it. Sex workers have long known how to minimize these risks, as proven by empirical studies. They need neither bureaucrats nor moralists to require anything further. If anything, the rest of us would benefit from listening to their collective experience.

Keeping Sex Workers Safe: An Alternative to the Swedish Model

[Originally posted March 2, 2016]

Currently, a parliamentary committee in the United Kingdom is conducting hearings on a proposal to implement the “Swedish model” of prostitution law – one where it is legal to sell sexual services, but illegal to buy them. The English Collective of Prostitutes, along with other sex worker rights activists and supporters, have decried this approach actually making things worse for sex workers, especially the most vulnerable who work on the street.

It certainly doesn’t help that other punitive and badly worded laws would be left in place. The law against “pimping” would make anyone paid by a sex worker – web designers, accountants, drivers – a criminal for deriving financial gain from the prostitution of another. And two or more sex workers become criminals for sharing a flat, even for mutual protection, because of how the UK’s law against brothel-keeping is written. Is it any wonder that the ECP and their allies favor the New Zealand model of full decriminalization, which has already produced measurable results in terms of the relationship between sex workers and police?

I don’t expect David Cameron’s government to embrace decriminalization any time soon, especially when it seems the leaders of the “all-party committee” appear to have already made up their minds. Many believe that outlawing clients will somehow protect prostitutes from violence and abuse, just as outlawing brothels and third-party agents was intended to do. Intention is one thing, but hard fact and common sense shows that driving sex work underground only makes it more dangerous by depriving sex workers of the tools they need to protect themselves. The fatal flaw in this proposal is the assumption that every client is abusive, and that every transaction in sex work is exploitative. It’s no surprise that the most fervent supporters of the Swedish model have refused to listen to sex workers themselves, unlike the government of New Zealand, who included sex worker organizations in their consultations.

There is, however, an alternative to outlawing the clients of sex workers, one that could be implemented under the current system of laws, and which would empower sex workers instead of denying their agency. Many escorts and escort agencies screen potential clients, even developing and sharing resources to do so. Imagine if all sex workers had access to a database – created and maintained jointly by police, sex worker organizations, and other relevant agencies – allowing for quicker and more complete background checks of potential clients. Those with a history of abusive or violent behavior could be weeded out, and sex workers would still retain the right to determine whether they wanted to provide their services to the individual in question. Even street prostitutes would be able to access such a database through an app on their cell phones, and different groups and agencies could provide it free of charge.

This is by no means a perfect solution, but I feel it would be a far more effective one than outlawing all clients, regardless of whether they’re respectful regulars or abusive asses. It’s in line with proposals made by many European sex workers in the 80’s and 90’s (yes, I’ve been studying sex work issues for that long) and there are similar precedents in other commercial activities. Most important, it gives power back to the service providers themselves – and that would seem to me a much more feminist approach than paternalistic overreach.