Brook Magnanti's comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...-would-decriminalising-prostitution-mean.html
By Dr Brooke Magnanti, formerly known as Belle de Jour1:34PM BST 15 Aug 2014
This week, following in the footsteps of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and The Lancet, among others, The Economist came out firmly in favour of decriminalising prostitution.
Citing arguments to do with public health (as recently highlighted at the AIDS 2014 conference in Melbourne) and workers' rights, the cover story was devoted to an impassioned defence of full decriminalisation.
Currently, in the UK, sex work is technically legal - contrary to popular opinion (mainly influenced by cop dramas). Selling sex is not in itself illegal, but pimps, brothels and soliciting all are. While this sounds a reasonable compromise, it does mean that sex workers are often forced to work alone, or risk being arrested if (say) two escorts work out of the same flat. The general distrust of police has also led to serious problems, as highlighted by the Ugly Mugs project - which allows the sharing of information on potentially dangerous clients, and makes it easier to report assault.
Full decriminalisation in the UK would, estimates suggest, add £5.3 billion to the GDP (while trying to estimate the exact size of the sex industry is always dodgy ground, it's safe to assume that incomes may currently be underreported across the industry, out of fear of police intrusion).
But what exactly would it look like?
In the Netherlands and Germany, legalisation means that only licensed sex workers, working in particular premises (such as Germany's brothels or Amsterdam's famous windows), are working legally. This is also true in the US state of Nevada, where only the highly-regulated and very restictive brothels are legal. Those arrangements have come under fire - by none more so than the sex workers themselves - for fostering abuses in the system that make it, in effect, worse than pimping.
With decriminalisation, by contrast, sex workers could work anywhere - even from their homes, or with other prostitutes - without breaking the law. Legalisation gives the employers the balance of power; decriminalisation returns rights to the workers, making them free agents.
According to The Economist, the move of sex workers online is a boon to the industry and already allows them increased freedom. Sex workers can build 'personal brands' and screen their clients, as well as give and receive feedback. They can operate on a flexible, freelance basis and manage bookings around their other commitments. They can share health information with customers. In other words, the internet is making prostitution more like a regular 'service industry'.
The suggestion that prostitution should be decriminalised has, of course, met with opposition - especially from groups promoting the so-called 'Swedish Model' - which criminalises the purchase of sex, rather than the sale. Scotland considered and rejected such a law last year. While in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the issue has been under debate for some time without a clear outcome.
The Economist piece has attracted much online attention from the anti-sex work crowd. But what is noticeable is how quiet these same voices were when the WHO and Lancet drew the same conclusions about decriminalisation. Why? Is it perhaps easier to attack economic ideology rather than argue public health with the medical establishment. But while neither an economic, or health-based, argument is ideal when the crux of the issue is securing individual rights, to many who have campaigned on behalf of sex workers it is at least a sign of growing support for evidence-based rather than prejudice-based policy.
The economic arguments are rarely taken into account by those who support the 'Swedish model' (or End Demand). By mistaking services for products, they imagine fewer customers would result in fewer sex workers. But this is unrealistic - the assumption that the number of clients and the number of prostitutes is necessarily linked is in itself faulty. If fewer people ate at fast food outlets, would the minimum wage workers there be better off without having to do anything else? Exactly.
The downward turn in income - that you can get 'more bang for your buck' - has been noted by the Economist (and apocryphally elsewhere for several years). It's fair to say that fewer sex workers operating in London earn as much as I did, per hour, ten years on.
According to the Economist, the picture is much the same worldwide. This has not, however, resulted in less supply.
This is in part because people with criminal records, or outed as sex workers, often find it difficult to get into other employment (in some states in the US they are even put on sex offenders' lists). In part because - even in those places where the supply of sex has been decriminalised - women are still highly stigmatised once known as sex workers. And in part because the economic opportunities in general have not been great for some years now.
Yes, more sex workers advertising on the web and the proliferation of review sites and apps, make it easier for both sellers and buyers to compare the market. But the cost of living continues to rise, and those who wish to restrict prostitution and advocate the 'Swedish model' rarely, if ever, propose viable alternatives to the work or campaign to eliminate criminal records.
For many, this will be the first introduction to the workers' rights approach, which is only just hitting mainstream coverage (as espoused by some such as sex worker turned writer Melissa Gira Grant). Such arguments reveal the interesting ways in which workers' rights can and do overlap with individual freedoms.
If that means more minds are opened to a rethink of the current laws, for example incorporating the Merseyside Model - where police have built links with sex workers and declared violence against them to be a 'hate crime' - then all the better.
