A number of resolutions were submitted to trade union conferences this year calling, amongst other things, for the full decriminalisation of sex work. The following article, based on a recent speech by CHRISTINE THOMAS to a meeting of women members of the Socialist Party, is published here as an initial contribution to a discussion about the issues raised in the conference motions.
It’s important to say from the outset that the sex industry(1) is a very broad spectrum ranging from the horrific forced trafficking of women(2) for prostitution at one end to sex chat lines and OnlyFans at the other. Because of this it’s not possible to have a catch-all position that is relevant for every aspect and each issue needs to be discussed concretely.
This is not the first time that we’ve had to address what is potentially a controversial question relating to the sex industry. At the beginning of the 2000s a group of sex workers asked to affiliate to the GMB union, which then went on to organise women working in lap dancing clubs in London. This provoked a debate in the workers’ movement and in our own party, with some raising that we shouldn’t support unionisation because this would legitimise the sex industry and the violence and abuse inherent to it, would promote the idea that sex work is work like any other, and would negatively impact on the union itself. This was a debate that took place 20 years ago, but the political position agreed at the time is still relevant to the discussion we’re having today.
Our starting point is that we are opposed to the sex industry, and for several reasons. Because of the way that it exploits and oppresses the women who are directly involved in it. But also because of the wider impact it has on women and on attitudes in society more generally. In a recent survey of women living in the vicinity of strip clubs, often referred to as ‘sex entertainment venues’, in three cities – Glasgow, Cardiff and Manchester – women spoke about the harassment and intimidation they had faced by men frequenting the clubs, how they feared for their safety, felt uncomfortable, and had restricted their movements to avoid the venues. And these fears were certainly not unfounded. After lap dancing clubs in Camden opened in the 2000s incidents of rape and sexual violence in the area increased by 57%.
The sex industry reflects the wider unequal economic and gender power relations that women face in society and then amplifies and sustains them. By sexually objectifying women and commodifying their bodies it reinforces the harmful centuries-old idea that women are the property of men, under their control to do as they wish with – which is at the root of gender violence and sexual abuse. The sex industry doesn’t exist in isolation; it’s part of a wider ‘apparatus’: an economic and social system – capitalism – that exploits and reproduces harmful gender norms and stereotypes in the pursuit of profit and power.
And, of course, it’s because of those same unequal economic and power relations that women end up working in the sex industry in the first place. We would not endorse the ‘sex work positivity’ argument that working in the sex industry is a ‘free choice’. It was quite common in the 2000s, even in the trade unions, to hear sex work, including prostitution, described as a ‘lifestyle choice’ and even ‘empowering’ because of the money that women can potentially earn. While this was in part a reaction to those who wrongly take a moralistic attitude to sex work, and the stigmatisation which surrounds the industry and those who work in it, it was also a reflection of neoliberal, individualistic, ‘postfeminist’ ideas that were very prevalent at the time. Arguments today tend to be couched in the language of ‘bodily autonomy’ and women having the right to do what they want with their own bodies – which is also an individualistic approach and, most importantly, takes no account of the wider context that the sex industry operates in.
Maybe there is a very small minority of women who make a lot of money from sex work, feel empowered, and even enjoy their work. But that’s not the reality for the vast majority, and we can’t base our approach on a small minority. We would recognise that not all women who sell sex have been physically coerced or forced into prostitution by traffickers, pimps or controlling men, but how much of a free choice is it if you’re a single parent on benefits turning to sex work because you can’t get a job that fits in with childcare and because you’re up to your ears in debt and can’t pay the rent? If you’re a student and it’s only through sex work that you’re able to afford to live and continue studying? If you’re faced with the choice of many-years long NHS waiting lists for gender-affirming surgery – or finding astronomical sums to pay for it? Or if you’re a disabled person struggling with benefit cuts and workplaces that refuse to adjust for you to be able to work?
In most Western European countries migrant women make up the majority of sex workers and only a minority of these will have been trafficked. But it’s no real choice if they’re involved in the work because there is no alternative in their country of origin or the country they move to. It’s also important to recognise that there are not only economic drivers regarding sex work. Many women involved in prostitution, especially street prostitution, have a substance addiction or have suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
A dual approach
Although we are opposed to the sex industry, at the same time we would make a clear distinction between the industry and the women who work in it. We want to bring an end to the sex industry and the exploitation and oppression it entails, but that will only be possible by ending the capitalist system and the unequal economic and power structures that underpin it. That is what we are fighting for. But in the meantime capitalism continues to exist, and therefore, unfortunately, so does the sex industry.
In the debate regarding the unionisation of sex workers, we concluded that as long as the industry exists we would support measures aimed at minimising the harm and exploitation that women working in the industry face, wherever that is possible. So we didn’t oppose the GMB recruiting lap dancers. We recognised that it could potentially give them some say over improving their working conditions, including health and safety. Also, unionisation could raise their awareness about the need for working-class collective organisation and action which they could also take into other jobs they might be doing alongside sex work or could be doing in the future.
At the same time, however, we argued that the GMB and other unions should step up their fight more generally for better wages, improved working conditions, increased benefits, affordable childcare, decent housing, free education and for all the material improvements in women’s lives that would allow them the possibility of an exit route out of the industry and might mean that they weren’t forced into it in the first place.
We have also followed this dual approach in relation to campaigns around local councils licensing sex entertainment venues. In 2008, for example, the White Hart pub in Lewisham applied for a license as a lap dancing club. At the time we had two Socialist Party councillors in the area who, alongside local residents, were involved in launching the ‘Stop the Strip Campaign’. This was at the time of the global financial crisis and subsequent economic recession. A Socialist Party leaflet linked the lack of economic choices women, and young women in particular, faced in the local area and how as a consequence they could be forced into working in the lap dancing club if the licence was approved. The two Socialist Party councillors presented a resolution to the council calling for a Compulsory Purchase Order, demanding that the council should take over the pub building and use it for community facilities and services that people needed, providing employment for local women.
Prostitution
The resolutions put forward to the union conferences this year relate not to lap dancers or sex workers in general but specifically to those involved in prostitution. For many years we have supported decriminalisation – that is, the removal of all legislation which criminally punishes women who sell sex. Not as a solution to the harm and exploitation that women in the industry face, there is no solution under capitalism, but as a form of harm reduction. The situation in Britain is that it is not illegal to sell sex but it is illegal to solicit – so for women involved in prostitution to approach clients or to advertise their services. The punishment is a fine, but non-payment of fines can result in a custodial sentence. It’s also illegal for two or more sex workers to work together in an indoor venue.
We have explained that decriminalisation could reduce police harassment of sex workers and make it easier for them to report violence to the police. Around 60% of women involved in prostitution have experienced violence at some time and they are around 18 times more likely to be killed than non sex workers. Decriminalisation of sex workers would also allow women to work together indoors, which could potentially help to reduce violence and increase their safety. We would also support the removal of criminal records for those sex workers who already have convictions and the right for migrant sex workers, not just those who have been trafficked, to remain in Britain and have access to public services and benefits. Scrapping legislation relating to sex workers would still leave laws in place against trafficking, child abuse and violence and coercive control.
Some places have introduced Tolerance Zones – designated areas in towns and cities where the police and authorities ‘tolerate’ prostitution. This partial, informal ‘decriminalisation’ has been presented as a means of improving the safety of street sex workers. Often, however, it is more about looking for a ‘quick fix’ – removing a ‘problem’ from residential areas, effectively attempting to ‘sweep it under the carpet’. Sex workers are restricted to a specific area and those working outside of that area are still criminalised. The chosen areas are mostly industrial and isolated on the outskirts of cities which can increase the danger for both sex workers and other women who find themselves in the vicinity. When local councils are slashing local services to the bone, including reducing and turning off street lighting, there will be little confidence that promises of CCTV, adequate lighting, health services and other resources to improve safety will materialise.
Nordic Model
Some of the conference resolutions call for support for and affiliation to the organisation DecrimNow which on its website describes itself as “an alliance of workers who sell sexual services, sex workers’ rights collectives, politicians, feminists, trade unions, human rights and student organisations who are dedicated to improving the lives and working conditions of sex workers in the UK”. They are campaigning for the full decriminalisation of sex work, which the resolutions also support. As well as the removal of current legislation which criminalises sex workers, they also demand the decriminalisation of men who buy sex.
In this country you could say that we have the partial criminalisation of male buyers of sex. ‘Kerb crawling’ has been illegal since the 1980s, and since 2010 it has been illegal to have sex with a sex worker who has been coerced, forced or trafficked. A number of countries, however, have attempted to go further by introducing what is often called the ‘Nordic Model’, or ‘challenge demand model’, and there have been some discussions about introducing it here too. This legislation targets the men buying sex. Supporters of this model argue that it is aimed at changing attitudes towards the commodification of women’s bodies, reducing demand for prostitution, as well as supporting the women themselves.
On their website DecrimNow assume that criminalisation of men who buy sex goes hand-in-hand with the criminalisation of sex workers, although that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. It would be perfectly possible to remove legislation as it relates to sex workers and at the same time criminalise the buyers of sex. Would socialists be in favour of that? There is no real accurate evidence about the effect on demand in those countries which have introduced the Nordic Model, including Sweden, which was the first country to do so in 1999. Street prostitution has not been totally eradicated and involves mainly migrant women who are at particular risk of violence and harm.
Some organisations claiming to represent sex workers argue that where it has been introduced the Nordic Model has increased the dangers and risks for sex workers. They say, for example, that because men are concerned about being arrested, sex workers don’t have enough time to suss them out before getting into their car.
The original legislation as introduced in Sweden was accompanied by campaigns by feminist organisations to raise awareness about the objectification of women and sexism. Resources were promised for campaigning, support services, and routes out of the sex industry. But at a time dominated by austerity and cuts to local services, that is not the context in which the Nordic Model is being proposed or introduced today, and therefore does not necessarily pass the ‘harm reduction test’. Although again we would need to concretely consider what legislation is being proposed, who is proposing it, and why.
Banning websites or apps used by sex workers can also result in negative effects for sex workers. In the US in 2018 the SESTA-FOSTA federal law made websites legally responsible if their users post content that promotes prostitution or sex trafficking. Also presented as a ‘demand reduction’ measure it has resulted in the closing down of online forums and websites used by sex workers to vet potential clients. This has inevitably forced some sex workers back into street prostitution, increasing the dangers that they face from violent men. What to do about online platforms raises the important question of whose control they are actually under.
Legalisation
While we are in favour of repealing laws as they relate to sex workers, that is not the same as legalisation. We would oppose, for example, the licensing and registration of brothels, and brothels being designated as sex entertainment venues like strip clubs. This would mean legitimising and normalising the sex industry, amplifying the effect it has in reinforcing and perpetuating harmful male attitudes towards women. It would mean big brothel-owning companies entering the sex industry, making huge profits out of the super-exploitation of women.
To see what this would mean in practice we only have to look at Germany where prostitution became a ‘legal service’ in 2002, following a law which was co-sponsored by the Green Party. Since then, the sex industry has basically exploded. Germany has the highest number of sex workers involved in prostitution per head of population of any country in Europe. Sixty-three percent of women working in brothels come from outside Germany, and in 2007 it was listed by the United Nations as the top destination for victims of human trafficking.
One of the reasons given for legalisation was that it would improve the conditions sex workers have to work in. But the reality is very different. Since 2017 registration (including payment of tax) has been compulsory yet charities estimate that around 85% of sex workers are unregistered.
The official sector is dominated by ‘mega brothels’ where it is not the women who decide the prices charged and the hours worked but the brothel managers, who also impose all kinds of draconian rules, such as working naked or not using mobile phones. Breaking the rules results in the women being fined. It’s basically a massive moneymaking project with the super-exploitation of the women involved.
To give an idea of the normalisation of the industry, these brothels promote special days with cut-price offers for pensioners and give discounts for the unemployed. When the law first came in there were incidents of unemployed women threatened with having their benefits cut if they refused to take a job in a brothel.
Many more examples could be given from other countries where sex work has been legalised. In Spain, where prostitution was legalised in 1995, between 27% and 39% of men have paid for sex. (The figure is 10% in Britain, although of course that could be an underestimation as not all men who have done so would admit to buying sex). Analysis carried out in 2013 of 150 countries concluded that legalising prostitution has led to its expansion and to increased trafficking.
What the unions should do
If you look at the DecrimNow website, it doesn’t explicitly call for the legalisation of sex work, but that is in reality what is mean by ‘full decriminalisation’. There is a heading “the decriminalisation of prostitution” – so no ambiguity about what it is relating to – and under the heading there is a list of demands, many of which we would support. But one of those demands says: “Workers can choose jobs in managed premises where they can negotiate for fair conditions through labour law and health and safety regulations”. The key word here is ‘negotiate’. The very use of this word implies that there is someone else, a ‘boss’ for the sex workers to negotiate with. This isn’t referring to sex workers coming together informally in a kind of cooperative in an attempt to increase their safety, which is what we mean by decriminalisation. This is women being employed in legalised, registered brothels – just as they are in Germany and other countries where prostitution has been legalised and normalised.
Of course, reading the conference resolutions you wouldn’t necessarily know that this is what lies behind the demand for ‘full decriminalisation’. Even those moving the resolutions may not be aware of the logic of what full decriminalisation would actually mean in practice. Where possible socialists should attempt to move amendments and try to speak to the resolutions, making clear the distinction between decriminalisation as harm reduction and legalisation, as well as indicating the crucial points that are missing from most of the resolutions. There is no recognition, for example, of the wider effects that the sex industry has in promoting and reinforcing harmful attitudes towards all women, focusing only on the women directly involved in selling sex.
Neither is there any reference to what the unions themselves should be doing, apart from supporting DecrimNow – ie contracting out campaigning to an external organisation, which is unfortunately common practice in the unions with regard to other social issues like fighting racism. There is nothing about how the unions, with their millions of members, should themselves be collectively fighting, not just to change the law, but for the material resources that would allow women to exit the sex industry and to prevent them from having to go into it in the first place. This should go hand in hand with a political struggle to end capitalism. A socialist society, in which the profit motive is no longer the motor force of the economy; in which the structures and ideological apparatus that engender inequalities of power and wealth are destroyed, would in turn lay the basis for the eradication of the sex industry and the poverty, inequality, sexism, violence and abuse that women face under the current system.
Notes:
(1) Just using the phrases ‘sex industry’ and ‘sex work’ can be controversial because of their association with the idea that sex work is work like any other. However, these are the phrases that are most commonly used in the trade unions and more generally so I will be using them too.
(2) For convenience I will be referring to women, while recognising that non-binary people and also men are involved in the sex industry, although the overwhelming majority of sex workers are women.