Jan 20, 2006
There exists a myth, typically among prostitutionⁱ prohibitionists, that decriminalisation is a politics for privileged sex workers.

Now, first of all, the issue is all wrong: it poisons the well of sex worker rights with claims that sex workers should not have freedom because… uh… rich whores might like it. The purpose of this myth is intimidation: to make us forget the fact that state persecution, jailing, and intimidation cannot be good for anyone. According to this logic, the Bill of Rights must have been a bad thing, since it was supported by Madison and Jefferson and others of the privileged classes. And this approach also discredits many of the prohibitionists themselves--well, at least those who have ever been kept by academia, wielded power in state programs, or been found in possession of a government grant.

But I want to say something else: I think the myth is simply not true. And the way in which it is untrue reads out a very different sex worker class analysis.

Free-market economists favorite the term “regulatory capture”-in which state-targeted industries end up turning regulatory agencies to their advantage at public expense. Contrary to the textbooks, big businesses have often lobbied for regulatory control; large companies, capable of meeting the bureaucratic demands of state regulation and on friendly terms with the legislators, can expect to handle regulation; while the smaller competitor can’t. In The Triumph of Conservatism, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko argued that the ‘reforms’ of the Progressive Era were backed and bankrolled by the ‘captains of industry’ themselves. Desiring to rule through crony capitalism, and threatened by competition on a free market, the monopolist wanted the state as a tool to ruin his rivals.

It’s interesting; remember that the same Progressive movement did so much to encourage the persecution of prostitutes in this country. But, going on.

Established drug cartels are among the winners of drug prohibition. When drug selling is persecuted, the trade stigmatised and made dangerous, and a restricted supply drives prices skyrocketing. As a result, those with the money, connections, or firepower to make it do fabulously. No one favors prohibition like a drug lord.

The same thing happens in the sex industry. Those who can get on top of the regulation oligopolise the trade. Sex workers, persecuted if they work by themselves, are safer in the clubs and massage parlours- tipping the balance of power and paycheck in favour of the owners who are typically men. I have known sex workers in clubs who felt management pressure them to perform unsafe sexual acts which could in principle kill them. Why on Earth do they stay? Because if you work as an independent or with other women, you can’t call the police for protection, but you do fear the police arresting you and destroying your life. Meanwhile, the police usually ignore the established venues. Corporate pimps are enthroned because the state persecutes other alternatives.

But what about independent sex workers? Who supports decrim.? I regret to say the answer is truer to economics than justice. I’ve recently been spending time online in an escort chat room, and the topic of legalisation/decriminalisation came up. As I read through the comments, it dawned on me that those escorts who had been presenting themselves as most expensive showed precisely the least support for decriminalisation.

“I don’t think sex for sale should ever be legalized. It dehumanizes both [the] man and woman involved. In fact, legalizing sex for sale may in fact actually hurt our businesses (Supply would go up, demand down)”, said one provider. I told her I didn’t feel that way, that I loved and respected my work. So she corrected: “I think one can command more, and would have more self respect as an ‘experience, fantasy, or fetish’ rather than just reducing ourselves to only sperm receptacles for rent. Anyone in agreeance? Laws banning sex for sale forces us to value ourselves more.”

If ‘escorting’ is legal, but ‘prostitution’ is not, a class division is created between those with the class, security, and social skills to portray themselves as escorts and those who can’t--and the higher up the ladder, the more this is true, since exclusive escorts who operate by referrals and intensive screening have much less to fear. If you are classy enough that the cops don’t care, and you don’t care about hurting your sisters, then prohibition can drive up prices and imprison potential competition. And it’s more than that, as the quote above clearly demonstrates, legal fictions let some sex workers feel better than others- different from a mere ‘sperm receptacle’ (excuse me?). Laws banning sex flatter a certain kind of sex worker’s pocketbook and ego.

Please let me say: my problem is not with providers who are beautiful, good at their work, or command a high price by the grace of style and spirit. I’m an escort myself, and I’d like to do well with it as much as anyone. But the attitude above--and I’ve heard and read others like it--is one of naked snobbery backed by the sword of the law. I’ve never known a street prostitute who wanted to be hunted down and jailed. I know lots of independents, with the whole range of feeling towards the Life, and I’ve not known one who looked forward to an arrest or a police sting. And of course I’ve known expensive escorts who stood for principle- and all honor to them! But the fact remains that privileged sex workers have the only possible vested interest in the regime of state persecution.

There is a class division among sex workers, all right, but not like the prohibitionists claim. Human rights are just that, the common property of humanity, and as always a few desire to profit at the suppression of other’s freedoms. It’s not decriminalisation, but prohibition, which favors the privileged. Prohibitionists need to challenge their assumptions, for state persecution benefits only the connected and powerful. This is the sex industry’s crony capitalism.