The Case for Decriminalizing Pimping

Recently, the UK Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee issued a recommendation to decriminalize certain aspects of prostitution. While some sex worker rights organizations and activists hailed the move, others have expressed caution. Too often, those who have advocated the so-called "Swedish Model" claim that it "decriminalizes sex workers" while supposedly tackling "exploitation"; in reality, this regime is best described as asymmetrical criminalization, with its real-world results being disastrous for the very people supposedly being "helped" by this approach. Is it any wonder that Norway's government actually stated in a report that the hardships meted upon sex workers in that country was considered a sign of success?

It thus bears repeating that what the vast majority of sex workers want is full decriminalization of their work, including their relationships with third parties. In response, those who wish to keep or expand criminal prohibitions drag out the tired trope of the "abusive pimp" – now labeled a "sex trafficker" – using manipulation and coercion to "lure" and "enslave" young girls into the trade. Even so-called moderates who support half-way measures for making prostitution legal wind up swallowing this blue pill; yes, they say, let people sell sex if they want, but let's keep the ban on those evil pimps.

There are two major problems with this, rooted in the dichotomous definitions given to the word pimp. The first is that the best research actually shows that the villainous stereotype is such an anomaly that some sex workers consider it a myth. A goodly percentage of escorts are "independents" who operate as sole proprietors; in fact, many of these independent escorts are employers themselves, retaining the assistance of others for everything from website design to office administration to transportation and security.

This leads into the second problem with regard to anti-pimping laws. While the public has been given a narrow and loaded stereotypical definition, the law defines the act more broadly as deriving financial benefit from the prostitution of another. As a result, those employed by independent escorts are deemed to be "exploiting" them, simply because of the way the law is worded. Indeed, this overly sweeping definition may also be applied to anyone who receives any significant funds from sex workers, from those who rent or sublet apartments, to their children or other relatives. If we really wanted to take this to the extreme, we could consider any and all transactions done with "the profits of prostitution" to make just about everyone a pimp – newsstands, coffee shops, dry cleaners, even the neighbor holding a yard sale.

I'm sure those seeking a comfortable middle ground would advocate for a "reformed" anti-pimping law, where the focus is on abuse rather than mere financial gain. This raises the question of what constitutes abuse, and why new laws need to be created when current laws already address such problems. Using violence? We have laws against assault and battery. Taking money from someone who works for you? Laws against theft, and labor protection laws, also provide for that. Turf wars between pimps? Assuming this part of the myth is also true, that would fall under existing racketeering and anti-trust laws. Et cetera, et cetera. If the existence of these laws proves anything, it is that just about every business has some history of exploitative outliers. If the sex industry has more than its fair share, it seems more because of the stigma and lack of transparency which comes from continued criminalization.

Like any group of service providers, prostitutes don't always work in isolation, even when they do so as sole proprietors. They depend upon various support services, as well as supporting both biological and chosen family members. Decriminalizing sex workers while criminalizing those connected to them in this way is just as asymmetrically unworkable as the criminalization of their clientele. And before we attach the stigmatized label of "pimp" to those so connected, let's remember how deep those connections may run – even to ourselves.

Craigslist's Shell Game

Looks like a big headline, right? CRAIGSLIST TO CLOSE EROTIC SERVICES SECTION

Read further down. In reality, they are replacing "Erotic Services" with "Adult Services" under stricter guidelines.

Remember the old shell game? Put the pea under one of three shells, move them around, make it look like the pea disappeared? But really, it's still around -- you just had to look more carefully, and see that the fellow with the shells palmed it.

It's clear that Craigslist is the winner here. They look good in the eyes of the public, and can make more money by requiring a ten dollar charge for every adult services ad.

And that would make erotic -- sorry, adult service providers the losers, right?

Yup. But not because of the ten bucks, or because Craigslist can screen and reject certain ads. The service providers lose by being driven further underground, which predictably heightens the risks they have to face.

And that's the real irony here. All of these moves to rein in erotic professionals is being done ostensibly to "protect" them. Look at the reason Rhode Island politicians are giving for passing stricter laws -- to prevent trafficking.

Uh huh. Trafficking, both sexual and non-sexual, is an underground industry. So how is driving sex work further underground supposed to protect people from being forced into it by threats or lies? Doesn't it make more sense to treat sex work like all other forms of work, and bring it into the light of day?

Look at how the trade is done in countries like Germany and the Netherlands -- above ground, with the government able to set standards for safe and fair working conditions, and potential clients knowing they needn't go sneaking around to find what they are looking for. No, the Dutch and German models aren't perfect, but compare them with the shoddy and hypocritical way that sex workers are handled in Poland, the Czech Republic, and other countries.

Let's face it, outlawing sex-for-hire has never worked. Excessive regulation has not fared much better. It's only served to deprive those who work in the trade with the tools to better their circumstances. So let's give them a real chance to do so, by treating their work the same as other forms of work.

Sex Work in the City

So the news is out, police have made an arrest in the "craigslist killer" case. Let's all hope that Julissa Brissman and her family, and the other victims, will see justice.

But let's also hope we can use this opportunity to start a new dialogue about sex work -- both it's reality, and a vision of what it can and should be. Yes, it's dangerous for escorts and other erotic service providers to put themselves out there. It's also dangerous for firefighters, airplane pilots, and people in many other professions.

But we don't ask those professionals to quit. We do what we can to minimize the risks they take, to make it as safe as possible. So why not with sex work? Because we still view it through the lens of stigmatization, as something "dirty" and "beneath us".

Stop and think for a moment, about those who see their erotic profession not just as a job, and not only as a service, but as a calling -- a way to bring forth a measure of joy and healing to our world.

Why not?

Why not encourage that vision amongst more people in the trade, and their clientele? Why not begin to see them with respect and dignity, and from there provide them with the same measure of fairness and safety that people in other professions know, expect and even take for granted?

Recently my friend Miss Calico attended a media workshop for erotic professionals, preparing more to speak their truth. It's about time we listened, and in hearing their words, question so many of the misconceptions we cling to about the demimonde.