Sex work is one of the oldest livelihoods in the world. The regulation by governmental entities of the sex trade and the workers in it has been tossed around the Western World for a very long time.  Here, we distinguish between legalization and regulation. Legalization is the (Lister)decriminalization of a sex worker to sell sexual services. Regulation, often through registering with the government as a worker, allows access to health services and projects by the government for the work and potentially the ability of the government to collect taxes. The only place to have regulated sex work in the United States, is Nevada. There, the rules are clear, the process is consistent, and the regulated sex industry has a long experience to draw from, going back to 1971 (Barbara G Brents) (Jennifer Heineman). In the Western world, Nevada and the Netherlands demonstrate that regulation works. Across the academic literature, there have been observed many upsides to regulation including the works of Brents (Barbara G Brents), Heineman (Jennifer Heineman), Beer (Beer), Benoit (Benoit and Shumka, Sex Work in Canada), (Benoit, Maurice, and Abel), Duff (Duff, Sou, and Dobrer), Hubbard (Hubbard, Collins, and Murray) and Lutnick (Lutnick and Cohan). Regardless of what we think of the sex industry, we all agree harm reduction is the goal, and human trafficking is wrong. However, taking all the information into account. Most social scientists agree that regulation is the logical step forward.

This is a very complex issue, and both sides have justified concerns. In this essay, we will explore why regulation works. Note: legalization and decriminalization are not the same, legalization is to many sex workers better than the Nordic Model but the end goal for sex workers in the majority is decriminalization. As the title states directly decriminalization is a necessary reform but it is a step along the way not the end goal and certainly not the ideal for all sex workers. This is highly contentious even in the sex worker community and we should listen to them, this is a stepping stone, not the final solution. 

The Benefits of the Nevada Model

According to Heineman (Jennifer Heineman) and Brents (Barbara G Brents) in detailed studies of sex work in Nevada, there are five benefits to the Nevada model. Nevada is the only state in the United States to legalize prostitution, with legal brothels existing in 10 of Nevada’s 17 counties. The benefits of the regulations include 1) health and safety regulations that help protect against the risks associated with the profession; 2) legal protections and rights that protect sex workers under state labour laws; 3) reduction of the stigma since it is treated as a small business; 4) economic benefits for the worker as well as for the state through taxation; and, 5) improved working condition since it is treated as a business including regulating total hours worked. Sex workers undergo mandatory health checks, including regular screenings for sexually transmitted infections. This systematic health monitoring ensures a safer working environment and promotes the overall health of workers​​. Of course, there are criticisms of the Nevada model. Critics will cite the commodification of sex in Nevada and objectification of women. However, we live in a capitalist society, and everything is somewhat commodified.  Naturally, this capitalistic tendency will lead to the commodification of sex. This concern is important; however, we must not discount the significant harm reduction from the five benefits listed above. Concern for sex workers is understandable; sex workers themselves have said this model works. It is naturally a fine line to walk, but, unlike Canada, it is a middle ground.

Challenges in Canada

Canada’s current model for sex work was signed into law in 2014 (Canadian Civil Liberties Association). The stated goal of Bill C-36 is to abolish the sex trade by punishing pimps and middlemen but not the sex workers (Canadian Civil Liberties Association) (Benoit and Shumka, Sex Work in Canada). However, it lacks a model of regulation to treat sex work as a legal business and, therefore, has none of the benefits to the worker or the government that the Nevada model does.  According to the literature and Statistics Canada, Bill C-36 has decreased street sex sales, but in home and hotel locations, the sex trade has increased (Hensley).  The current Canadian model isn’t working for sex workers or the government. According to the studies of  Beer (Beer), Benoit (Benoit and Shumka, Sex Work in Canada), (Benoit, Maurice and Abel), Duff (Duff, Sou and Dobrer), Canada could significantly benefit from a regulated sex industry. Like in Nevada, regulating sex work would increase health and safety in the sex industry. Licensing means businesses must adhere to health and safety regulations, reducing the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and infections and unsafe work environments. Access to health care decreases the likelihood of STIs and HIV through access to condoms. Second, a regulated sex trade can become a stream of income for the government through taxation and legal licensing. Third, regulation allows sex workers to organize and advocate for themselves, reducing abuse.  Fourth, regulation and monitoring from the government reduce the nuisance from things such as traffic and noise, improving the living conditions for everyone. Lastly, regulation legitimizes sex work as a profession, reducing the stigma against sex workers. In Beer’s thesis, Beer studied the utility of regulation in allowing sex workers in Toronto and Vancouver to organize for political advocacy (Beer). Benoit points out the state of living conditions of sex workers in Canada and, likewise, how their financial bracket could benefit the government, given that sex workers in Canada make more income than sex workers do in other Western countries (Benoit and Shumka, Sex Work in Canada). Duff studied the mental health benefits that regulation could bring to sex workers in British Columbia (Duff, Sou, and Dobrer).  Given these benefits, we should utilize the existing framework of Bill C-36, which discourage pimps and middlemen but add to it a regulatory framework that treats sex workers as small business owners allowing them protection and government taxation. It can benefit the government financially. Nevada has shown it works, and the majority of literature on this issue agrees on the benefits of regulation. Again, as in the case of Nevada, due to the capacity for harm reduction and as many sex workers protest for reform of Bill C-36, it is reasonable to add these regulatory measures. While it is well-intentioned to abolish the sex trade, history shows it has not worked (Lister), and so we should strive for harm reduction by regulating the systems that already exist. 

Netherlands Experience with Regulated Sex Work

A country most well-known for its sex work regulation is the Netherlands. This can be shown as a primarily positive but sometimes negative example of what works and what does not in regulating the sex trade. Specifically, Hubbard, in his study of the Netherlands, pointed out how licensed brothels worked to allow a place of work and community for sex workers, allowing the workers to share everyday experiences (Hubbard, Collins, and Murray). The regulation also allowed for many of the same benefits in Nevada regarding health care access, worker protections, and government taxation. Hubbard (Hubbard, Collins, and Murray) and Cho (Cho, Dreher, and Neumayer) also pointed out some ongoing downsides. Despite the government’s best efforts against it, sex workers are still socially outcast and face varying degrees of stigmatization, which is damaging to their health and well-being. Additionally, social perceptions remain less than kind regarding sex work. The ongoing risk of exploitation and sex trafficking is genuine, as regulation lessens the issue but does not solve it or do away with it completely. Cho, in a broad summary of a United Nations survey, concluded that countries that legitimized sex work had higher rates of trafficking as illegal workers would work at the outer edge of a legal industry (Cho, Dreher, and Neumayer). This was particularly true in Western Europe where women were trafficked from Eastern European Union member countries (Cho, Dreher and Neumayer). There remains an ongoing risk of human trafficking and exploitation of the most vulnerable of society, such as undocumented workers, even in a regulated sex trade (Lutnick and Cohan). For these reasons, most sex workers, while willing to be taxed, do not want to register (Lutnick and Cohan). However, while there are still ongoing issues, regulation reduces most harm. Concerning the conclusion of Cho’s increased sex trafficking in areas with a regulated sex industry, this is likely the result of the open borders within the European Union that allow for women from the Eastern block to be trafficked into Western Europe. No equivalent exists in Canada (Koikkalainen). However, it is a given that it is a nuanced issue, as in Nevada. Improvement of living conditions that result from regulation is still a net positive.

Conclusions

Regulation of the industry, in addition to the current law, which discourages pimps and middlemen, is the logical step forward for Canadian society. It is a well-tested harm reduction method from which the government would benefit. It would lessen the stigma against sex workers, and representatives in government offices can start by adding to existing legal policies and frameworks to do so. Seeing as sex work is nearly impossible to abolish, people should benefit (Barbara G Brents) (Jennifer Heineman)from the sex trade while reducing harm to sex workers and other minorities in the trade. Sex workers and social scientists alike agree on the issue; the government need only put it into practice.

Works Cited

Allen, Mary and Cristine Rotenberg. Statistics Canada. 21 June 2021. 24 March 2024.

Barbara G Brents, Teala Sanders. “Mainstreaming the sex industry: Economic Inclusion and Social Ambivalence.” Journal of Law and Society (2010): 40-60.

Beer, Sarah. “The Sex Worker Rights Movement in Canada: Challenging the ‘Prostitution Laws.” Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Windsor Ontario: University of Windsor , 2011.

Benoit, Cecilia and Leah Shumka. “Sex Work in Canada.” 7 May 2015. <https://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/cisur/projects/active/projects/understanding-sex-work.php&gt;.

Benoit, Cecilia, et al. “‘I Dodged the Stigma Bullet’: Canadian Sex Sorkers’ Responses to Occupational Stigma.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 22.1 (2020): 81-95.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 13 May 2015. 24 March 2024.

Cho, Seo-Young, Axel Dreher and Eric Neumayer. “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking.” World Development 41.1 (2013): 67-82.

Duff, P., et al. “Poor Working Conditions and Work Stress Among Canadian Sex Workers.” Occupational Medicine 67 (2017): 515-521.

Hensley, Laura. Global News. 22 December 2019. 24 March 2024.

Hubbard, Phiilip James, Alan Collins and Andrew Gorman Murray. “Introduction: sex, consumption and commerce in the contemporary city.” Urban Studies (2016): 567-581.

Jennifer Heineman, Rachel T. MacFarlane, Barbara G. Brents. “Sex Industry and Sex Workers in Nevada.” Shalin, Dmitris. N. The Social Health of Nevada: Leading Indicators and Quality of Life in the Silver State. Las Vegas: UNLV: Center for Democracy and Culture, 2012. 1-26.

Lister, Kate. Harlots, Whores & Hackabouts: A History of Sex for Sale. London: Thames & Hudson, 2021.

Lutnick, Alexandra and Deborah Cohan. “Criminalization, Legalization or Decriminalization of Sex Work: What Female Sex Workers Say in San Francisco, USA.” Reproductive Health Matters 17.34 (2009): 38-46.

Koikkalainen, S. (2021, June 3). Article: Borderless Europe: Seven Decades of Free. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved June 11, 2024, from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borderless-europe-free-movement

Recommended reading: https://www.utsopi.be/ (Sex Workers Union)