The current rules on selling and buying sex in the UK are confusing and pretty absurd. While selling and buying sex is legal, there are so many laws that restrict how it can be done that it may as well be illegal.

Running a brothel, persistent soliciting or loitering by a prostitute in a public place and any soliciting or loitering by a customer in a public place are all against the law. If you can get around that, and pay your taxes, you're in the clear.

Unfortunately the most vulnerable sex workers often don't have the luxury to work within the confines of the law and the rules around running a brothel mean sex workers are forced to risk their safety by working alone.

[clickToTweet tweet="Unfortunately the most vulnerable sex workers often don't have the luxury to work within the confines of the law" quote="Unfortunately the most vulnerable sex workers often don't have the luxury to work within the confines of the law"]

Sex work or prostitution?

When talking about laws I will use the terms 'prostitute' and 'prostitution' because they have specific legal meanings. I, however, prefer the terms 'sex worker' and 'sex work'.

Sex work is work. If a person chooses to provide a service in exchange for money or payment in kind then it's work. To suggest that sex work isn't "real work" is to belittle the time and skills of sex workers.

Sex workers are most definitely skilled in more than just sexual techniques. The range of skills will depend upon the particulars of their work but there are actually a lot of crossovers with my own work in mental health; knowledge of laws, communication skills, building relationships, managing risk of harm from clients.

The difference is that while the law actively seeks to protect me in my work, the current UK law actually puts sex workers at increased risk.

[clickToTweet tweet="current UK law actually puts sex workers at increased risk" quote="current UK law actually puts sex workers at increased risk"]

Isn't sex work exploitation?

Some people believe calling it sex work ignores the suffering of those who are coerced and forced into exchanging sex for money or goods.

Forced prostitution, child prostitution and human trafficking are not work. They are exploitation, rape, abuse and sexual slavery and we already have laws that directly address these crimes.

To conflate sex work with these crimes is illogical yet when it comes to law reform, these very different sides of the industry are often lumped together.

We can recognise forced and child labour are different to freely chosen work when it is in any other industry so why not the sex industry?

Improving the law

Legislators, charities, health workers and sex workers themselves want to minimise risks to sex workers and those who are forced into the sex industry, but they seem unable to reach a consensus about how best to do this.

There are two models of sex work reform that have taken the spotlight in recent years: the Nordic model of legalisation (sometimes called the Swedish model) and the New Zealand model of decriminalisation, both of which get their name from the regions they were initially implemented in.

What's the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation?

Decriminalisation means the removal of all the sex work specific laws such as soliciting and running a brothel.

Individual sex workers and employers would still have to abide by the same laws as any other worker or business. Legalisation, on the other hand, actually involves the creation of a framework within which sex work is legal.

This framework could heavily restrict the rights of sex workers or their freedom over their working conditions, for example by only allowing sex workers to work in designated areas, requiring sex workers to register with the police, or requiring brothels to have expensive licenses which mean small groups of independent workers cannot afford to work together and must instead work for a large brothel which provides them with less autonomy over their working conditions.

What is the Nordic model?

The Nordic model proposes legalising selling sex but criminalising those who buy sex, with the intention of reducing the demand.

Supporters of the model believe sex work is inherently harmful and a form of patriarchal violence against women (who make up the majority of UK sex workers). Rights of Women state that the UK's current legislation enshrines "men's right to buy women" and positions female sex workers as victims.

Rights of Women draw attention to the very real risks faced by sex workers, such as rape and physical assault. They found that 71% of the women they interviewed had been physically assaulted while working.

It's a frighteningly high number but those who oppose the Nordic model do not believe criminalising clients will reduce this. In fact, research has shown that criminalising the buyer can increase the risk of violence and STIs for street-based sex workers, as workers are forced to work in secluded areas, away from police presence, and have less time to screen clients because of their clients' fears of being arrested.

[clickToTweet tweet="criminalising the buyer can increase the risk of violence and STIs" quote="criminalising the buyer can increase the risk of violence and STIs"]

What is the New Zealand Model?

New Zealand took the radical step of fully decriminalising sex work. The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 is an immensely important document because it provides sex workers in New Zealand with the protections offered to other workers.

With sex work recognised as legitimate work, there are laws surrounding occupational health and safety and public health, just as there are with other professions. Child prostitution, sex trafficking and rape are not sex work so remain illegal.

The New Zealand model has some very high profile supporters including Amnesty International, World Health Organisation, UNAIDS, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.

These organisations don't necessarily support the selling of sex (nor do they necessarily condemn it) but they recognise that the human rights, health and safety of sex workers should be at the heart of policy. Opponents of decriminalisation argue it leads to an increase in the number of sex workers, but New Zealand has seen numbers remain consistent.

The New Zealand model doesn't solve every issue sex workers face. Stigma is slow to eradicate, and street-based sex workers remain especially vulnerable.

Although there has been a decrease in violence, there are still risks but the improved relationships with the police mean that sex workers feel more able to report crimes.

My opinion

I vehemently oppose the Nordic model and whole-heartedly support the New Zealand model. Making buying but not selling sex a crime removes sex workers' agency and autonomy.

I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that adult sex workers are unable to make informed decisions. In addition to infantilising sex workers, it also provides no reduction of the risks associated with sex work (many of which are a direct result of current laws).

Surely minimising those risks is more important that arguing about whether sex is too precious to have a price.

While the Nordic model is paternalism at it's worst, the New Zealand model is pragmatism at its best. By listening to sex workers and focusing on reducing risks and improving working conditions, the law reforms have improved the lives of sex workers.

There is still a long way to go before sex work is safe and destigmatised, but any step in that direction is a victory.

Whatever you think about the morality of selling and buying sex, the UK law desperately needs reforming to improve the lives of sex workers.

[sc name="Author_ScrewTaboo"]

[sc name="Illustrator_Amy"]