Prostitution, or sex work, is a source of much controversy within feminist academia, to the point of stagnation. This point is illustrated by Laurie Shrage: ‘[f]eminists have not mobilised around the decriminalization of prostitution because of our lingering ambivalence about the subject (Shrage, 1996, p. 42).’ This sentiment is echoed throughout literature on prostitution: for example, Agustín suggests that there is a strong argument to cease such circular, recurring debates and solutions that have yet to ‘resolve the original complaint’ (Agustín, 2008, p. 75): this is, eliminating the inequality of women – specifically – prostituted women. This suggests, then, that current prostitution laws are not justified; at least not by their impact on the ground as they fail to provide any satisfactory results. Such ‘debates and solutions’ are frustrated by the ambiguity of the term ‘prostitution’: feminist academics are talking at cross-purposes (Agustín, 2008, p. 73), often negating meaningful insights and considerations that could be utilised when attempting to solve the sex work conundrum. Not only is prostitution often conflated with trafficking, there is little consensus about what prostitution includes, possibilities ranging from sexual services such as penetration and masturbation to ‘adult entertainment’ such as dancing or pornography.
Such unsatisfactory solutions have led Agustín to call in to question the relevance of law in commercial sex entirely, regarding the law’s attempts to control commercial sex as irrational (Agustín, 2008, p. 81). Most alarmingly, this is due to the fact that current attempts to control commercial sex involves an overwhelming lack of compliance. Those who would be governed by prostitution laws – customers, workers, procurers – ‘neither identify with such legislation or consider it useful to their lives’ (Agustín, 2008). Extraordinarily, this has meant that two diametrically opposed systems of criminalization and legalization in Sweden and the Netherlands have produced similar results (Scoular, 2010, p. 12). Not only this, they have produced unintentionally harmful realities for prostitutes in both regimes. Prostitution laws have marginalized public forms of sex work (Scoular, 2010, p. 13) and licensing requirements favour wealthy, established businesses as opposed to the most vulnerable, at risk prostitutes (Agustín, 2008, p. 82). These facts especially, call into question the justification of prostitution laws.
The Swedish model is underpinned by the belief that prostitution symbolises women’s oppression and, as such, is incompatible with gender equality (Scoular, 2010, p. 17). Therefore, the Swedish model attempts to achieve gender equality – the principle goal of the legislative regime (Ministry of Industry, 2003) – by penalizing male purchasers as opposed to the women in prostitution alongside various social work services to encourage women to exit prostitution. Conversely, the neighbouring Dutch model aimed to reduce gender exploitation in prostitution via legalisation (Scoular, 2010, p. 18). This was achieved through drawing a distinction between voluntary prostitution – conceptualised as ‘sex work – on one hand, and involuntary prostitution – trafficked women, those forced into prostitution and child prostitution – on the other: the latter carrying an eight-year prison sentence (Outshoorn, 2004, p. 165). In the UK, whilst the acts of selling or buying sex are not criminalised, related activities such as soliciting in a public place; ‘kerb crawling’; owning or managing a brothel; pimping and pandering; are (Casciani, 2008). Unlike the Nordic model, the act of purchasing voluntary sexual services are not criminalised, however there have been numerous calls to follow suit (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014, p. 2).
Despite an ideological disparity, the effects of all models have proven to be remarkably similar. Said models ‘demonstrate a shared concern with gender exploitation, with policies intended to discourage participation in prostitution’ (Hubbard, 2007, p. 23). This is due to a shared rejection of the idea that sex work can be truly voluntary (Hubbard, 2007, p. 23). Moreover, prostitution laws have appeared to have little effect on the supply and demand for sex work in the last decade in Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Westminster or Stockholm, but has been significant in shaping its geography (Hubbard, 2007, p. 24). This has resulted in street work becoming less visible; a rise in spaces of licensed adult entertainment emerging as well as both regulated and unregulated flats and massage parlours (Hubbard, 2007, p. 25).
In Sweden, women and men have been displaced into more hidden forms of sex work, worsening conditions for those who remain on the streets. Street work, as it is the most visible, became the main focus of both enforcement efforts and media attention. The effects of the law have proven to leave women more isolated, exposing them to greater risk of violence and economic exploitation prevalent in indoor settings (Scoular, 2010, p. 19). Those still remaining on the streets, often the most socially marginalized and disadvantaged, reported experiencing greater stress and danger (Scoular, 2010, p. 20). In the Netherlands, street sex work is neither legalised or regulated. Due to the licensing of indoor sex work, many authorities have discharged their duty to provide space four outdoor workers; resulting in the closure tippelzones in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Herleen (Scoular, 2010, p. 21). As such, the Dutch model has caused wider displacement to the unregulated illegal sector – including street work and unlicensed indoor spaces – making the situation for many, and often the most at risk, prostitutes worse rather than better (Scoular, 2010, p. 21).
Conditions for indoor-based sex workers have not necessarily improved, either. In the Netherlands, reforms have not done much to improve the labour and social position of prostitutes (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014, p. 6). Whilst the licensing system has, to an extent, improved working conditions within brothels; this has not been for the majority (The impact of different regulatory models on the labour conditions, safety and welfare of indoor-based sex workers, 2014, p. 6). Regulation has done little to improve the autonomy of prostitutes over their working hours, clothing, payment method and charges (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014, p. 7). Furthermore, the change in legislation has done little to remove the stigma that prostitutes face (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014, p. 8). Additionally, the cost of compliance with the licensing model inevitably prioritises bigger businesses. As such, the majority of sex workers lack resources to set up their own businesses and remain independently employed. Not only this, many sex workers due to age, nationality or health status are excluded (Scoular, 2010, p. 21). Furthermore, in the UK, uncertainty about legislation has deterred prostitutes from working collectively: denying them the benefits of safety and companionship whilst maintaining autonomy (Pitcher & Wijers, 2014, p. 8). As such, within both the Netherlands and the UK, independent sex workers are unable to work collectively due to an inability to comply with licensing requirements or fear of prosecution. Therefore, there are a number of prostitutes who are forced to operate within the unregulated sector, invariably facing higher risk of violence and exploitation.
Contradictorily, laws that have purported to benefit prostituted women have served to marginalise many: forcing them to engage in hidden, more dangerous forms of sex work. In the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Mayor admitted that legalization had failed to prevent trafficking (Equality Now, 2012, p. 1). In 2007, a government report noted that “pimps are still a very common phenomenon” (Equality Now, 2012, p. 1). The same report found that “the prostitutes’ emotional well-being is now lower … on all measured aspects, and the use of sedatives has increased” (Equality Now, 2012, p. 2).
Under the Nordic model, sex workers have reported that the stigma they face has increased, putting them at greater risk of violence from clients and the community (Skarhead, 2010, p. 34). For those still working on the street, sex workers have faced a depression in wages and an increase in higher risk services (such as unprotected sex) due to lack of clientele and as such, less bargaining power (Levy & Jakobsson, 2014, p. 599). Furthermore, as clients fear prosecution, sex workers have less time to both screen and negotiate with clients, increasing the dangers they may face (Levy & Jakobsson, 2014, p. 599). Not only this, there is a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate that the Nordic model has decreased levels of prostitution. Whilst data has demonstrated that street sex work has decreased, there is little data that suggests that levels of indoor/online sex work has decreased. Moreover, estimates of populations of sex workers are unreliable due to the ‘hidden, marginalized, stigmatized and criminalised’ nature of the community (Levy & Jakobsson, 2014, p. 597).
In the UK,