Carte Blanche: On Behalf of Sex Workers

Miltiadis Fragkidis/UNSPLASH

In the United States as well as other countries around the world, it is common practice to criminalize activities that might seem immoral or illicit. The goal for criminalization is often that it would be a deterrent for “morally averse” acts and/or the fact that traded sex and drugs often come in hand with human rights abuses and other criminal acts. 

The major problem with criminalization is that it does not eradicate the demand for the deemed illicit product nor does it eliminate the incentive to supply the said product. In the case of the drug war, demand was almost inelastic which caused prices to surge without truly eliminating the core issue. While criminalization doesn’t necessarily “work”, by work I mean truly accomplish a constructive goal of safely reducing the effect of drugs on communities, the state’s justification is usually a pretty tough one to combat: safety.

While one side sees sex work as the potential for two consensual individuals agreeing to trade service in return for compensation, the very real concerns on the other side include the fear of promoting human trafficking. Human trafficking is a morally repulsive practice, especially for forced sexual labor, and there was a Harvard study that estimated a higher rate of human trafficking occurring in countries that had a legalized sector of prostitution.

Sex workers are at a heightened risk of abuse, homicide, and sexually transmitted diseases, so when we argue against criminalization, we must take into account the consequences of a society that indulges vices. While we should hope that the state can protect our individual rights to life, we have to be wary of a compelling state interest providing cover for corruption and penalties at the expense of the victims.

An investigative study compiled by Arizona State evaluated the alarming actions of two Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) agents investigating suspected victims of human trafficking and actually engaging in sexually explicit activities. They claimed that it was within their jurisdiction to sexually engage with the potential victims in order to further the investigation. 

While this is one very grotesque isolated incident, it isn’t hard to find illicit massage parlors such as the ones the agents investigated and ultimately indulged in. Backpages, Craigslist, and escort services litter the internet and it only makes it more dangerous for the safety of individuals when their actions must be taken underground. 

This begs the question then: why is prostitution illegal yet porn isn’t? The umbrella of sex workers is not only limited to prostitutes, but it includes pornstars and camgirls. The Supreme Court tried to eliminate protections for obscenities from the First Amendment in the case of Roth vs. the US. However, they realized that it was difficult, as it always is when you try to limit coverage of liberties to fit a biased opinion, to conclusively define obscenity in the case of Miller vs. California. 

I mention the connection between pornography and prostitution because they are both literally the same thing: people being paid for sexual service. However, porn is protected as a form of artistic expression since pornstars are legally considered actors. The absurdity of the hoops to jump through and somersaults in logical reasoning is alarming when analyzing the ramifications of porn compared to prostitution because porn is surely not an industry without warts. 

Mia Khalifa, a former very prominent pornstar, came out last year to condemn the morally questionable practices of porn industry producers. Furthermore, if STDs were such a massive compelling public concern, then why hasn’t porn been shut down even though there have been numerous cases of rampant STD outbreaks within the industry.

Furthermore, there is a pandemic of child pornography distribution over the internet, and there are a plethora of federal laws against it yet it is truly impossible to completely eliminate. Technology and the expansion of internet capabilities have made it possible for anyone to hide under some rock and sell a service. 

Let me clarify, I do not believe that just because we cannot prevent a crime from happening that does not mean we shouldn’t make it illegal. By that logic, every vice under the sun would run rampant. No, I argue for decriminalization and even potential legalization of sex industry work because fully grown autonomous individuals should be free to trade their services if they deem it necessary or appropriate.

Personally, I find prostitution and porn morally aversive, however, my ideology and worldviews should not result in the state criminalizing the actions of consenting age individuals. Even though technology has made explicit material more accessible, it has increased autonomy for individuals in industries across the board, most specifically, in live camera shows.

Platforms such as OnlyFans, Patreon, and cam sites like CamSoda have enabled individuals to pursue avenues of sexual enterprise while maximizing profits. During the COVID-19 outbreak, OnlyFans has reported a rate of 150,000 new users a day, with certain content creators raking in over $100,000 a year. Compare that sort of financial success to Mia Khalifa, who was at one time the most-watched pornstar on the internet, making only $12,000 in her three-month tenure.

With platforms such as OnlyFans and Patreon, women don’t have to be pigeonholed into undesirable fields if their sexual enterprise is their field of choice. Of course, demand for prostitutes isn’t going anywhere, but countries like Germany, which have a fully legal and regulated prostitution industry, have enabled the creation of businesses that break down the necessity of a middleman in the sexual transactions. 

This has easily been the most risque article I have ever written in my life, and it made me a little uncomfortable at first, however, it is very important to consider what sort of unintended consequences the state creates and unpredicted benefits they force society to miss out on through restriction of individualistic discretion.