SEX “work” is described as the exchange of a range of sexual activities for some form of material compensation. The material goods offered in return are most commonly money, housing and drugs. 

At the heart of the sex industry are sex, class and race-based power imbalances. Most commonly, pimps are wealthy and male, and those most often prostituted are women facing poverty. The core issue with referring to this transaction as “work” is the issue of consent. To understand the issue of consent in the industry, it is essential to understand what initially drives women into it.

Inside Outside Scotland, supported by Encompass Network, is an aural recording project where women took part in recorded conversations with the Women’s Support Project and with Dundee-based photographer Kathryn Rattray to capture their experiences. 

Included in these excerpts are many accounts detailing the abusive relationship between themselves and the pimps, with a focus on the insecurity of their housing and wage situations. In some cases the women are even trafficked to Scotland under the threat of their families being attacked at home. 

In Natasha’s story, for example, she explains that she was brought to Scotland and told she could make upwards of £8,000 per month and only paying £250 per week in rent. The tenancy, of course, took place in a two-bedroom flat, alongside seven more girls, all of them sharing a “work” space.

There are many physical dangers associated with the sex industry. In a nine-country peer-reviewed study, which analysed data collected from 854 prostitutes, 73 per cent reported that they had been physically assaulted. Further, 64 per cent reported that they had been threatened with a weapon and 57 per cent reported that they had been raped.

Seventy-four per cent of women in Britain who enter the sex trade are in poverty. These women cite childcare responsibilities and the cost of living as key motivators for entering sex “work.”

It is evident that mothers would rather sacrifice their wellbeing and consent than see their child go without food or heating. Women who face poverty therefore feel more inclination than other groups to join the sex industry.

Where profit and sexual gratification can be extracted from women’s bodies, particularly impoverished women’s bodies, pimps and punters will always say yes. Where women and mothers can be offered quick, albeit short-term, alleviation from poverty, they will most often say yes.

This reflects a clear power imbalance which clouds consent in place of profit extraction, with little to no consideration of the implications of this on the woman’s safety and wellbeing.

It is clear that the sex industry is therefore sexually exploitative. Its “workforce” faces more life-threatening and violent risks than any other industry. This has led to a debate on what to do about it. The most influential solutions which are discussed within the left are decriminalisation and the implementation of the Nordic model.

Decriminalisation of the sex industry refers to fully lifting all criminal consequences for those who purchase sex. This implicitly endorses pimping, grooming gangs and trafficking as mere businesses, marketing sex as a legitimate trade. This is because the means in which pimps are able to produce profit are facilitated with the legalisation of brothel-keeping. The legitimisation of selling sex as a form of “work” would also be advanced. The lack of exit services for those seeking to leave the industry would be reduced, increasing incentive to remain in the industry.

At the trade union level, decriminalisation is often marketed as a progressive solution to the issues arising from the sex trade. For example, at the BMA annual representatives meeting in 2017, motion 422 endorsed the full decriminalisation of the sex industry and argued that those involved in the sex industry and others in wider society would feel health benefits.

While this sounds attractive on paper, it ignores the further implications of those prostituted and propels clients’ and pimps ability to get away with violent crime. Although this motion was rejected, decriminalisation is often a debate which rears its head within trade unions and their democratic processes.

Decriminalisation and its endeavour to label prostitution as sex “work” conflates sexual exploitation and labour exploitation. As seen with the recently publicised “sex for shifts” scandal at McDonald’s, this is an issue which can interlink and is advanced where there are precarious workplaces and contracts. However, it is important to view them separately in the wider context of the sex industry.

Labour exploitation refers to the imbalance of power between employers and workers. Under capitalism, employers must exploit workers in order to make a profit. To make a profit, the employer or capitalist sells the commodities produced by the worker for less than their value. In sexual exploitation, the commodity is a woman’s body and the “employer” is a pimp. There are no “workers” in this scenario. There are only people who have been commercially sexually exploited and the pimps who sexually exploit them.

Therefore, decriminalisation is dangerous for women. It redefines women as sexual objects which may be commodified. In the context of trade union organisation on this issue, there can be no wins for women who are sexually exploited via prostitution because there are no “workers” to organise. The only gains which can be made are for pimps and punters.

The Nordic model has been widely acknowledged for successfully limiting the harms of commercial sexual exploitation. This model decriminalises those prostituted and criminalises those who buy sex, while offering effective exit strategies for those who want to escape. Further, it endorses a holistic approach to education and training for wider society on this issue.

Its four-tiered structure has been adopted and implemented by several countries around the globe, including Sweden and France, which have experienced a marked decrease in prostitution.

Women who have been prostituted and therefore victimised should not be subject to criminal proceedings. Many prostituted women experience isolation, reintegration into society should therefore be the focus — not criminalising them for being forced to sell their bodies.

Offering support and access to exit strategies is crucial. Counselling services, housing and education would enable these women to fully participate in society once exited. This has been proven to reduce incentive to re-enter the sex industry.

The purchase of sex should be a criminal offence. As mentioned, consent is an issue which is blurred during the transaction of material goods for a woman’s body. Further, prostituted women are exposed to a multitude of harms in this process. However, the Nordic model believes in changing attitudes and behaviours and so a holistic approach should be offered here once justice has been served.

Overall, we must actively advocate for the Nordic model to be implemented in Britain. We must choose the livelihoods of women in Britain over a pimp’s profit.

Women’s rights are being rolled back. If you would like to join women trade unionists who are organising on this question and get involved in advancing women’s rights across the labour and trade union movement, please email tradeunionfeministcoalition@gmail.com.