In San Francisco, decades ago heroes of the legalization movement—like the scarlet harlot Carol Leigh—popularized the ingenious phrase “sex work.” She and her fellow radicals curbed the disgust conveyed by taunts like “whore” and “hooker.”

The new phrase replaced contemptuous words directed at the women but sheltered the men buying sexual favors.  Such language stigmatized relationships without evidence. Carol Leigh’s punchy slogan, “Sex work is work” took the mystery out of these sexual contacts by reminding us that buying and  renting are mundane daily activities.

This approach developed during the sexual revolution, when women’s right to their bodies and sexual pleasure became socially acceptable. This social change brought many positive benefits, including making same sex attractions legal and granting freedom of speech to pornography. It was an imperfect solution that It led to an increase in STDs and fostered the spread of AIDS.  Proving no good deed goes unpunished.

When it was illegal, pornography had been labeled prostitution. After all, the performers were paid to have sex. The sexual revolution increased the public’s recognition of the variety of sexual behaviors.

One obvious result: a worldwide multibillion-dollar industry centered around pornography.  It became a big business with local economic impacts and jobs. It offered vicarious sexual pleasures to the elderly, the timid, and the obese.  Of equal importance, in the United States it offered employment to drug users and people released from prison. There is testing for contagious diseases. These jobs are open to anyone. High school diplomas are not required. There is no drug testing.  No check of criminal records.  It is a unique job opportunity open to everyone, unlike most work in the U.S.

 Clearly the requirement of sexual availability limits the number of persons willing to do sex work. This activity isn’t for everyone. But it has attractions. The preparation for this work has a pleasant side: what do I wear, what make-up, showering and douching.  The sex worker is a performer. But there are serious differences between those who live a middle-class life and work by appointment, and the poor desperate for money. All over the United States there are unemployed individuals who don’t live paycheck to paycheck, but survive day to day. For a person trapped in this situation sex work is often humiliating. There are threats of violence and encounters with the police whose enforcement efforts target people of color living lives of quiet desperation. For the street walker, one sex act may not provide the money to meet daily expenses; they must find multiple partners.

All too often, they must turn their earnings over to a panderer, who confiscates most of their money. But even this nightmare scenario has complications. An older woman can hire a young man to perform chores including protecting the women they work with from violence. In this arrangement, the woman with experience runs the show. The young man follows the woman’s lead. Figuring out who is the sex trafficker isn’t obvious. The hostile phrase “sex trafficker” is a problem; this is a dangerous criminal activity. This hostile rhetoric ignores the accomplishments of people who rent their bodies. They are graduate students, comedians like Carol Leigh, marathon runners; there is more to their lives than sex work. But these words generate hostile public opinion. It is a right-wing movement trying to ignite hostile reactions.  For example, these groups call queer and trans individuals pedophiles and groomers.

Sexual arrangements are as varied as the capacity for human invention. For those groups hostile to sex work the nightmare scenarios predominate; the sex workers are victims—the exploited poor. They can’t and they don’t argue that the women who spentd time with wealthy men are “victims of sex trafficking.” Their rhetoric would have us believe that sex workers walk the streets living in fear of violent pimps. They favor using existing laws making sex work illegal. Their conclusion that the criminal law will bring positive results is not compelling. They believe this approach will get women off the street, protect children, and curb the social menace of “trafficking.”

They eagerly shut down brothels where women work a set number of hours, servicing the customers who walk through the door. All too often these women spend a workday earning a share of their fees with the brothel owner. Because sex work is illegal, these women can’t complain to the government or seek changes in their working conditions. These complaints would backfire: the women lose their job, the brothel is closed, and rules that will improve relationships between the customer, the sex worker, and the brothel owner are buried when they should flourish. Making brothels illegal, makes reform difficult; the only legal option is shutting the business down.

These establishments charge fees within the reach of working men, often immigrants or travelers who are separated from their families. Discussions of sex work should acknowledge class distinctions. A business charging customer $50 has different problems from the sex worker who earns $1000 in a night. Such acts occur in the privacy of an apartment or hotel room and are seldom investigated by law enforcement. The brothels that charge lower fees and depend on a volume business ask their women to have sexual encounters constantly throughout the working hours. Working conditions in a legal environment could give women more control over the number of customers and curb greedy brothel owners. Ideas for giving women autonomy in these situations receive little publicity and are seldom part of the public dialogue.

In many states, the injustice of arresting women while men avoid prosecution have led district attorneys and legislators to support decriminalization of sex work. This is clearly a positive first step. It combats racism and male chauvinism in law enforcement. Arresting men doesn’t really end the injustices. All too often the men’s needs are simple, and their choice of a transitory sexual encounter is free of criminal intent. The hope that arresting men will control prostitution seems dubious. Sex work for people with little money has always been an underground affair. The most likely outcome is that only a few customers will be arrested while the sex work industry finds ways to avoid prosecution. The legality of paying for sex is a contentious issue. The public will never unite and support one policy. The number of customers and women are greater than the resources of law enforcement, which must focus on other priorities like violent crimes and preserving public order. In short, law enforcement is unlikely to stop this illegal activity. And of perhaps greater importance it is unlikely that the public will give enthusiastic support to a crusade against prostitution. Consequently, only some sex workers and some customers will be ensnared by the legal system. The arrests become discretionary and unfair. Why should a small minority be punished while the majority go scot-free.

Legalization doesn’t mean approval, and it doesn’t mean a loss of social control. Cigarette smoking has been greatly diminished even though it has remained legal. Making alcohol illegal provided criminals with huge amounts of cash and left the police dealing with corruption. But once it became legal, drunk driving enforcement, and reminders that drinking water is healthy reduced alcohol consumption. The legalization of sports betting has diverted profits from criminals to businesses. Sports betting has brought professional basketball money for players’ salaries and the creation of midseason playoffs with big cash awards for winners. Making sex work legal would give women a platform for changes and greater protection. If their work is legal, they can call the cops to stop violence.   Small changes that cumulatively have a big impact will bring positive results with legalization.