I'm in favor of legalized sex work myself. I've actually toyed with the idea of starting my own company of brothels (where sex work is currently legal, and later the company would be able to afford to lobby and challenge laws elsewhere) to create a business model where sex workers:

have full benefits,

can turn down any clients (and get to see and talk to potential clients before agreeing to sex),

receive a support package if they want to quit - probably by having the first several hundred dollars they make held until they quit,

both clients and workers are tested for STDs (instead of just the workers), by having an independent lab/office next door to the brothels,

must be a citizen of the country they work in (to stop/prevent trafficking),

have independent security personel in the brothels that can be summoned with a button to protect the workers,

and the workers are protected from abuse by managers by strict monitoring and a policy that protects and rewards whistleblowers.

Does anyone have feedback? It would be much appreciated. -Andrew

that would be amazing how do you plan to accomplish all this?

Well, basically those would be some core rules that my company would have. To make it a reality, one would need to write a business plan, get either investors or an investment loan, and start the company. I would probably either buy or build a building organized like a hotel, as far as the brothel is concerned. Obviously, I would only operate in countries/municipalities where prostitution is legal, then perhaps use profits to lobby for having it legalized in additional places. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the workers would have psych evaluations when hired and on a regular basis to ensure mental fitness and decision making capabilty, as well as having psychiatric care/therapy included (with a deductible) in the benefits package.

Andrew writes: "must be a citizen of the country they work in (to stop/prevent trafficking),"

Hey Andrew,

Although I agree with everything else you listed, I don’t agree with the above condition. One of my main reasons for disagreeing is that various forms of sex work (including prostitution) can be the best employment option for new migrants. If legal brothels aren’t going to employ them, who will? Refusing to employ a non-citizen isn’t going to prevent a non-citizen from engaging in sex work; instead (should sex work be the best option for that person), the migrant will engage in less safe forms of sex work in which the conditions you outline above are not available.

Also, in all of the reading I’ve done on sex work (and all the additional reading I’ve done on sex trafficking- I must state that these are 2 almost completely separate issues), I’ve never read that legalizing prostitution is a solution to (sex) trafficking. People will still be trafficked for the purpose of sex, and there will still be a demand for people to have sex with trafficked individuals. I think the demand could potentially be driven by the difference in price between having sex with a legally employed sex worker and an undocumented trafficked human being (the latter will be less expensive).

Moreover, people are trafficked for other purposes as well, and as little effect legalizing prostitution will have on sex trafficking, it will have even less of an effect on other forms of human trafficking (trafficking humans to work in fields, domestic labor, or factories). Lastly, trafficking in humans doesn’t only happen across international borders. It happens within national boundaries as well, usually from rural to urban areas.

Perhaps if your potential future business would like to have an impact on human trafficking you could donate some of your profit. This money could go towards education, better health care, and eliminating poverty in the countries where trafficked persons are forcibly removed from. You could also lobby the government to change its policies on sex trafficking and advocate for the government to NOT deport trafficked individuals.

I also have one other point of contention. You mention that you want psychological evaluations for potential employees. I think requiring psych evaluations would tread a very fine line between wanting healthy employees and mental health discrimination (I think it would most likely be the latter). You could potentially find yourself in the midst of a major lawsuit; not to mention the fact that denying someone a job on the basis of their mental health could potentially worsen their mental health. I think free psych counseling is a great idea, though!

With all of that said, I have a few additional suggestions for your potential future business:

1. A good amount of parental leave (unless this is already included in your benefits)
2. Some form of free or subsidized day care (so important)
3. Free self defense courses
4. Free birth control (this should be covered specifically by the company, NOT by health insurance for the individual since it specifically relates to their employment)… condoms and dental dams should be EVERYWHERE
5. Not all sex workers would be sex workers if their circumstances were different; with that in mind I think it would be great (albeit ideal) if you had some sort of job skills training program (although I suppose that’s not necessarily the role of a business)
6. I think this one is most important. As someone who owns a sex work business, you need to keep in mind that your employees are in many ways more vulnerable than individuals employed in many other professions. I think it’s incredibly important for future employees to have a great deal of control (and to feel they have a great deal of control) over their lives as sex workers. There should be ways for sex workers to anonymously voice complaints, and there should be numerous meetings in which employees have a say over the way the business is run. At the very least, I think you should take their opinions into consideration. I also think there should be potential for promotions within the company, i.e. former sex workers becoming future managers.

Just some food for thought…

:) Suzanne

I would certainly make sure that your brothel was located 20 miles away from churches and schools... *we need to mimic the british system, which would include not allowing streetwalkers... women would not be able to advertise/ solicit on the street.. but if someone was to enter your brothel willingly, then that would be fine.

Hi Suzanne,
I wrote a response and tried to send it as a message a minute ago, but I think it was lost... argh... But thank you for your lengthy and well thought out response. The reason I hadn't read it until tonight was that I didn't get any responses for a while, and so I had given up on it for a time.

I did do more reading after I wrote my first couple of posts, and noticed that all of the websites for sex worker rights were against my citizenship requirement idea. One idea I have to replace is a certificate informed consent that garuntees that the worker was well informed about the profession and the risks involved, and was entering the work voluntarily, etc...

I also thought more about the psych evaluation idea, and decided to drop it, since it might be considered discrimination. I think scientific evidence that suggests the rate of mental illness in sex workers is about the same as the general population is sufficient to counter the argument that only mentally unhealthy people enter sex work. Including mental health care in the benefits package is probably sufficient.

I like all of the additional suggestions that you made. The first five make sense as part of a high quality benefits package, and the six makes good bussiness sense.

I feel like you deserve a lengthy response, since you put all of that time into your post, but all I can think of at the moment is that I agree with everything you said. I'd be glad to discuss the topic further, if you'd like.

-Andrew

There is so much to discuss, however I have decided to focus my first post on some of the original posters ideas:

I am for the decriminalization of sex work, which is very different from the legalized system that has manifested in a few places, Nevada being one of them. This model is not for the sex worker themselves, but rather for the government to control and heavily regulate a valid form of employment.

I am speaking about adult, consensual sex work.

--
“have full benefits”

Well of course! If sex work was looked at as a legitimate business, then benefits should be offered as in many other forms of employment.
--
“can turn down any client”

Just because a sex worker is being paid for a service they are offering does not give anyone the right to force any act or expect to receive a service if the sex worker feels uncomfortable with the situation for whatever reason. Before agreeing to any acts, and even after agreeing to any acts. Right of refusal at anytime should be the norm.
--
“receive a support package if they want to quit - probably by having the first several hundred dollars they make held until they quit.”

This practice sounds to me as though we are setting ourselves apart from other working individuals. If the sex worker works for a brothel, for example, they should pay taxes and have similar amounts removed from their check like everyone else. Why hold back, as you say, several hundred dollars? What other business enforces this on workers?
--
“both clients and workers are tested for STDs (instead of just the workers), by having an independent lab/office next door to the brothels”

Is there an independent lab/office next door to a motel? Are you required to get tested before engaging in sexual acts with others in our society? No. therefore why should this be enforced for sex worker and their clients? Again, this just perpetuates the idea that sex work is dirty and dangerous and that we as human beings do not have the right mind-set to get tested regularly and practice safe and healthy sex. Since sex workers primarily work with their bodies, don’t you think they would want to protect themselves so they can continue to be healthy and continue to work? Myself and many sex worker run organizations and groups around the world are adamantly against mandatory testing for many of the reasons I just mentioned. And something else for thought and consideration, being tested before an act occurs does not imply that you are free of any sexually transmitted infection. Many STI’s take at least 3 months to show up on a test. How can you, with this model, insure that the night before the client did not contract something? This is simply not a proper nor safe way to determine someone is free of an STI. Proper sexual health and real safe sex information, condoms, dental dams etc.... are tools that can be used and are used to protect sex workers and their clients. Sex workers are human beings and deserve to be treated as such, not treated like meat that requires a stamp of approval. Something else to concider, is why is it that the we have this view that sex workers would ever knowingly invect others. Just because sex workers provide sexual services for money does not imply that they are void of rational though and concideration for the health and safety of other human beings and the health and safety of themselves.
--
“and the workers are protected from abuse by managers by strict monitoring and a policy that protects and rewards whistleblowers.”

If we lived in a society that respected sex work as a valid form of employment, and a sex worker was having an incident in the work place, they would be able to bring to light the issue at hand, without fear of arrest, prosecution or discrimination to the proper authorities, as is afforded to other working individuals.

"This model is not for the sex worker themselves, but rather for the government to control and heavily regulate a valid form of employment."

Are you referring to the Nevada model, or the model that I proposed?

--

"Well of course! If sex work was looked at as a legitimate business, then benefits should be offered as in many other forms of employment."

And so we agree.
--
"Just because a sex worker is being paid for a service they are offering does not give anyone the right to force any act or expect to receive a service if the sex worker feels uncomfortable with the situation for whatever reason. Before agreeing to any acts, and even after agreeing to any acts. Right of refusal at anytime should be the norm."

Again, we're in agreement.
--

"This practice sounds to me as though we are setting ourselves apart from other working individuals. If the sex worker works for a brothel, for example, they should pay taxes and have similar amounts removed from their check like everyone else. Why hold back, as you say, several hundred dollars? What other business enforces this on workers?"

Well, I have no problem with the practice being optional and voluntary. Many businesses will hold a small amount of money for a specified amount of time in order to prevent waste on training materials, training time, travel expenses, etc. if the new hire decides to quit soon after training begins, for example.
--
' "both clients and workers are tested for STDs (instead of just the workers), by having an independent lab/office next door to the brothels” '

"Is there an independent lab/office next door to a motel? Are you required to get tested before engaging in sexual acts with others in our society? No. therefore why should this be enforced for sex worker and their clients? Again, this just perpetuates the idea that sex work is dirty and dangerous and that we as human beings do not have the right mind-set to get tested regularly and practice safe and healthy sex. Since sex workers primarily work with their bodies, don’t you think they would want to protect themselves so they can continue to be healthy and continue to work? Myself and many sex worker run organizations and groups around the world are adamantly against mandatory testing for many of the reasons I just mentioned. And something else for thought and consideration, being tested before an act occurs does not imply that you are free of any sexually transmitted infection. Many STI’s take at least 3 months to show up on a test. How can you, with this model, insure that the night before the client did not contract something? This is simply not a proper nor safe way to determine someone is free of an STI. Proper sexual health and real safe sex information, condoms, dental dams etc.... are tools that can be used and are used to protect sex workers and their clients. Sex workers are human beings and deserve to be treated as such, not treated like meat that requires a stamp of approval. Something else to consider, is why is it that the we have this view that sex workers would ever knowingly infect others. Just because sex workers provide sexual services for money does not imply that they are void of rational though and consideration for the health and safety of other human beings and the health and safety of themselves."

No, there isn't an independent lab/office next to a motel. The point of having one next to a brothel would be to have a fast turnaround time for test results. You are not required to get tested before engaging in sexual acts with others in our society, but unless I'm mistaken, you are required to inform your partner that you may be infected with an STI (if there is reason to believe it is likely) before you engage in sexual acts. This should be enforced for sex workers and their clients as a safety precaution to protect them. This doesn't perpetuate the idea that sex work is dirty and dangerous; it acknowledges the fact that STIs exist and the transmission of them can be prevented. Does the fact that we make people who work in construction sites wear hardhats somehow demean them or their line of work? Not so much. Statistically speaking, I would hypothesize that mandatory regular testing would result in a much lower rate of infection than voluntary testing. An individual person might underestimate statistical risk; humans normally have to be trained to think in such a matter. Being tested for STIs does not guarantee non-infection, but it lowers the likelihood and risk of it over the entire sample of sex workers and clients. What is the proper and safe way to determine if someone is free of an STI? Hardhats don't guarantee that a construction worker won't be injured by falling debris at a worksite, but they do lessen the likelihood that he or she will receive a head injury in such an event. The fact that some STIs take time to be detected doesn't mean that all testing should be abandoned… that seems like a non-sequiter to me. We agree that sex education, condoms, and dental dams are important. I disagree that testing is equivalent to putting a stamp of approval on meat. Some lines of work have different safety standards. Astronauts must be free of heart disease in order to fly in shuttle missions. Does this mean we're treating them like pieces of meat? No, we're protecting their safety and the safety of those around them. Sex workers wouldn't knowingly be infected or infect others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they spend time reading medical scientific journals and have immunology training either.

--
' “and the workers are protected from abuse by managers by strict monitoring and a policy that protects and rewards whistleblowers.” '

"If we lived in a society that respected sex work as a valid form of employment, and a sex worker was having an incident in the work place, they would be able to bring to light the issue at hand, without fear of arrest, prosecution or discrimination to the proper authorities, as is afforded to other working individuals."

And thus we completely agree. I also am in favor of sex work as a legitimate form of employment, and it appears the only thing we disagree on is mandatory testing. You see it as a way to demean and control the sex worker in an unnecessary way, while I see it as an important safety practice that would help legitimize the work, not stigmatize it.

"must be a citizen of the country they work in (to stop/prevent trafficking"

What the fuck? I'm not a citizen of the country I work in, so I feel offended by your sentiment. I support decriminalization, not legalization / legalification. It's your own damn responsibility to get tested for STDs, not the government's.

I'm sorry I offended you. Hopefully it was clear in my earlier posts that the model I am proposing is intended to help legitimize this particular form of sex work and at the same time minimize both health risks and the possibility of allegations of trafficking, in the particular point you refer to.

It doesn't have to be so complicated.

Where consenting adult private prostitution flourishes the best no formal structure is needed. The gals control their own businesses. STD's are a rare issue.

For example in Canada where prostitution has always been legal, rarely any problems with the agencies or independent outcalls. Incall is technical not legal under 1800s bawdy house law but seldom enforced unless other real crime going on.

We simply need decriminalization of private (not street hookers) consenting adult sexuality.

Any pimping or forced trafficking is already illegal under other laws.

The problem is the most organized groups of pro decrim like SWOP etc, have been and will continue to be total failures and hurt the cause due to their insistence on the right of street hookers to be a public nuisance.

Almost had landmark vote of the people in Berkley a few yrs ago- great opportunity totally blown by the inclusion of the public nuisance often drugged out with a pimp street hooker.

Dave in Phoenix
sexwork.com
sexworkcanada.com
libchrist.com
lovetouch.info
All sites non profit informational promoting positive sexuality and intimacy

I think it should be noted that in Canada although TECHNICALLY prostitution is legal, the discussion of sex for money is NOT legal. So in many many many respects, prostitution is really and truely not legal in Canada.

That's probably not important for this group discussion, but as a citizen of Canada I just wanted to make a point that the legalization of prostitution is a issue here as well.

Thanks for letting me voice my opinion!
- Tynan

Incall is technical not legal under 1800s bawdy house law but seldom enforced unless other real crime going on.

on second read I see you've noted this! And unfortunately, this law is enforced causing a lot of heart ache for consenting adults (for both the John and the worker).

Okay I"m done now! Thanks!
- Tynan

It should be noted that Tynan is wrong.

Soliciation is only illegal in a public place such as a street or in public area of a bar.

Solicitation is totally legal by phone, newspaper ads, web sites, etc. The solicitation rule was specifically direct against the public nuisance street hookers although it is only a summary offense, not very serious.

Outcall to your hotel or home is 100% legal and as she did correctly state incall bawdy house laws are seldom enforced. In fact in Vicitoria their are huge incalls that the police visit only to be sure each girl is properly licensed - they could care less about bawdy house issue.

Dave in Phoenix
sexworkcanada.com

SO I did a real fast internet skim of some laws and your story checks out (as far as my lazy skim can tell).

My only point really was that, maybe TECHNICALLY prostitution is legalized in Canada (and the laws varies as well as how they are enforced), but with all the other things around prostitution that aren't legalized (laws mainly to do with street workers, apparently) I really think your kidding yourself if you were to state prostitution is legal in Canada. That was really all I wanted to say.

okay I'm done DONE DONE!
-Ty

There was a Quebec case of a bondage place that was charged with bawdy. Many years of Court fights, and Appeals. Owner lost. He was fined I believe it was $500, that is all. The legal fees were probably 20 times that at least.

I have kept up with cases and Canadian laws for almost a decade since I enjoy the freedoms you have in Canada under of Charter of Rights that respects individual rights far more than our U.S. Constitution.

Extensive info on sexwork laws in Canada at
sexwork.com/montreal/law.html

That's really interesting...

I find law and how it's enforced a real debbie downer, most of the time (to put it simply). It's so hard to tell what is legal, what isn't, especially when our law enforcement doesn't seem to stay consistent with itself.

Hopefully I will be better informed when I take my "Dark side of sexuality" course.

Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions.
- Tynan

Minor other interesting point on street solicitation. A hooker can't walk up to a car and solicit. But if she is let IN the car, its no longer a public place and no violation of the solicitation law.

Street hookers are a huge problem and many communities are in an uproar to stop this public nuisance. But hard to do since only a Summary Offence with virtually no penalty and easy to avoid by getting in the guys car before talking.

at the guelph sexuality conference I went to a lecture by Matika Tyndale who did research on how to do prostitution safely, assuming it will never truely be legalized (like, assuming laws won't change from what they are). She was saying for street hookers to have to get in the car immediately this skips a very important screening for the women so they can get a feel for whether this person is safe or not.

Why are street hookers a nuisance? Okay, anyone on the street trying to sell you ANYTHING is a nuisance, I'll take that. But I don't think women should suffer penalties- at least no more of a penalty than anyone else who was selling something on the street without a permit.

Do you know if there is any kind of regulation around prostitution going on right now? I mean for the health and safety of the prostitutes.

Parliament held citizen meetings on prostitution about a year or so ago. Huge uproar by residents very upset that the situation now is so bad and would of course be far worse if it was legal.

Condoms in yards, women can't walk to the corner store without being solicited by Johns in cars in some areas etc. Just like in the U.S. citizens groups have done photos of customers cars and posted them on the Internet or found by license the owner and wrote letters to wifes.

Trying to have zones for street prostitution has been tried in Europe but has been a total failure. Street prostitution or soliciting is illegal in almost all the world. It is a clear public nuisance.

Far different from private outcall legal in almost all the world except the U.S.

Incalls vary from totally illegal in U.S., only one gal per flat in the U.K, to public large brothels in Australia and New Zealand etc.

In Vancouver where many street hookers have been murdered a group has some good ideas for incalls especially to meet the demand of the upcoming Olympics. But very unlikely they will get an exception from Parliament to the bawdy house law.

i agree to all the conditions but not this one


" sex workers can turn down any clients (and get to see and talk to potential clients before agreeing to sex), "

you dont realize that the reason men come to prostitutes is that they cannot get casual sex SOCIALLY. they are either unattractive (and for casual sex women only choose attractive men even if theyre just average themselves).
also because they dont have socializing skills to get women to like them have a conversation. so they come to prostitutes so that its hassle free without talk and they can get their need satisfied.

if you impose the same rules of talking and knowing each other and prositutes choosing the clients then the ordinary sexually frstrated guy will be no better off. the prostitutes will reject unattractive men and the very purpose prostitution exists is lost

i agree to all the conditions but not this one


" sex workers can turn down any clients (and get to see and talk to potential clients before agreeing to sex), "

you dont realize that the reason men come to prostitutes is that they cannot get casual sex SOCIALLY. they are either unattractive (and for casual sex women only choose attractive men even if theyre just average themselves).
also because they dont have socializing skills to get women to like them have a conversation. so they come to prostitutes so that its hassle free without talk and they can get their need satisfied.

if you impose the same rules of talking and knowing each other and prositutes choosing the clients then the ordinary sexually frstrated guy will be no better off. the prostitutes will reject unattractive men and the very purpose prostitution exists is lost

Ilyas,

No one said that the refusal option would be to sit down and get to know each other, etc. It isn't a date. But service providers should have the opportunity to discuss exactly what the client is looking for. It's basic customer service.

The reality is that, as with payment for any service, the person providing the service may decline for any reason. If they are not comfortable with the work, do not believe they are capable of doing the job, or feel in any way unhappy with the proposed transaction, they have the option to decline to provide the service.

The same option should be available for prostitutes.

As for your suggestion that clients cannot get sex through means other than prostitution, this is incredibly inaccurate. There are many individuals who seek professional service in a professional environment for countless different reasons. This gross generalization is unfair and insulting. The suggestion that prostitutes will also turn someone down based on whether someone is unattractive or not is ludicrous. We are talking about professionals; that isn't how the profession works now and certainly isn't how it would work if it was decriminalized.