'I Have My Own Life': The Case for Legalizing Sex Work
It would be far easier to prosecute sex trafficking if voluntary sex work were legal.

Football players make money with their bodies. Some are injured. But football is legal.
So why is sex work illegal?
My video this week focuses on that.
Sex worker "Aella" has made hundreds of thousands of dollars, mostly by "camming," showing her body to men online and talking intimately with them. Her customers are happy to pay for that.
This offends people.
It's "exploitation…under the banner of a career choice!" complains feminist Heather Brunskell-Evans.
Aella laughs at that, saying, "Where was she when I was working at a factory? Lots of people work terrible jobs. [But] a lot of sex workers make more money."
Aella left home to escape strict parents when she was 17. That's when she got that factory job.
Eventually, someone suggested she try camming, which Aella says turned out to be much better than factory work. "I could decide what kind of things I wanted to do, what my limits were."
Also, she made $200 an hour.
After camming, Aella tried "escort" work. That's really just another word for prostitution.
"I remember going into my first appointment feeling really nervous. Then it was actually a lovely experience….And I left with a bunch of money in my pocket. I was like, 'This was awesome.'"
To protect themselves, Aella and her friends have a screening process. When a new man calls, they demand references from previous escorts.
She doesn't understand why prostitution is illegal, why people like her need to be "protected" from prostitution. On Twitter, Aella labels herself "whorelord."
"When I was working at the factory, that was a thousand times worse," she says. "But nobody cared about that."
Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, in Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Netherlands, Hungary, Turkey, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand.
Legalizing sex work doesn't solve its problems, but it makes it safer and easier to regulate.
Of course, some women are forced into prostitution. Some are tricked into coming to America, where traffickers confiscate identity papers, withhold pay, and tell the woman they owe them for bringing them to the U.S.
That's obviously evil and should be prosecuted. But that would be easier to do if sex work were legal.
"It really would be a lot safer if it were decriminalized," says Aella. "I've been assaulted during sex work. It wasn't an option in my mind to go get the authorities' help."
Also, the vast majority of sex work is voluntary—a business transaction between consenting adults.
You might not realize that most is voluntary because police and media routinely call voluntary sex work slavery.
In 2019, New England Patriots owners Robert Kraft patronized a massage parlor that offered "happy endings." Police accused him as part of what they called a "sex trafficking" sting.*
But there was no "trafficking." Later prosecutors conceded that.
"Ninety-nine percent of the headlines are not true," says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown. "They say 'we rescued these women,' but by 'rescue,' they put them in jail and give them a criminal record. The victims are the sex workers themselves."
Today, Aella has mostly retired from sex work. She got funded to work as a data scientist.
She uses her hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter, Reddit, FetLife, and TikTok to run polls that ask provocative questions like, "Do women have systemic privilege due to their gender?"
"I'm really curious about the ways that our moral intuitions don't line up," Aella says. "I poke at things that make people feel confused about what they believe."
Sex work is one of those things.
Polls show a slight majority of Americans think sex work should be decriminalized. Support for legalization has been increasing.
"It should be legal," says Aella. "Discovering sex work was one of the best things that's happened to me. I have my own life. I make good money. I have a ton of spare time to do what I want. People are concerned about my 'exploitation'? That's wrong."
*CORRECTION: A previous version of this piece misstated the actions law enforcement took against Kraft in 2019.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I do think it should be legal, but that we underdiscuss the impact on the purchasers side of the equation. Same with porn. Same with a lot of vices. It's not everyone involved but on the margins the effects are pretty significant.
There would be far few effects on the margins if it were legal.
Agreed. Much like our drug policy, the vast majority of the adverse effects are the result of the stigmatization and attempts at prohibition, not adverse effect inherent to the act.
I hope so. We shall see. I think we have a tendency in our culture to view that which is not forbidden as being a good. I think that is often not true with vice, even if it shouldn't be illegal.
The life of a legal heroin addict is still awfully brutish, and that has a consequence. Same with most vice. Most people will do fine with it, some minority will have their life ruined by it. She was making 200 bucks an hour on people paying for false intimacy. That has dangers and consequences, and I think these should be discussed while advocating for legalization.
Okay, let's start that conversation. What dangers and consequences do you see to legal prostitution? Specifically, what evils do you see that are greater than the consequences society already accepts from the cultural acceptance of promiscuity at discos and college parties?
False intimacy strikes me as a pretty good description of the vast majority of the dating scene (and an unfortunate number of marriages). How does this make the problem worse?
While I would never do it. (Eew.) I don't see why those who choose to use their bodies that way shouldn't be able to. Does it have side effects ? Sure, but everything does. Get a fertility patch or get your tubes tied if you're worried about it. The chances of getting an STD is probably not any more than compared to people who hook up with randos at a club on a weekend; in fact a career prostitute is likely to be more serious about protection than drunken idiots on a saturday night. Can people be trafficked ? Yes, but there are people trafficked right now working in sweatshops, fields, and other illegal work.
God forbid people get to have a little more agency in their lives.
'Sex worker "Aella" has made hundreds of thousands of dollars, mostly by "camming," showing her body to men online and talking intimately with them. Her customers are happy to pay for that.
This offends people.
It's "exploitation…under the banner of a career choice!" complains feminist Heather Brunskell-Evans.'
One of these people is a professional cunt, and the other uses her private parts to make money.
"One of these people is a professional cunt, and the other uses her private parts to make money."
ROTFLMAO!
Well played, so to speak! 🙂
Butler, Maid, and Chauffeur were once positions done by slaves, yet there is no law today against these positions when done by consenting adults. It should be no different with prostitutes, escorts, masseuses, strippers, or cammers. And acts against their Life, Liberty, and Property should be equally prosecuted, the same as with anyone else.
I can just imagine some states legalising it and promptly requiring all women - and men - who wish to be prostitutes to get properly licensed.
That is normally a condition in the jurisdictions that have already legalized it. Their argument (which has a lot of validity) is that the license gets tied to regular STD testing and is a public health issue.
Plus, democrats love to control people. And requiring government permission to earn a living is a lot of power.
That is normally a condition in the jurisdictions that have already legalized it.
Actually, it's worse. The brothels pay to be licensed and are required to perform STD testing and they pass the testing requirement and licensing fees off to their "contractors" at cost (who are then taxed by the on the backend, so to speak).
How is that worse? I'll take your word for it that that's the process in some jurisdictions (though I know it is not in at least some others where prostitution is legal). But how is that outcome different from the scenario where you are licensed and tested individually?
Prostitution shouldn't just be legal, it should be the most honorable profession. Prostitutes should be as revered as teachers, doctors or police because if you've ever seen their customers you'd know that prostitution is the most heroic profession.
Where is the logic in telling women like Aella she can have sex with as many people as she wants for free, but as soon money changes hands, it's illegal and immoral and icky???
Criminalizing sex work only puts up more barriers to safety. Let's follow the example of New Zealand & New South Wales, remove it from criminal law & give sex workers greater power to control their own lives!!
"Also, the vast majority of sex work is voluntary—a business transaction between consenting adults."
It would be one thing to say the government can't be trusted to police hookers - that it would simply give crooked cops, prosecutors, etc. another opportunity for extortion.
So that would be a practical argument for legalizing prostitution.
But to speak of consenting adults is to presume that the clients are all unmarried, or that the married ones got spousal consent to look for prostitutes. We know that's not always the case.
Do you have to have spousal consent to get a massage? To go to the gym? To rent a hotel room? To go out for dinner? To get a tattoo? To have an affair that you're not paying for? Are you in fact legally required to get spousal consent for anything other than a few ERISA decisions?
Yes, people should honor their wedding vows. No, that is not something that police should get involved in. And whether you break your vows with a paid hooker or an unpaid neighbor makes no difference at all.
Reading between the lines I can't tell which is more hilariously oblivious:
The assumption that prostitution doesn't fundamentally change divorce proceedings even in the absence of sex or conviction (i.e. photos of money changing hands with a known prostitute or john) or that you obliquely called your neighbor a hooker.
I'm certainly not in favor of criminally prosecuting prostitutes, but the repeated argument that prostitution is like any other profession is a joke that just keeps on giving. I get that libertarians are mostly men and a bit aspy, but damn. Read a room sometime, ideally one with unpaid, legally-employed women in it.
No, prostitution does not "fundamentally change" divorce proceedings. Having an affair with a neighbor is grounds for divorce. So is paying for sex with a hooker. It's the act of sex outside of marriage that forms the grounds for divorce, not whether you paid for the sex.
re: your "unpaid, legally-employed women" crack - If a husband is tempted to stray, you have deep-seated, fundamental problems in the marriage. Demonizing prostitutes is not going to fix your marriage. Note, by the way, that statistics show just as many women as men stray from their vows over time. Prostitution isn't the problem.
I'm simply challenging the "consenting adults" concept as applied here. Of course the relevant adults have *not* consented. You haven't even claimed they did.
So then the question is whether we can trust the vice cops and judges with an easily-abused power which could be used for extortion. It might be unwise to entrust them with that power.
Of course, once you start distrusting governement officials' potentially-arbitrary authority over the family, then you start wondering how the "no-fault" divorce laws are administered, how the cops treat parents who try to prepare kids for independence by letting them out in the fresh air without Mom's constant supervision, and other inconvenient questions.
You're missing the point. Spouses are not "relevant adults" in the prostitution transaction. (Well, not unless the spouse is also into it - but that's not what we're talking about here.)
Spouses do not automatically get a legal interest in everything their significant-others do - even when those things could jeopardize the marriage or expose the other to extortion. They have no legal right to interfere with a consensual contract in many similar contexts. What basis do you have for alleging that they have such a right here?
You finally publish something that I completely agree, but it's boring because I completely agree with it.
Even the parallels to sports fail in this regard. Is the NFL the libertarian conception of free enterprise?
Speaking of naive and self-defeating, I have yet to see a single, legal (within the rules of football) play where two players' actions on the field produce another player owned approximately equally by both teams 9 mos. down the line.
Oddly, "so the government can tax and regulate it" is not anywhere in the article above.
Yes, there are people who make that stupid argument. So far, no one has brought it up here ... except you.
"So, it seems that libertarianism is primarily concerned not with bodily autonomy, or individual rights per se, but with the government taxing and regulating every facet of our existence. What a selling point!"
Substitute "Reason staff" for "libertarianism" and it might make more sense.
*Speaking like The Late Royal Marshall in immaculate, seamless
Queen'sKing's English*"To Regulate" can mean to stop the violation of property, in this case, the property being the sex worker's bodily sovereignty and the fruits of her/his/Xe/Xer labor, as referred to in the motion picture Young Guns and popularized in song by Masters Warren G and Nate Dogg:
Young Guns--Regulators
https://youtu.be/5afnr_lZP-Y
Warren G ft. Nate Dogg--Regulate with Lyrics
https://youtu.be/lMZmzEpmiuA
This form of "To Regulate" is most cromulent with Libertarianism.
*Drops Linguistic propriety*
KnowWhutI'mSayin'? 😉
I missed that line. My apologies. I have to admit that I'm surprised. Stossel is usually better.
The word tax is still missing.
I have to wonder about the tax and regulate part. I am guessing that prostitution would be a cash business, thus hard to tax. I can see few men wanting to have their purchases electronically recorded on a credit card.
Please cite where anyone on Reason's staff, past or present, has argued that prostitution should be legalized/decriminalized so that government could tax and regulate it.
I've read Reason for about 35 years and don't ever recall having seen that argument made by them, and I would have remembered such an egregious claim.
Living in Nevada, where Prostitution is legal in most counties, I have to respectfully disagree.
Prostitution is legal [subject to local option to prohibit] in all the counties with a population below 700,000 residents. It is supervised and regulated, with the principal concern being health related regulation to limit the spread of STDs. In several of the least populous counties the revenue from brothels represents a significant portion of county revenues and is a major industry, right behind mining.
~Illegal~ [and unregulated] prostitution in Las Vegas and to a lesser extent Reno brings in several times the revenue generated through ~legal~ prostitution.
He's also being exceedingly disingenuous, if not outright lying, wrt mining v. prostitution in a manner that actually contributes to your point.
The brothels are more profitable to the counties because they aren't taxed and regulated by the state. Moreover, it's not like the girls themselves are making money hand-over-fist and, as individuals, are willingly giving it over to the government. The brothels themselves, not the girls (who are just private contractors, are not guaranteed a minimum wage or healthcare, and have their food, housing, and mandated STD testing fees assessed against them), are profitable much like corporate mining towns were way more profitable than prostitution in the era before worker's rights, minimum wage, and EPA/DOI oversight.
Several years ago the brothels lobbied to be taxed by the State in exchange for a massive reduction in the licensing fees they pay to the counties in a move to expand their customer base (and their contribution to the tax base). The movement failed because legislators didn't want to grant prostitution legitimacy.
It's really exceedingly sad that TANSTAAFL... ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT DOES IT... has to be explained... TO "LIBERTARIANS".
I mean just... Fucking Christ. Sweet Meteor take us all now.
her/his/Xe/Xer
Props on asserting linguistic propriety while avoiding the use of the centuries-old, gender-agnostic possessive pronoun 'their'.
*Reassumes The Late Royal Marshall's voice.*
"Their" would be proper if I were conversing about more than one sex worker. Alas, I was referring to only one of the denizens of the sidewalk
*Drops The Late Royal Marshall's Effervescent Elegance and Elevating Eloquence.*
Word!