Belgian Sex Workers Gain Access to Paid Leave, Right To Refuse Sex Acts
Belgian sex work groups are cheering the new law. But it could come with some downsides.

In Belgium, sex workers can now sign formal employment contracts. That grants them access to the same benefits that other Belgian workers can access, plus some specialized protections.
Under the new law, which took effect Sunday, sex work employees have access to paid public holidays and to Belgium's version of Social Security. Sex workers will also have access to paid sick days, maternity leave, and health insurance plans.
"Today is a very historical day for us sex workers," posted Mel Meliciousss—part of the Belgian sex workers union known as UTSOPI—on Instagram.
The new law also stipulates that sex workers have a right to refuse particular sex acts and clients without retaliation, setting up a mediation scheme for this all-too-common situation.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
From Decriminalization to Employment Contracts
Prostitution and other forms of sex work are broadly legal in Belgium. In 2022, the country became the first in modern Europe to officially decriminalize paying for sex, being paid for sex, and facilitating such transactions. As I noted at the time, a
number of European countries have legalized prostitution. That means it's allowed under specific and highly regulated circumstances but still a crime outside these parameters. For instance, in Greece, sex workers must register with the state and have a professional certificate, get twice-monthly medical exams, and work in a licensed brothel in order for their labor to be legal. Other European countries have instituted asymmetrical criminalization, in which selling sex is allowed (under certain circumstances) but paying for it is not. But Belgium is the first European country to officially decriminalize selling sex, paying for it, and working with sex workers, under a proposal put forth by Federal Justice Minister Vincent Van Quickenborn and approved by Parliament last week.
The change meant more than just a shift in the way sex work was policed. It meant that sex work could be formally recognized by authorities as a valid form of employment. A sex worker applying for a bank loan could list this as her source of income. A sex worker who lost his job could apply with the state for unemployment benefits. And so on.
Decriminalization was the first step. But while the law said sex workers could legally be self-employed or hire third parties to help them in their sex work efforts, it did not allow for sex workers to be formally hired as employees.
That next step came in a law that passed in May and took effect yesterday. It defines sex work as "the performance of acts of prostitution in execution of a contract of employment as a sex worker"and says adults "may enter into an employment contract as a sex worker." This grants sex workers access to the types of employee benefits and social welfare schemes that employees of other types of businesses are eligible for. (Notably, "sex workers will be able to work under hotel-restaurant-cafe…contracts that do not mention sex work" to protect their anonymity, according to the UTSOPI website.)
A Right to Refuse Sex Acts
The new law gained international attention when it was passed, with coverage largely focusing on a provision concerning sex worker employees who refuse sex acts.
As I wrote in this newsletter in May, "the law imposes obligations on both businesses that employ sex workers and on sex workers who work for those businesses." This includes a provision stating that "every sex worker has the right to refuse a client," that "every sex worker has the right to refuse a sexual act," and that "every sex worker has the right to interrupt a sexual act at any time."
Writing a sex work employment contract is tricky, because unlike at, say, a factory job—where the parameters of the work tend to be well-known in advance and can be laid out in a contract—"you cannot force somebody to have sex," pointed out Meliciousss on Instagram. So the contract has to acknowledge that a formal job requires certain obligations while also protecting sexual and bodily autonomy.
The way it was ultimately written means "that when you go work as a sex worker for an [employer] they cannot force you to do something you don't want to do," said Meliciousss. "They cannot force you to something without condoms. They cannot force you to do some sexual acts you don't want to do. They cannot force you to do something with a client you don't want to do."
But if this happens too frequently, the employer can request that the state intervene. Either a sex worker or a sex work employer can request government mediation if an employee refuses sex acts more than 10 times in a six-month period.
Tradeoffs
For libertarians, the overall law is a mixed bag. We don't want the state mandating that private employers provide things like parental leave and health insurance, instead favoring voluntary solutions. We're also critical of expansive social welfare benefits. But if the state is going to generally require that business to offer certain benefits, or generally offer old-age pension schemes and unemployment payouts, is it just to exempt sexually oriented businesses?
Basically, the law lets sex workers be treated like any other workers in many respects. On one level, that seems only fair—equal treatment under the law. Yet the law's expansiveness could have negative effects in practice. Taking a utilitarian perspective, I think it's unclear whether it will be a net negative or positive for Belgian sex workers.
Having the option to enter into employment contracts is undoubtedly good, for both sex workers and employers. And the fact that a sex worker can officially sign an employment contract also does not mean that she or he has to in order to work legally. Unlike many legalization schemes throughout Europe, Belgium's law does not mean that selling sex outside of an employment contract is illegal; sex workers can still independently work for themselves and hire others legally.
But adding an extensive roster of regulations that sexually oriented businesses must follow and benefits they must offer could discourage the development of relatively safe and legal workplaces for sex work. And this could be especially bad for more marginalized groups of sex workers. As in all markets, there are tradeoffs to consider.
The key question here is whether sex workers can still work in less formal arrangements for a sex business—as freelancers or independent contractors. Or, to put it another way: Can a sex work business that expects high worker turnover, caters to a more transient workforce, or is otherwise not in a great position to offer formal employment contracts still operate legally?
I think the answer is no, but I'm not sure. The law itself defines sex work as "the performance of acts of prostitution in execution of a contract of employment as a sex worker" and states that it may "not be performed as part of a flexi-job contract, nor as a casual worker." But does that mean that no legal sex work on a flex/casual basis is allowed? Or merely that it's not allowed under an employment contract?
The ideal situation is one where sex workers looking for steady, long-term employment have the option to become formal employees, but people looking for short-term employment or something less formal can still find work in a legal (and therefore likely safer) place. One concern with that system from a labor perspective might be that many sex businesses would hire only freelancers. But businesses would still have incentives to offer formal employment contracts: attracting top-tier talent, seeking good worker retention, courting public opinion, and being seen as a more upscale or respectable or ethical business (which could be good both for social cache and for marketing to certain clienteles).
And whatever perceived benefits there are to mandating that all sex-work businesses offer employment contracts, this could in practice lead to less hiring overall, fewer legal businesses overall, and fewer opportunities for more marginalized workers to be able to work in a legal business. In effect, it could leave certain groups of sex workers with no choice but to work on the black market or rely on coercive pimps.
Sex Work Groups Celebrating
Sex worker rights groups in Belgium certainly see this as a major win.
"This is an incredible step forward," Isabelle Jaramillo, coordinator of Espace P, told the Associated Press. "It means their profession can finally be recognized as legitimate by the Belgian state." Jaramillo also notes that "under the previous legislation, hiring someone for sex work automatically made you a pimp, even if the arrangement was consensual. Now, they'll have to apply for state authorization to hire employees."
"If there is no law and your job is illegal, there are no protocols to help you," the president of UPSOPI told the BBC. "This law gives people the tools to make us safer."
But UTSOPI notes that decriminalization and employment contracts don't mean an end to authorities trying to outlaw sex work. "We already see certain municipalities hiding behind the words 'safety' and 'hygiene' to promulgate very strict local regulations that make sex work almost impossible on their territory."
More Sex & Tech News
• Australia's Parliament has passed a law requiring social media platforms to ban users under age 16. "The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts," AP reports. "The platforms have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced."
• Australia is also considering a law that would allow the state to issue big fines against tech companies that authorities deem to have suppressed competition.
• And one more from Australia: The state of Victoria decriminalized sex work in 2022, but battles over the law's parameters are still ongoing. A sex worker who was evicted from her rental home after her landlord found out she was seeing clients there is preparing to sue, according to The Guardian.
• Elon Musk is still fighting in court to prevent OpenAI from converting from a nonprofit to a for-profit company, reports CNBC. Musk sued OpenAI in a California state court in March, then withdrew that complaint and refiled a few months later in federal court. The complaint accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of violating federal racketeering and antitrust laws.
Today's Image

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
"Belgian sex worker" sounds like a weird bar drink.
As with the Rosato brothers, it’s always whore with ENB.
Of course, none of this would be necessary if the government hadn't already muddled employment laws with so much regulation. If people could be hired and fired at will with mutually agreed contracts, all of this would be possible without new regulations.
That's the real libertarian angle. Too bad it wasn't mentioned.
Fallacy of relative privation (appeal to worse problems) is one of your teacher's favorites. You're learning.
Oh man! Praise from sarcasmic! I am sooooo honored!
I envy the unmuted.
How dare you.
Things like that are too obvious to need explicit mention. The article included what's bad about regulation.
Work is work. While I don't want to be a sex worker ... I also don't want to be a coal miner, oil rig worker, nor deep sea fisherman. But these are all legit jobs for the people who want to do them.
Except, without coal miners, oil rig workers, or fisherman you don't power your house or eat fish. Without sex workers you don't... uh... get to pay for social security of the services of people whom you wouldn't patronize otherwise.
Once again and as usual, ENB doesn't actually want to legitimize or legalize women or sex work or whatever. Sex work was and has been legitimate at numerous various points in history and it ends with minor prostitutes getting "the rule of thumb" from people like Epstein and Weinstein on the one hand and one prostitute petitioning King Solomon to cut another prostitute's baby in half on the other.
She wants to pretend, like all the other libertines, that if we legalize prostitution and drugs and self-driving electric cars and pay everyone a UBI, nobody will kill or rape each other or OD or perform partial-birth abortions and free love will cause factories to start emitting rainbows instead of pollution.
Time to take your meds, again. Your non sequiters are increasing in scope and scale.
My non sequiturs? Did you put the profoundly meaningful "Work is work." slogan right above or below "Love is love." on your "In this house we believe" yard sign?
Coal miners don't go out and mine coal because they inherently value coal. Even porn studios and gold mines generate something of value beyond just the two people critically involved in the production. Prostitution, specifically, does not and anyone who has been through a HS sex ed class understands the distinction.
Of course you'd assume I need meds for using my brain the way a completely average human would or could, because you're retarded.
Whatever , Boomer.
Of course you wouldn't recognize anything that you can't put a materialistic label on. Did it ever occur to you that someone might "purchase" a respite, an experience, some stress relief, a little companionship, or even value something as banal as 'a good time' ?
Go fossilize somewhere.
Go fossilize somewhere.
Says the guy whose intellectual contribution beyond meaningless tautologies is to crib #YOLO-style that even the lame kids stopped using years ago.
But please, continue to affirm how broadly and abjectly irrelevant you are.
Eat pussy?
Lots of people have legitimate jobs that I would not patronize. If it were put to a (anonymous) vote, do without fishermen or do without prostitutes, well, the hooking going on would be entirely on land.
Eat pussy?
I'm no Lothario, but if you can't pull any down on your own merit or virtues, that the only thing you bring to a sexual encounter is the hourly service fee, that's on you.
Lots of people have legitimate jobs that I would not patronize.
No shit, dumbfuck. You don't pay the coal miners either do you? But, you do buy electricity. You do put gas in your car. Even if you didn't "pay" coal miners for coal and oil rig workers for oil, you'd still be paying people to mine uranium for reactors, materials for batteries, iron and aluminum for scooters and bicycles.
It's funny, for all the recitations of "I, Pencil", "Negative Railroads", and "Things seen and unseen"... all the "essential workers" and vaccine mandate dishonesty and oppression; you retards still don't realize that you have and efface the social awareness and libertarian bona fides of Chase Oliver.
All good except for the government regulation part. WAY better than the US. Thanks for yet another post, sans TDS.
The Teamsters holds it's a convention in Las Vegas. One of the proud union reps decides to visit some of the brothels outside of town. He goes into the first one he sees and, walking in, sees a bunch of hot young numbers lounging around. He asks at the counter, "Is this a union shop?". The lady behind the counter announces that it isn't. And he responds, "I'll take my business elsewhere! I'm a union man!"
He goes to the next brothel. Even hotter staff. He asks, "Is this a union shop?" On being informed it isn't, he again insists, "I'll take my business elsewhere! I'm a union man!"
He goes to still another. Here the girls hanging out are even better than the other two places. He asks, "Is this a union shop?" This time, he's informed that it, in fact, is. So, he happily pays up and is told to undress and wait in one of the rooms upstairs.
He does so and after about ten minutes this old lady walks in and announces her name is Doris. And by old, I mean OLD! She could be the great grandmother of the girls downstairs. And the years have not been too kindly to her. Well, they have uninspiring sex and the guy goes downstairs and goes to the manager.
"You've got all these hotties down here why did you send a working man like myself that old lady?"
The clerk replies, "I'm sorry sir. A bunch of these girls bid for your job, but Doris has seniority."
Refuse sex acts? What do they think they are , married?
What other employees can refuse to do their jobs and yet not get fired?
Any job with black/women employees.
(1) "On February 26, 1980, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling which more clearly defined a worker's right to refuse work where an employee(s) has (have) reasonable apprehension that death or serious injury or illness might occur as a result of performing the work. "
(2) "Federal law entitles you to a safe workplace. Your employer must keep your workplace free of known health and safety hazards. You have the right to speak up about hazards without fear of retaliation."
It's an OSHA fight from there on what is hazardous .
"Belgian Sex Workers Gain Access to Paid Leave, Right To Refuse Sex Acts."
Sounds like the same benefits our politicians have in DC.
Bake that cake.
Good photo double-take gag.
If the related translation industry is any example, they will ONLY hire freelancers. A freelancer subbing for an agency is, by definition, a naïf too dumb to write her own bids or agreements.
> This includes a provision stating that "every sex worker has the right to refuse a client," that "every sex worker has the right to refuse a sexual act," and that "every sex worker has the right to interrupt a sexual act at any time."
I wonder - does this apply to a register-jockey at a gas station? A pharmacist? A doctor, a plumber?
A baker? A photographer?
Maybe it's more like a menu at a restaurant.
I sell tacos. Customer asks for fried rice. "sorry sir, I don't sell fried rice." Like that.
Right. And the congress critter with a dead hooker in his trunk isn't a murderer, he's just taking liberty with the merchant/client contract. After all, there's nothing in the contract that says he had to provide her with oxygen for the full experience.
What's a few fudged definitions with regard to contracts between libertarians anyway?
I'm not talking about dead whores.
"do you do anal?"
"nope, but I'll suck you off"
seems pretty fuckn reasonable to me.
This poor guy named Anal, nobody will service him as a client!
Seriously, when you read the sentence "refuse a client", do you not know the difference between 'client' and 'service', assume ENB and/or the people discussing the actual law don't know and are repeatedly mistaken, or are you just playing retarded?
Because, AFAICT, the broadly generous interpretation is that you're playing retarded.
Let me make it 100% clear;
"every sex worker has the right to refuse a sexual act,"
This is the part of the law I am commenting. I figured that was obvious. Apparently not, and I have to fuckn spell it out for you.
Let me make it 100% clear;
You don't get to play retard and then claim this authority.
All 3 clauses are right there with the terms in quotes. Incunabulum isn't asking "Doctor?" because Radiologists generally refuse to perform heart surgeries.
If you were concerned about things being 100% clear, try not to be an illiterate, brain-off douchebag.
The hooker was alive when I put her in the trunk with my covid bear; mark it down as died from covid.
The contract says "front hole" without stipulating which direction any/all parties were facing.
Well, these girls are selling their tacos too.
Also, in the opposite direction or all the way around?
That is, if all the "register-jockeys" at all the local gas stations refuse certain services to certain people, can the station put out an ad requesting "register-jockeys" that specifically or exclusively handle certain clients' services? Can those "register-jockeys" charge more? Do they still get the same benefits?
A sex-worker-as-employee - are they paid by the hour? Do businesses get to introduce productivity metrics? A worker on a factory line needs to be able to process 'x' number of widgets/hour or they are disciplined.
Yeah, but sex work is not like other work, except when it is, then it is, but when it's not, it's not even close... except when it is, then it is and you're a phobe if you suggest otherwise.
The new law also stipulates that sex workers have a right to refuse particular sex acts and clients without retaliation, setting up a mediation scheme for this all-too-common situation.
If sex work is work-- ie, just like any other work and should be considered normal and uncontroversial, why can Tatiana refuse sex with black men, but Skylar the barista can't refuse to let black people use the bathroom in the Starbucks? Riddle me that, glibertarians?
Because Belgium isn't claiming to be a libertarian country?
Huh, good point. I guess the hissing grenade of a question sitting in the middle of the room is, why is the Libertarian Publication of Record providing such extensive coverage of it?
Extensive, one-sided coverage without the slightest pause after spending 8+ yrs. deafening everyone with their stupid dog whistle screeching:
Look, Geschlechtsarbeit Macht Frei, but the Blacks and the Jews can machen their own Frei with their own Geschlechtsarbeit!
In fact, as I consider your [rather well made] point even further, I guess I can't help but imagine a situation where say, an oil industry publication did a medium-form article about how Country X just liberalized drilling for oil and passed some regulations and rules making oil exploration easier-- and someone asks a question about the details of the new regulatory scheme... only to have the rejoinder be:
Country X has no oil industry, nor are there any oil reserves there...
EDIT: And by the by, we're not a libertarian country either...
Jaramillo also notes that "under the previous legislation, hiring someone for sex work automatically made you a pimp, even if the arrangement was consensual. Now, they'll have to apply for state authorization to hire employees."
This is the most Adapted-for-Modern-Audiences libertarian thing I've read all week.
Pimpin' was always, technically, consensual.
And while not easy, is in fact necessary.
I like how we invoke "Right To Refuse Sex Acts" like that isn't *the* cine qua non of feminism for the last 50 yrs. Like "prostitutes" refusing sex acts means the demand for the acts just dissolves rather than simply creating another black market beneath their current strata.
It's like a rule-by-committee-of-women or hedging against their own principles version of the old "We've already established what you actually think about human rights, now we're just haggling over the price." By what equal right do you claim to be able to (e.g.) discriminate against someone with syphilis or HIV and then claim the a human right to the same public healthcare that they do? Does your Constitution really get so fine-grained that you can discriminate between the various forms of DP as a right?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
In other cases I could understand and accept this as part of the political bargain for making it legal, but apparently not in this case; it was already legal, now the workers have gotten a new mandated employment term.
now the workers have gotten a new mandated employment term.
And while I haven't tallied the yays/nays from the Belgian parliament, I feel pretty confident it's not the Johns who got together as a voting block and insisted the workers have the right to refuse them service in exchange for better healthcare and social security access.
I have a strong feeling it's cat ladies and bureaucrats with no exposure to actual prostitution, physical labor, or moral/intellectual depth on the matter deciding that it's OK for men to pay for missionary position sex as long as they agree to healthcare.
This is why you can’t have chicks in charge.
I foresee alooooooot of interviewing on a certain black couch…
>incentives to offer formal employment contracts: attracting top-tier talent, seeking good worker retention, courting public opinion, and being seen as a more upscale or respectable or ethical business
Top tier talent is not, as it does not in other industries, stay as an employee - they move to working as a contractor as they're already full-up on work and being a contractor allows more control over your work (and more pay).
'Good worker retention' is achieved with contractors by paying them on time, respecting that they're not your employee, etc. Few people who are successful as contractors choose to become employees.
Look at it this way - would ENB choose to stop writing in other areas in order to take a position writing full-time for Reason as an employee? With office hours, HR, being on-call for tasking as KMW needs?
Making sandwiches for the male staffers……..
> said Meliciousss. "They cannot force you to something without condoms. They cannot force you to do some sexual acts you don't want to do. They cannot force you to do something with a client you don't want to do."
For the rest of us, an employer can't 'force' (they can't force you, they can only choose not to associate with you anymore) you to do something unsafe - but you can absolutely be assigned to things you find extremely unpleasant under threat of dismissal if you refuse. Why should sex work be different.
My last job I worked in 110F heat all shift. I could have refused to do this but . . . that was the job. Refusing to do it meant I would have been useless to my employer. Why should I have been continued to be paid?
If you are a whore working for some kind of agency, then check the contract before you agree to it. Seems like any decent whoring contract should include the right to refuse certain acts. If you are a freelancer, then don't take the jobs you don't want. Seems fairly simple.
The Mustang Ranch does not discriminate.
Just started reading this, but it's ironic that a libertarian news site would celebrate another type of business's being admitted to the dirigiste regime of employment regulation in Belgium. But I won't berate you for it, because I know how this is: that often the most obvious path to fit one advance in liberty practically necessitates broadening the state and appearing to go backwards.
I've said the same thing regarding gambling, for instance: that it's better for one (only one) entity to be allowed to operate a gambling establishment legally than that nobody be allowed to do so; it enlarges the state, but not in a coercive way, rather a liberating way. It's a type of propaganda by deed, demonstrating that gambling's not so evil that it needs to be outlawed completely. I was that way also about early plans for medical marijuana, in which the police would've doled out seized marijuana to patients, thus supervising the contraband's destruction legally (even by federal law) by having authorized persons burn or otherwise consume it. Sometimes ya gotta be strategic.
...
Stop using these terms backwards! "Legalized" means "made no longer illegal", while "decriminalized" means "no longer criminal", but not necessarily legal — could remain a civil violation.
Anyway, this new info means the new status for sex work in Belgium is nothing to celebrate after all. Slave off, fucker.
I'm not sure I agree here. "Legalized" means taxed and regulated. Decriminalized means "this is no longer illegal, do what thou wilt".
Yes, there are nuanced versions of 'decriminalized' like where Seattle 'decriminalized' drugs-- no laws were revoked, they just stopped enforcing them.
But as one of ENBs Reason regulars once stated in a separate podcast, she was staunchly against 'legalization' of sex work, because legalization (the regulated and taxed version) would only empower 'brothel owners', whereas decriminalization empowered sex workers to just do sex work.
"Legalized" means taxed and regulated. Decriminalized means "this is no longer illegal, do what thou wilt".
No, that's backwards.
No. Decriminalized means it's no longer a crime. Legalized means a legal framework.
Hence ENB's regular wanting sex work decriminalized, not legalized. Marijuana in my state is "legalized". There are laws indicating how much you can possess, how it can be sold, who can get a license etc., that is "legalized". Heroin is "decriminalized" in Seattle: You can use it freely on the street and no one will stop you.
No, that's backwards.
...
Do they expect compliance, or do they know it's impossible and expect this to be a tax on all such businesses?
Can someone clarify for me?
Most of the provisions seemed aimed at salaried workers rather than contractors — a provision for maternity leave suggests regular wages — but if they have the right to refuse clients, then, well, why would they do any work at all? Once you get hired as a hooker, you just say “Not him. Not him. Not him...” to every client who shows up, and there’s nothing your boss can do.
Is this the law?
Are we listing requested clarifications here?
As someone with a friend who is the father of 'Irish twins', or nearly so, I feel compelled to ask; if a John propositions a Pro who is expecting and she accepts, is she violating the labor laws?
Because my friend thinks that it seems an awful lot like this law was written by people who've never been pregnant and desired sex or desired sex with a pregnant person, or are really even generally aware that sex and pregnancy are actually biologically related.
“Australia is also considering a law that would allow the state to issue big fines against tech companies that authorities deem to have suppressed competition.”
Yep. Only the authorities can suppress competition.
TLDR but, this is highly entertaining just from a contracts and criminal point of view.
The way it was ultimately written means "that when you go work as a sex worker for an [employer] they cannot force you to do something you don't want to do," said Meliciousss. "They cannot force you to something without condoms. They cannot force you to do some sexual acts you don't want to do. They cannot force you to do something with a client you don't want to do."
But they could certainly condition the terms of said hiring on those things, couldn't they. In short, "Fine, you won't let a guy with AIDS rawdog you in the brownstar, then I guess this interview is over." At which point they rescind the offer of employment and the prostitute has to send out more resumes.
Or, better yet, suppose the pimps start doing a cost/benefit analysis of the costs of FMLA and insurance, and factoring that into take-home pay. Or part-timing them. Very protection racket that could easily become. "Join our stable, on our terms, or we'll make sure you never see enough Johns to make a living, or see that every John you independently contract damages the merchandise."
It would become an interesting dynamic of bargaining power between employers looking to satisfy a demand, and the employment pool of whores who scoff at certain work (and pay for it) versus the ones desperate enough to agree to anything.
And let's talk about breach of contract. OK, you're a hooker and you've secured your whoring contract with your brothel Pimps LLC. The staff of Pimps LLC inform their clientele what can and cannot be done with their product. The client, John, ignores all the rules and forces unconsented to sexual acts. Who's liable? Does the hooker have cause of action against Pimps LLC for breach? Is there a separate cause of action against John? Has John committed a crime? Has Pimps LLC? Might he defend that alleged crime by pointing to nuances and vagaries in the whore's employment contract? That'd be hilarious.
Or, also fun, suppose John demands something that's in the whore's contract, and for whatever reason she chooses to deny it to him at that point in time. Does he have a cause of action for restitution (or, better yet, specific performance LOL)? Can he still be charged with a crime if it was... "on the menu," so to say? Suppose he's forcibly stopped by an employee of Pimps LLC - does he have an action in tort for any harm suffered?
Oooh, and let's say John is somehow injured in all this. Does he, lmao, have a products liability claim? Respondeat superior?
They say this will all be "mediated." But give no any indication as to how.
Has it not occurred to anyone why there's been no way to meaningfully legitimatize the sex trade while legally protecting the interests of all parties involved in it?
Y'know, I think at the end of the day, ENB's myopia stems from the foolish notion that the prostitution racket is (or should be) like some kind of Vegas, NYC, Dubai, Macau escort service industry - where all the whores are high class, and all the whoring is some version of Pretty Woman. And that legitimizing prostitution as a "profession" (lol, is Belgium also offering a Masters degree for turning tricks?) will somehow make this fantasy a reality.
But that's simply NOT the reality for the majority of prostitutes. Do you really think the toothless meth-addict offering blowjobs for pocket change are going to be helped by this? Do you really think the girls who took out loans they couldn't pay back and now make it up by being trafficked for pennies on the dollar are going to file employment disputes with the State? Do you really think that the pimps who Backpage their wares to anonymous Johns are going to find contract lawyers to make sure all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed by all parties?
The sex trade should be illegal. Simple as that. Yea, it creates a black market that's particularly dangerous to prostitutes. So what, it's a 100% avoidable one (unless you're forcibly trafficked, which is a whole other issue that would be further encouraged by those looking to capitalize on the "profession" without all the bureaucracy). Spare me all your "business agreement between two consenting adults" blathering. It's not a business that any Court could meaningfully arbitrate disagreements between.
Which is why this article - and this legislation - is so laughable in the first place.