These States Are Moving in the Wrong Direction on Prostitution Laws
Twelve states are considering harsher punishments for soliciting sex.
The arc of history is weird: Here we are, over 50 years after whatever it was that people call the sexual revolution, long past the anti-porn crusade of the late 20th century, a few decades out from third-wave feminists embracing sex positivity and slut walks, and well into an age of hookup apps, OnlyFans, and a movie about a stripper who sleeps her way into the heart of a Russian oligarch's son just winning the Best Picture Oscar. But states keep escalating law enforcement attacks on prostitution, with bipartisan support, and lawmakers won't stop putting out proposals to ratchet up penalties for people who pay for sex.
So far this year, at least 12 states are considering increased penalties for solicitation, with many of these proposals aimed at moving it from a misdemeanor to a felony. Some would rechristen the crime solicitation of prostitution as "commercial sexual exploitation," and others would make those convicted of solicitation register as sex offenders.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
'Ending Demand'
These bills have generally been introduced under the guise of stopping sex trafficking.
Lawmakers across the country seem smitten by the idea that harsher punishments for folks attempting to pay for sex with another consenting adult will somehow "end demand" for paid sex, thereby ensuring that neither consenting adult sex workers nor anyone underage and/or coerced into prostitution will have customers.
It's a stupid theory that utterly failed when Ronald Reagan pushed a version of it as part of the war on drugs. Targeting illicit drug buyers, rather than drug sellers, certainly didn't "end demand" for illicit substances, and targeting prostitution customers isn't going to "end demand" for paid sex.
That it won't work is only one issue with ramping up penalties for sex work customers, of course. It's also unfair to those targeted, who do not deserve to face jail time, hefty fines, and being treated like dangerous sex criminals. And it could make life more dangerous for those selling sex—whether they're doing so solely by choice or under duress of some sort.
Rabidly targeting customers could reduce the pool of good clients and/or make customers less likely to engage in screening measures, digital communication, and other things that can make sex work safer. Making customers harder to find and communicate with makes it harder for sex workers to work independently and increases reliance on pimps and vulnerability to violent or exploitative traffickers. All the while, criminal justice systems that could go to stopping abusive situations are being utilized to throw the book at men who proposition undercover cops for sex.
"Conflating sex work with trafficking wastes vital law enforcement resources," said Ariela Moscowitz, communications director for the group Decriminalize Sex Work (DSW), in a statement. "By diverting time and funding to prosecute consensual adult sex work, the ability to focus on real trafficking cases is hindered, allowing true exploitation to go unaddressed."
'Commercial Sexual Exploitation' and 'Loitering With the Intent' To Purchase Sex
DSW has a handy rundown of many of the state proposals, which include measures in California, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington.
An Idaho proposal—House Bill 88, which already passed the House 50–19—would make soliciting prostitution a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $50,000.
A bill in Oklahoma would change engaging in "prostitution, lewdness, or assignation" from a misdemeanor offense to a felony, punishable by up to two years in state prison (up from a previous possible punishment of 30 days to one year in county jail). The measure, which would mean greater penalties for both sex workers and their customers, as well as anyone engaged in "lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct," passed the Senate Public Safety Committee 6–2 but has not had a full vote yet.
Nevada Assembly Bill 151 would make people found guilty of soliciting prostitution register as sex offenders.
In Washington, House Bill 1265 would rephrase "patronizing a prostitute" to "commercial sexual exploitation" and broaden its definition, making it applicable to not just paying, agreeing to pay, or offering to pay "a fee" for sexual activity but providing, agreeing to provide, or offering "anything of value" in exchange for it. It would also change the crime from a misdemeanor to a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
Like the bill in Washington, Nebraska Legislative Bill 511 would rename the offense of "solicitation of prostitution"—a pretty neutral name that simply describes the action in question—to the more judgment-laden "commercial sexual exploitation." It would also raise the mandatory minimum fine for first-time offenders from $250 to $1,000 and make those convinced get a mental health evaluation and attend "an educational program designed to educate participants on the negative effects of prostitution on the participants' health, on the health of their families, on the person solicited, and on the community." And anyone convicted of "commercial sexual exploitation" more than once would have to register as a sex offender and pay a fine of $5,000, in addition to any other punishments.
Meanwhile, in California, Assemblymember Maggy Krell—a former federal prosecutor who published a book about prosecuting Backpage—is proposing the creation of a new crime of loitering with the intent to purchase commercial sex. Assembly Bill 379, introduced in February, would institute a mandatory $1,000 "Survivor Support Fund" fine on people found guilty of the loitering charge or of solicitation, in addition to any other fines or fees assessed. It would also undo a law passed last year that treats soliciting 16- and 17-year-old minors less harshly than soliciting minors who are younger, in some circumstances.
Bills in at least five other states—Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia—would likewise raise penalties for solicitation.
The South Carolina bill originally would have moved buying and selling sex from misdemeanors to felonies, but it was amended before passing the state Senate Judiciary Committee to keep selling sex a misdemeanor. As amended, the measure would still make paying or offering to pay for sex a felony, raise a spate of other prostitution offenses from misdemeanors to felonies, and create new offenses of "grooming" someone for prostitution or bringing someone in or out of the state for prostitution (also felonies).
But Why?
The sex-liberating phenomena that I noted in the opening paragraph only tell half the story, of course. The sexual revolution has been sparking backlash since it started. The increasing visibility of sexuality in the public sphere has coincided with increased fear about what that means for women.
If we drew a bell curve with sex positivity at the top, right-wing conservatism at the first end, and left-wing conservatism at the other, mainstream feminism would now be stuck squarely on the last side. It's slid far past seeing sexuality as something positive and liberating for women and now focuses mostly on all the ways that sex—at least, sex with men—may be physically, emotionally, and otherwise dangerous.
And the radical feminist/Christian right alliance that failed to stop the spread of porn last century reinvigorated itself over the past few decades by igniting a now fully institutionalized fear of widespread sex trafficking.
These factors combined—especially the myth-laden but remarkably potent panic over sex trafficking—have led to increasingly harsh crackdowns on prostitution. Lawmakers seem always to be looking for the next high-profile "anti-trafficking" measure they can co-sponsor, while a whole lot of trafficking "experts"—radical feminists themselves, or heavily influenced by this philosophy—stand ready to say it's men who pay for sex who are the true problem, that sex work is inherently exploitive, and that there's no such thing as a sex worker who isn't a victim. It's become almost verboten, regardless of political party or cultural leanings, to blame sex workers themselves for prostitution (a situation that may seem like feminist progress but really represents regressive attitudes toward female agency).
If cops want to be celebrated for their vice sting efforts, they've got to go after prostitution customers. And if lawmakers want to ramp up antiprostitution efforts, they've got to target men.
In a perverse way, some of this stems from our more sexually liberal culture, even though the results are purely reactionary. There's less public appetite for punishing people purely for promiscuity, or for vice stings aimed squarely at stopping two consenting adults from having sex. Authorities who want mass public support for the same old vice-squad efforts have to frame it in the language of stopping victimization and fighting sex trafficking. And since no one wants to seem insufficiently concerned with women's sexual victimization, basically any old thing alleged to stop it receives little scrutiny.
That's how we've gotten here.
These days, bills to decriminalize sex work entirely are getting introduced—see Rhode Island, Illinois, and Vermont, most recently. But they're always outnumbered by measures meant to more harshly punish men who pay for sex, and the latter have, sadly, seen more success so far, too.
Countless human rights organizations, health groups, and sex worker rights activists say that decriminalization is the best path for stopping sexual abuse and exploitation, protecting public health, and respecting civil liberties. They're roundly ignored, or at least way less heeded than those selling fear, male bashing, and rescue fantasies.
Texas Lawmakers Targeting Sex Toys and Abortion Funds
Texas Senate Bill 31 is being sold as a bill to clarify exceptions to the state's abortion ban, thereby making it easier for doctors to provide lifesaving care to women experiencing pregnancy complications or miscarriage. But is it actually "a Trojan Horse," as Jessica Valenti calls it? She and others have been warning that the legislation could revive the state's expansive 1925 abortion law, which not only made it a felony to perform an abortion but also to aid someone in procuring one.
After the Dobbs decision, Texas Republicans tried to start enforcing the ban, notes Valenti:
The ultra-conservative Texas Freedom Caucus started sending threatening letters to companies that promised to reimburse employees for out-of-state abortion travel—citing the 1925 ban. They also targeted abortion funds, warning that donors, employees, and volunteers could be prosecuted under the 100-year-old law.
Thankfully, Texas funds sued to stop that from happening. Paxton lost the legal battle in 2023, when a federal court ruled that the zombie ban had been "repealed by implication." (Translation: you can't enforce a nearly century-old ban when newer laws have already replaced it.) And while Paxton and Texas Republicans continued to claim the old ban was still on the books, that federal ruling blocked them from enforcing it.
Texas Republicans' new "Life of the Mother" bill would amend the 1925 ban, ostensibly to clarify that it, too, contains exceptions for mothers' lives. But amending it could also pave the way to countering the court's judgment that the long-neglected 1925 law was effectively repealed.
Carding sex toy purchasers: Another bill recently introduced in Texas—S.B. 3003—would require sex toy sellers to card people purchasing items online. The bill, from Sen. Angela Paxton (wife of the state's attorney general), "would criminally charge online retailers for selling 'an obscene device' without verifying the buyers' age," 404 Media reports:
Sellers would have to require customers to submit their government-issued photographic identification, or use "third-party age verification services that use public records or other reliable sources to verify the purchaser's identity and age," the bill says. Owning a credit card, which already requires the holder to be over 18 years of age, would not be enough.
Hallie Lieberman, journalist and author of Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy, sold sex toys in Texas in the early 2000s under the state's "six dildo" law, which criminalizes the possession of six or more "obscene devices," defined as "a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." That law is still on the books but is now considered unenforceable and unconstitutional. Lieberman told me sellers got around the law by claiming the toys were for "medical purposes." This bill could send retailers back to that time.
And this isn't the only piece of Texas legislation targeting sex toy sales:
Texas legislators have been trying to limit access to sex toys for their constituents for years. In late 2024, Hillary Hickland, a freshman member of Texas' Republican House, introduced a bill that would ban retailers in the state from selling sex toys unless they file paperwork to become sexually oriented businesses—effectively forcing stores like Walmart, CVS and Target, which sell vibrators and other sex toys, to take those products off their shelves and forcing brick-and-mortar boutiques to verify the ages of all customers. The bill was referred to Texas' Trade, Workforce & Economic Development committee earlier this month.
More Sex & Tech News
• Backpage.com now redirects to Milfs.com (link definitely NSFW), the federal government—which seized the platform in 2018 and prosecuted its founders—apparently having let the domain name lapse.
• Reason's Ron Bailey reports on a cool advancement in reproductive technology:
In a lab in Japan, scientists transformed cells from the tails of male mice into eggs. They fertilized the eggs with ordinary mouse sperm and implanted them in surrogate mouse moms. The experiment was repeated 630 times. Although most of the pregnancies failed, seven healthy mice were born.
Each of those seven baby mice had two biological dads.
• Christy Perez writes at Filter about how heightening penalties for "human trafficking" will wind up harming sex workers.
• Artificial intelligence is hallucinating its way into legal documents. Lawyer and blogger Eugene Volokh "found that 11 court opinions in the last 30 days mention that a party had likely included AI-hallucinated case citations or (in one instance) AI-hallucinated quotes from real cases; ten involved court filings, and one involved a party's communication with opponents. That's a rate of over 100 per year."
• Texas A&M University System can't ban campus drag shows, says a federal judge.
Today's Image
