French Far-Right Politicians Want To Reopen Brothels as Sex-Worker Cooperatives

The current system, in which paying for sex is illegal, doesn't work, said Jean-Philippe Tanguy, a National Assembly member.

France's far-right political party, known as National Rally, is preparing to introduce legislation to bring back legal brothels, according to French newspaper Le Monde. Under a bill being prepared by French National Assembly member Jean-Philippe Tanguy, these brothels would operate as sex-worker-run cooperatives.

Marine Le Pen, the former National Rally president and current National Assembly member who has run for president three times, also supports the brothel initiative, Tanguy said.

Tanguy told Le Monde that he got interested in the issue after working with a group that helps sex workers and meeting women who were leading very tough lives and women who were very proud of their work. He said he's come to believe that the current legal framework, in which paying for sex is illegal, does not actually make life better or safer for sex workers, since it drives the industry underground—where violence still takes place, but people ignore it. He called the system "the height of bourgeois hypocrisy."

It was only in 2016 that France made paying for sex acts a crime. But the country officially ended its legal brothel system back in 1946. (Prostitution still remained technically legal, but many activities related to it were criminalized.)

Interestingly, the woman who advocated for the brothel closures—Marthe Richard, a former spy and sex worker whom the law was named after—later seemed to regret it, saying that prostitution couldn't be eradicated and brothels were a "lesser evil," according to the French radio and TV network BFM.

A move to decriminalize clients and allow sex workers to work together would be a step in the right direction for sex worker rights and safety. But any plan that allows this exclusively in brothels would still perpetuate many of the harms of criminalization.

"Brothels yes very well, but it must be an OPTION, not an obligation," suggested French commentator Edouard Hesse on X, urging Tanguy to listen to sex workers. "We need to decriminalize this activity, protect rights, fight against coercion."

Forging an alliance between the far-right party and sex worker rights advocates could prove difficult, no matter the particulars. Parisian sex worker Mylène Juste, a spokesperson for the group STRASS, told Le Monde there was no way they were going to ally with the National Rally, a nationalist and populist party that wants to drastically reduce French immigration.

But National Rally politicians aren't the only ones who want to revise France's prostitution laws. Philippe Juvin, a Republican member of the National Assembly who last year introduced a bill aimed at securing sex worker rights, said this is also an issue he intends to revisit.

Juvin complained to Le Monde about the current situation, in which both social stigma and the law prohibit sex workers from working safely and normally. He cited Belgium—where sex work was decriminalized in 2022 and further moved to secure sex worker rights and autonomy last year—as a good model to follow.

---

More Sex & Tech News

Families want to revisit Tim Ballard/Net Nanny convictions: Disgraced sex-trafficking "rescue" guru Tim Ballard, founder of the vigilante group Operation Underground Railroad, helped Washington state conduct "Operation Net Nanny" stings that "landed hundreds in prison and put hundreds more on lifetime sex offender registries," notes The Appeal. When Ballard was accused of sexual misconduct and trafficking himself, "the families of the men Operation Net Nanny sent to prison began asking why no one was willing to take a second look at their loved ones' convictions."

President Donald Trump wants to put a stop to state laws regulating artificial intelligence. "A draft executive order that circulated last month directed the U.S. attorney general to sue states to overturn A.I. laws," reports The New York Times. "Federal regulators were also directed to withhold broadband grants and other funding to states with A.I. laws." On Monday, the president posted to Truth Social:

But it's hard to see how an executive order banning states from passing AI laws would be constitutional. It could also stop states from passing laws limiting how police departments and other government agents can use AI.

Is Instagram a "public nuisance"? The high court of Massachusetts will decide whether a lawsuit accusing Instagram of unfair and deceptive trade practices and public nuisances can proceed or whether it's barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Teen social media ban starts: Australia's social media ban for people under age 16 has now taken effect.

Today's terrible/cutesy name for a prostitution bust: Operation Cold Turkey.

This can't be good: The Federal Trade Commission is hosting a panel on age verification.

---

Today's Image

D.C. | 2018 (ENB/Reason)

Comments

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

I always thought a Sex-Worker Cooperative was a three way.

[5.56]

It would make sense that impotent right-wing rejects want to legalize prostitution these days, as this is one of the few ways they have left to get some.

[Minadin]

Those danged social conservatives, always trying to be the morality police . . .

[5.56]

It would make sense that impotent right-wing rejects want to legalize prostitution these days, as this is one of the few ways they have left to get some. They generally don't care about morals, that's just the way they advertise their policies to their gullible base.

[Incunabulum]

Why do we want to mainstream prostitution?

Has Only Fans not taught y'all a lesson - price goes down when availability is widespread.

[Minadin]

Phrasing!

[Dillinger]

are we still doing phrasing around here?

[Minadin]

I mean, not really, but using terms like 'go down' and 'widespread' when talking about prostitution and OnlyFans . . .

[Roberta]

X translated this from French:
"We need to decriminalize this activity, protect rights, fight against coercion."
I was curious about this "decriminalize", since if used in the literal sense and as used by drug reformers, it would have the implication of the offense's being reduced from a crime to a violation, but still illegal, which doesn't seem to get you far. So I checked the original French, which had it as:
"dépénaliser"
...which could mean either removal or reduction of penalties.

It would seem reformers in other languages are going for the same confusing jargon as English-language sex-law reformers. People, the word you want is "legalize" or "legaliser", to be unambiguously for making it non-illegal, i.e. legal.

[Rick James]

I can't say exactly what they mean when they say 'decriminalize' because it explicitly has two meanings, and I've spoken on this before.

1. The statutes making the activity remain on the books but are simply not enforced, or the penalties are reduced to the point where they're effectively zero.

2. The laws are simply taken off the books, leaving the activity unregulated, meaning *checks previous ENB articles* Pimps don't even have to register with the government.

As for your use of the term "legalize", unfortunately that is considered by the modern political set to mean ' taxed and regulated'.

As one of ENB's semi-regular former (always former, which I find interesting) sex worker subjects of interest, she doesn't favor legalization because in her own words, the 'regulatory' side of the coin will "only favor brothel owners" and not "labor". Scratch this whole thing hard enough and you find the Marxism hidden underneath.

[Roberta]

When ownership of gold was legalized, it wasn't taxed and regulated. There are darn few businesses in the world which aren't taxed and/or regulated, but it seems silly to conflate their legal status with the taxes or regulations, since activities which have long been legal are sometimes put under new taxes or regulations. Only rarely is legalization part of a quid pro quo trading illegality for taxes and/or regulations, and it seems extra silly to think that in cases where it is, complete laissez faire would've been on the table but for that deal. If anything, taxes and regulations are a compromise between laissez faire and bans, so why not ask for legalization if legal status is what you want? And then fight the taxes and regulations separately, as any business that didn't control the market would? Aren't you in better position to lobby and demonstrate, etc. for relief once the business is at least legal under some conditions?

And better to have the Marxists, or for that matter Franco-ists or various other power blocs, on your side than against you. Plus, it's good to be able to point and say, "See, even the [reviled radical group] agree with me."

[Azathoth!!]

Marxists are never 'on your side'.

Even if you're a marxist.

They are for social destruction to instigate a revolution that never ends.

[5.56]

Yes, while social democrats are not marxist but instead capitalist and consistently outcompete americans in all metrics that matter.

[Rick James]

When ownership of gold was legalized, it wasn't taxed and regulated. There are darn few businesses in the world which aren't taxed and/or regulated, but it seems silly to conflate their legal status with the taxes or regulations, since activities which have long been legal are sometimes put under new taxes or regulations.

When Washington state was one of the first states to "legalize" marijuana, the government set out to "create a market" for it before the statute could go into effect. The claim was that to "legalize it" it had to have a regulatory framework that included taxation, safety rules, licensing, zoning for shops etc.

[Rick James]

Also, we continue to abuse the term 'sex work'. "Sex work" is not "illegal". There are dozens of forms of 'sex work' which are 100% legal (and even regulated in some cases!). In the context it's always used here is a euphemism for 'prostitution'.

[mad.casual]

Also also, pursuant this post and your post further above re:"decriminalize"... at a certain level, every position of full- or part-time employment I've had since the age of ~16 is "criminalized".

This is specifically because the magazine and ENB use words like "sex work" and "decriminalize" to explicitly strive to blur the lines between paid sex between consenting adults and paying coyotes or adoption agencies to place children in homes homes of public school administrators who sexual abuse and even castrate them.

[Rick James]

Interestingly, the woman who advocated for the brothel closures—Marthe Richard, a former spy and sex worker whom the law was named after—later seemed to regret it, saying that prostitution couldn't be eradicated and brothels were a "lesser evil," according to the French radio and TV network BFM.

There's a joke in here somewhere about women never being happy, especially when you give them everything they want.

[mad.casual]

Unless it includes billionaire vampires, you can keep it to yourself.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

I wonder how often do reason headlines / ledes include the term far-left vs. far-right?

[Rick James]

0

[Rick James]

Juvin complained to Le Monde about the current situation, in which both social stigma and the law prohibit sex workers from working safely and normally.

Ahh, the 'social stigma' side of the argument. That's always the universal 'out' when things don't work out like you planned.

[Rick James]

Instagram says the suit is barred by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which generally protects web companies from being sued for publishing third-party content. A lower court disagreed, and Instagram took an interlocutory appeal.

Wow, this is like a Journalist mobius strip of misinformation. Section 230 does NOT protect a company from being sued for "publishing third party content" so it's no wonder the lower court disagreed. Section 230 only provides:

1. Criminal immunity from prosecution if a user of the platform publishes something illegal
2. Civil liability protection for its censorship and/or moderation decisions.

What confuses the shit out of everyone re: section 230 is that it does NOT protect a company for what it does with said content. This is why so many lawsuits are often successful, forcing these platforms to change how they promote or feature certain kinds of content.

For instance, if I have a platform and a user posts revenge porn, I am legally immune from being prosecuted for posting revenge porn. However, if my platform takes that revenge porn post and not only features it on the front page, and then I algorithmically spread it as far and wide as possible AND I monetize it, then I may find myself in the crosshairs of the government.

[Rick James]

It could also stop states from passing laws limiting how police departments and other government agents can use AI.

Not likely. It's one thing to say "you can't regulate AI companies" just like "you can't regulate tailpipe emissions", it's another thing to tell an agency they're not allowed to use the technology to violate privacy.

[Rick James]

Sadly, it won't stop cities from using mass surveillance to tax cars going over borders... so your beloved 'congestion pricing' will still stand.

[5.56]

LOL americans talking about 'privacy', so cute 😀