The Ethical Implications of Regulating Prostitution

Abstract

Prostitution, often referred to as the world’s oldest profession, dating back to at least 2400 BCE, yet modern governments remain divided and uncertain on how best to regulate it. This paper explores the ethical implications of regulating prostitution by examining how different legal models balance and uphold the values of safety, autonomy, and responsibility. It aims to inform readers about the various regulatory approaches—criminalization, legalization, decriminalization, and the Nordic Model—and the complex ethical considerations each presents. Through a comparative analysis of global policies, including case studies from various countries, the paper evaluates how each framework either succeeds or fails in upholding the government’s moral and practical responsibilities to its citizens. By investigating how different legal systems mitigate the harms presented by sex work, the paper considers the central role of promoting public safety and health in policy. It then analyzes the importance of individual autonomy in the context of prostitution and evaluates how each approach supports or undermines that principle. Finally, drawing on ethical reasoning and empirical evidence, the paper presents an argument for and against each legal framework, concluding with an argument for the Nordic Model being the most ethical approach.

Introduction and Definitions 

Should the government ever regulate who you have sex with? What if the person is paying you for sex? Around the world, sex work remains one of the most controversial and inconsistently regulated professions, despite its deep historical roots and widespread presence. Prostitution has existed for thousands of years, yet governments today continue to debate whether it should be criminalized, legalized, decriminalized, or something in between. These decisions are not just legal, they are deeply ethical, reflecting how societies and governments value safety, autonomy, and responsibility. 

To analyze the ethicality and effectiveness of different legal frameworks that regulate prostitution, I will evaluate how each meets the three criteria I have defined: the policy protects the safety and health of sex workers and the larger society, the policy protects an individual’s autonomy, and the policy fulfills the ethical and practical duties a government has to its citizens. To further explain these criteria this paper will first walk through the safety risks associated with prostitution that are crucial to consider when deciding how to regulate it. Then, it will discuss the value of autonomy and the extent to which it can and should be protected when regulating prostitution. Next, I will examine the role and moral responsibilities of the government, analyzing how fulfilling these duties should shape the decision-making process around regulating prostitution. The paper will then transition into different case studies to analyze empirical evidence of the impacts of each approach to regulating prostitution. Finally, I will present my ethical argument for and against each approach, and in the end I will argue why I believe the Nordic Model is the most ethical regulatory approach.  

There are four main approaches to regulating prostitution in national law that I will be discussing further in both the case studies as well as my ethical analysis: criminalization, full decriminalization, partial decriminalization or the “Nordic Model,” and legalization or regulation. Criminalization fully prohibits prostitution and places criminal penalties on both buyers and sellers of sexual services. Full decriminalization entails the complete removal of all criminal penalties related to the trade of sex for both sellers and buyers, while related offenses, including sex trafficking, intimate partner violence, abuse, and commercial sex acts involving minors, all remain criminal. Partial decriminalization, as seen in the Nordic Model, is a unique approach which there are interesting justifications for and arguments against that I will further delve into in my paper. This approach criminalizes buying sex but not selling it, targeting clients and those facilitating the sex trade and not the individuals that are actually the sellers. Policies of legalization make the state the primary regulator of the sex trade, responsible for setting specific conditions and requirements under which the exchange of sexual services take place. For the purpose of my analysis I am grouping together decriminalization and legalization as they often function very similarly in practice. 

For the purpose of this paper I have defined prostitution as the buying and selling of penetrative, oral, and hand intercourse, rather than activities falling under the larger umbrella of sex work including pornography, stripping, as well as Internet and phone sex.  Certainly a lot of overlap exists with the ethical principles involved between each of these practices and therefore, aspects of my ethical analysis can be applied in these other discussions. However, a more thorough, nuanced, and specific analysis is required into each one of these activities to guide decisions for public policy or law created for their regulation. Furthermore, this paper will deal with prostitution where women are the sellers and men are the buyers, as this is the most prevalent form of prostitution. However, it is important to recognize that many of the principles that guide public policy on prostitution can apply to regulating male prostitution as well, and many of the factors and conditions that push women into prostitution can be the same for men. While this is the case, men in prostitution are far less researched than women, and male prostitution takes very different forms than female prostitution. 

It is also appropriate to acknowledge the current rise of digital sex work and its overtaking prevalence in the sex work industry. With the catalyst of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, a large majority of the sex work industry shifted to a new virtual landscape, with a resulting boom in popularity for platforms such as OnlyFans. As stated above, ethical conversations about both in-person and online sex work share many similarities, yet with the growing and changing nature of the digital-sex world, more individualized research and discussions are necessary. Additionally, there are many key differences between the ethical implications of both practices, and the physical risks and power dynamics associated with in-person prostitution are not exactly present in the same way in virtual sex work. 

Safety Considerations in Prostitution

The first criteria I am considering is how each regulatory approach protects the safety of both sex workers and the larger society. Protecting the safety of its citizens is a fundamental responsibility of the government, and there are many direct and indirect risks to both physical and mental health that prostitution presents, making it pertinent that a government thoughtfully considers how its policies will mitigate such risks. 

For one, women who work in prostitution face a disproportionately large burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood-borne infections. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is estimated that female sex workers (FSWs) are 30 times more likely to have HIV than other women, with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS estimating mean HIV prevalence at 36% among sex workers internationally. Additionally, there is a reported prevalence of 10.8% (range 5.8% to 30.3%) of sex workers with active syphilis, and the WHO recognizes international reports of an overall correlation of increased rates of STIs in areas with a higher prevalence of prostitution. These risks show a primary reason why sex work cannot simply be treated as any other form of work in regulation: general standards for occupational safety and health are completely unable to be met. 

For example, sex workers and healthcare workers share the unique similarity of being exposed to blood-borne infections in their line of work. However, there are many standards in place to protect healthcare workers from these hazards that cannot be enforced in sex work including the prohibition of “mouth pipetting/suctioning of blood or other potentially infectious materials.” (1910 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration) This rule is clearly impractical for women in prostitution who engage in oral sex with their clients, and even with the use of protection like a condom or a dental dam, this rule still wouldn’t be able to be followed. Additionally, standards of personal protection equipment (PPE) required in healthcare settings are incompatible with prostitution settings. While tools like condoms and other barriers provide some protection, exposure to many forms of sexually transmitted infections is still possible during oral sex and many other sexual acts.

Additionally, the 1981 United Nations International Labor Organization Convention on Occupational Health and Safety outlines many safety standards for the workplace that are unable to be met in the context of prostitution, including expectations that employers are to make sure that “processes under their control are safe and without risk to health.” It is important to note here that the societal understanding of “safe sex” is not 100% safe and therefore cannot be acceptable in a commercial setting, as protection such as condoms do not fully protect female sex workers (FSWs) from STIs and other health risks.

Research in countries across the world has shown that FSWs are particularly vulnerable to unintended pregnancies, with specific studies in China, Tanzania, and East and Southern Africa looking at how different risk factors that inhibit access to contraception correlate with higher rates of unintended pregnancy. In a study performed in China in 2021 among 1257 FSWs surveyed, 19.3% of the women reported having at least one unintended pregnancy conceived through commercial sex. They also noted direct correlations with women who have more clients or report less consistency of condom use having a higher prevalence of unintended pregnancy due to commercial sex. (Liang et al.) Unintended pregnancy occurs most often when a sex worker cannot or does not enforce the use of a condom during sex, or cannot or does not access other forms of contraception like birth control. A study performed in Tanzania generated a large number of FSWs who reported feeling unable to negotiate the customer’s consistent condom use, avoiding health services because of societal stigma, missing monthly contraceptive supplies because of inconvenient or incompatible clinic hours, and skipping of contraceptive pills due to intoxication. (Faini et al.) Studies performed in East and Southern Africa similarly recognized barriers for good contraceptive practices and the resulting risks for unintended pregnancy. Many of the greatest risk factors that prevent FSWs from ensuring good contraceptive practices result from the physical and financial power dynamics that are at play between a male customer and female seller of sex. 

The studies recognized a greater difficulty in avoiding risky sexual behavior that has the potential to result in unintended pregnancy during periods of national or widespread economic hardship such as the era of the Covid-19 pandemic. During these periods it is harder for FSWs to enforce safe sex practices because sex workers feel less confident negotiating payment out of a fear they would lose clients - an outcome that they can’t afford. This demonstrates how sellers of sex being at the will of the buyer establishes a financial power dynamic that can leave a female sex worker feeling powerless in negotiating the use of contraception. (Modisaotsile et al.) 

Another study of unsafe sexual practices which took data from an online user-generated source reported that main motivators for unsafe sex are the customer threatening to revoke payment and fear of physical violence. (Adriaenssens and Hendrickx) Connecting to my later discussion of the role of the value of autonomy in the analysis of policy on prostitution, these power dynamics exploit the vulnerabilities of these women and make it even harder for a FSW to protect themselves and enforce important safety measures in a one-on-one, private setting.

Violence is another very prominent and dangerous risk associated with sex work. A study done in San Francisco, 82% of the respondents reported having been physically assaulted since they began working in prostitution and 55% of those reported being assaulted by a customer. Additionally, 88% had been physically threatened and 83% had been physically threatened with a weapon. 8% reported physical attacks from either pimps or customers resulting in serious physical injury, 68% of respondents reported having been raped and 46% of those had been raped by a customer and an additional 48% of the original 68% had reported being raped more than 5 times. (Farley et al.) A recent study performed in the US which followed 2000 prostitutes over a 30-year period showed that violence and drug overdose were two of the highest risks for premature deaths. (Potterat et al.) Another systematic review of studies on violence against sex workers shows data collected on workplace violence with substantial rates of both physical and sexual violence. The review also noted many factors that increase the risk of violence against FSWs including the work environments, economic conditions, social stigmatization, gender inequality, and sexual coercion. (Deering et al.) Once again, various power dynamics between both customers and sex workers as well as between sex workers and pimps or bosses promote the exploitation of vulnerability and result in the use violence as both a tactic for control or as a response to a variety of triggers. The one-on-one nature of prostitution settings allows for a lack of regulation and safety enforcement, as in many cases it is on the singular FSW to enforce the standards for their own safety and wellbeing which is a responsibility that interpersonal power dynamics makes very difficult to manage.

A systematic review of mental health and risk factors among sex workers revealed that mental health problems were significantly prevalent among sex workers, demonstrating how sex work impacts not only an individual’s physical safety but their mental safety as well. Some of the most common psychological problems noted were depression (the most common), followed by anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation. (Deering et al.) Substance abuse and addiction are commonly used as tools to cope with trauma both caused by experiences in prostitution and other trauma that often act as a factor that pushes people into the industry of prostitution in the first place. Substance abuse issues are also very physically dangerous in and of themselves, representing how the mental health issues caused by prostitution can correlate to very real and very dangerous physical harm as well. 

Substance addiction is another vulnerability that further enables the exploitation of sex workers and perpetuates the cycle that keeps FSWs in prostitution. Substance addiction is often wielded as a tool for manipulation if a pimp is in control of a sex worker’s drug supply, and as it is also another cause of financial instability for sex workers in many cases. The earlier study performed in the US also showed that suicide was another main cause of premature deaths for prostitutes, demonstrating the larger impacts that mental health struggles have on the safety and wellbeing of these individuals. (Potterat et al.) FSWs also have to place a high value on their appearance as it is a large factor for their income. This can cause many supplementary self-confidence and self-image issues leading to further issues like eating disorders.

Societal stigma around sex work can present many more safety risks for sex workers. Societal stigma is created from stereotyping and discriminating against certain individuals or groups based on characteristics one is born with or develops, as seen in the case of sex work. This stigma creates ostracism, can impede one’s ability to access different resources, and can also shape policies that institutionalize the marginalization of these groups or individuals.  Stigma is apparent in the derogatory language people use to speak to or about sex workers. Stigma towards sex workers also often manifests in discriminatory actions against them. One’s employment as a sex worker has historically been the grounds for removing children from their parent’s custody, refusing bank loans, and terminating someone’s tenancy. A qualitative study done in Hong Kong found that across many areas of society where sex workers experienced stigma, healthcare settings were some of the worst.

Discrimination and stigma in healthcare settings presents yet another barrier for accessing timely and appropriate healthcare including opportunities for drug refills, access to contraceptives, and access to safe abortion services. (Modisaotsile et al.) It is important to recognize that while the societal view on sex work is becoming more accepting, there is still substantial bias against sex workers that has many harmful impacts. In general, research consistently shows that internalization of stigma can have detrimental effects on an individual’s wellbeing and mental health and even on the way sex workers access support from society. 

When considering how the different approaches to regulating prostitution can protect the safety of sex workers and mitigate the aforementioned risks, it is also important to recognize how certain approaches, namely criminalization, actually present additional risks for sex workers. While in theory criminalization should prevent women from becoming sex workers and engaging in prostitution, therefore protecting them from all of these safety risks, when sex work inevitably continues to happen illegally, criminalization makes this illegal sex work much more unsafe. Criminalization presents the risk of sex workers being arrested, which has many negative implications for FSWs. It presents a barrier for sex workers reporting unsafe situations as these women have to risk being reported to the police in retaliation if they do decide to alert the police of violence or other criminal offenses being committed against them or others. This makes sex workers even more vulnerable to abuse and trafficking, and it also often prevents perpetrators from being held accountable. In many cases, FSW who do report crimes committed against them do end up being the ones arrested on scene, even though they are the victims. Additionally, actually being arrested has many consequences for sex workers and even potentially for their families as FSWs may have dependents who are left in unsafe conditions when they are arrested. Jail time also often worsens one’s economic insecurity and makes it even harder to regain stability upon release. Additionally, conviction records makes it even harder for sex workers to find alternative employment if they seek it, perpetuating the cycle that pushes them back into sex work. FSWs are also very vulnerable to police violence, with many cases being documented internationally of officers threatening victims with arrest or staging an arrest to then sexually assault them. In a study done in New York, 17% of respondents reported sexual harassment and abuse, including rape, from a police officer. Another study in Chicago showed that 24% of outdoor FSWs who had being raped reported a police officer had been the perpetrator. (Sawicki et al.) 

Autonomy in Sex Work

The second criteria to consider when deciding how to most ethically regulate prostitution is how the policies will protect or violate individuals’ autonomy. In this context, people often assume that for a policy to preserve autonomy, it needs to enable individuals to freely decide whether or not they want to engage in sex work. Promoting autonomy involves maximizing individual choice, making it reasonable to conclude that policies that criminalize sex work and restrict a person’s ability to choose to work in prostitution are fundamentally at odds with the principle of autonomy. Additionally, one could argue that the basic right to bodily autonomy should include the right to choose to engage in sex for compensation. Moreover, sex work can support financial autonomy by providing individuals with a means to elevate their economic status. 

However, it is important to acknowledge that the decision to engage in prostitution is often not entirely autonomous in the first place, as many direct and indirect forces can pressure women into sex work or prevent them from exiting it. Societal structures of inequality often serve to push certain groups into prostitution, with factors like sex, age, socioeconomic status, race, disability, and immigration status making an individual substantially more likely to end up in sex work. For example, societal sex inequality can often prevent women from having equal access to employment opportunities, making it more likely that they end up needing to engage in sex work to make a living and support themselves. Race, age, disability are further inequalities that push people into prostitution. A 2012 European Parliament Report proved that youth are much more likely to end up in prostitution, reporting that 75% of persons (mostly women) in prostitution are “between 13 and 25 years old.” Youth is often an indication of vulnerability to control and manipulation, making it a desirable trait for pimps and brothel owners who are seeking to recruit women into prostitution. There are also various barriers that make exiting sex work difficult including financial problems, family problems, health problems, little education, little training or work experience, drug dependency, and homelessness. Furthermore, many sex workers experience coercion or threats from pimps or bosses that make them scared to leave the industry. Understanding that there are external factors that make one’s decision to work in prostitution not fully autonomous, this challenges the argument that making prostitution fully legal and enabling people to “decide” to engage in sex work fully preserves an individual’s autonomy. 

On top of this, sex work itself also often violates an individual’s autonomy including both bodily and financial autonomy. Sex workers are frequently physically exploited during their work, including being forced or coerced to engage in sexual activities they are uncomfortable with. Additionally, a sex worker’s financial autonomy can actually be hindered by their work in prostitution, especially because sex workers often face financial exploitation at the hands of pimps or bosses. These two facts about the reality of sex work serve to discredit the initial arguments presented about how heightened access to working in prostitution amplifies an individual’s autonomy. 

Now that it is understood that there are certain factors that can disrupt an individual’s autonomy, even if they are given full freedom to engage in sex work, we have to redefine what it means to protect autonomy when regulating prostitution. It is for this reason that I will argue that neither policies of criminalization, which completely restrict the choice to work in prostitution, or full decriminalization/legalization, which completely enable the ability to work in prostitution, fulfill the second criteria of protecting individual autonomy. I believe that to truly protect individual autonomy, the government should avoid directly restricting the choices of those who engage in sex work, while also working to promote social equality and support vulnerable individuals who wish to exit the industry.  

The Role and Responsibilities of Government

The third criteria to consider when determining what approach to regulating prostitution is most ethical is how each approach fulfills the responsibilities a government has to its people. To determine whether or not an approach meets this criteria, we first have to consider what the role of the government is and what responsibilities it has. 

One of the primary responsibilities the government has is promoting and maintaining public health. Policy-making plays a large role in fulfilling a government’s responsibilities, so it is important to consider the impacts that prostitution can have on public health when the government is deciding what policy to enact. Many believe that choosing decriminalization or legalization allows the state to outline regulations specific to prostitution that are able to develop and enforce health and safety standards for harm reduction. Some of these basic regulations the government could implement would include the requirement of condoms and other protective forms of contraception as well as the formal right of refusal for all sex workers. Alongside these basic health regulations, legalization allows sex workers to receive benefits like health insurance, which could begin to address many of the barriers that exist between sex workers and the healthcare industry. This could be an important step in reducing the spread of STIs, the amount of unintended pregnancies, and many other risk factors associated with sex workers having a lack of adequate healthcare access. A study done in Rhode Island spanning the time period when indoor prostitution became legal and then was redetermined as illegal have shown that decriminalization of indoor prostitution led to 40% less gonorrhea incidence in women (a decrease that was more rapid than that in any other US state) and 30% decrease in reported rape offenses. They attributed the reduction in acts of sexual violence to an improvement in the bargaining power of sex workers to report incidences of rape that have happened against them and to demand safer work environments because they no longer were vulnerable or at risk of being reported to police for their work. (Gordon) 

However, there are also studies that show a higher amount of trafficking in countries where prostitution is legal. A specific study done in 2012 found that countries that had legalized prostitution had higher rates of human trafficking. (Cho et al.) Additionally, these regulations on the sex trade would likely be very hard to enforce, as the one-on-one nature of sex work means it would likely fall upon the sex worker to enforce these rules with the client. Sex workers still report facing violence, even in countries where prostitution is legalized and regulated, showing that legalization doesn’t fully protect the health and safety of these individuals. 

An alternative attempt to protect the safety of individuals and society would be criminalizing prostitution altogether. As I mentioned before, this would theoretically fully protect women from the harms presented by sex work. Aside from the fact that policies of criminalization often don't actually stop prostitution from occurring in society, many would also argue that the government shouldn’t have the ability to completely prevent individuals from doing harmful things they are choosing to do. Paternalism is the concept of a government making decisions about what is best for an individual, often done through the criminalization of certain “bad” behaviors. For example, the government mandates that we wear seatbelts by making it illegal not to, which restricts an individual’s autonomy as a means to protect them from danger. However, many people disagree with paternalistic laws, like laws that say women should not be allowed to work in prostitution because it is too harmful for them.

Many fundamentally disagree with the idea that a government can know better what is best for an individual than that individual does. People often argue that it is a woman’s right to put herself at the risks associated with sex work, and often believe that although prostitution can be exploitative of women it can also benefit them. There are a lot of things we do as individuals that we know put us at risk including drinking alcohol, but many believe it is within our autonomy to put ourselves at this risk if we believe the risks are worth the benefits. For this reason, one could say that a woman should be allowed to make the conscious choice to take on the risks of sex work if she believes the money she could make in the process is worth it. This is called mutually beneficial exploitation. 

However, the mutually beneficial exploitation argument only considers the permit or prohibit options and doesn’t take into account a state’s capability to instead look to other measures to alleviate the financial desperation that pushes these women into prostitution in the first place. It also ignores the state’s responsibility in not preventing this issue for women to begin with, whether this is because of a failure in their policies or because of a lack of policies. Usually a country’s government is the primary source for structuring options available to its citizens, invalidating a government’s argument that prostitution is the “best” option as the state has the opportunity to present women with an alternative, and potentially even better option. Furthermore, the state’s failure to address prostitution can be equated to a failure to address sex inequality, and in this acceptance of status quo states are made complicit in the proliferation of this sex inequality. 

 The argument against the validity of paternalistic laws is also called into question when the laws are governing vulnerable populations, and many governments across the world regularly take on the responsibility of protecting such populations who they deem cannot protect themselves. For example, state governments in the United States have the dedicated agency Child Protective Services whose goal is to “Prevent or remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interest.” This organization steps in, determining what is best for a child even if this doesn’t align with what a child expresses about what they believe is best for them. The goal of protecting those who are deemed unable to effectively protect their own interests extends to many different vulnerable populations in society including elderly people, people with low incomes, uninsured people, homeless people, racial or ethnic minorities, people in prison, migrant workers, pregnant women, and people in the LGBTQIA community. Unfortunately, in practice the scope of who may receive government support may vary depending on the place for a range of reasons, but it is clear through their creation of agencies like CPS dedicated to protecting children and the ratification of human rights treaties like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aimed to protect disabled individuals, many countries’ governments recognize some level of responsibility to help protect vulnerable groups. 

As vulnerable populations often make up the majority of prostitution, the question arises of whether states are valid in enacting paternalistic laws to protect these groups, especially because the physical and mental risks of sex work are so extreme and unlike all other forms of work. This is similar to how states prevent the selling of bodily organs as a way to make money because they recognize the way it exploits someone’s financial status and forces them to put themselves at significant physical risk for money. While there are some harmful activities including smoking, drinking, and environmental pollution that aren’t completely prohibited, the government has to recognize that practices like selling bodily organs would disproportionately affect individuals of a lower socioeconomic status, therefore making it an issue of justice and equality on top of just safety. 

Additionally, when you consider that a very high proportion of the women who enter sex work do so out of intense financial desperation, many would question if that desperation may impede one’s ability to act in their own best interest. A study into prostitution in 9 countries with around 900 participants showed that 75% of respondents were homeless at the time of entry. (González‐Arribas et al.) This exemplifies how financial hardship can be a prominent force that pushes women into prostitution, and shows how it may limit one’s autonomy as it forces people into decisions they may not normally make but are making out of desperation. In this case, the argument could be made that some form of state-enacted paternalism that aims to limit prostitution in society is necessary to protect these individuals from the very dangerous risks that are associated with prostitution, which are risks they may not be fully able to consider because of their intense financial desperation. However, it still has questionable implications to assert that just because an individual or group is vulnerable, they are unable to make decisions about what is “good for them,” and it is especially controversial when this involves the government being inserted into deeply personal decisions like those about sex. 

Outside of a government’s responsibility to protect the safety and health of individuals and the public, we also have to consider what the moral duties of the government are. One could argue that the government has the duty to maintain a basic moral standard through the creation and enforcement of their policies. Moralism is the view that the state has a responsibility to enforce morality, however the scope of a state’s political authority in relation to the scope of political morality is very contested. A critical starting point for rejecting moralism is that it is impossible for all individuals in a society to have the same definition of what is moral in every situation. While saying that a law rests on moralism has a negative connotation, meaning that the law in question asserts a particular view of morality that is outside the scope of the state’s political authority, many laws like those that prohibit violence or discrimination are still moralistic, just are so in a way that more people agree about and feel is within the state’s domain. 

Liberal political philosophers believe the state’s responsibility and authority is much smaller than general morality. They believe that the state should deal with matters concerning “public morality”, rather than individual morality, meaning that they believe there are certain decisions and areas in an individual’s life where the state has no place or business “telling” the individual through laws what to do. They believe the state needs only to be concerned with issues that impact the morality of the general public on a fundamental and ideally agreeable level, even though in many cases that is impossible to attain. An example of an issue of public morality, or an issue that many believe is wrong, is rape. In general, nearly all of a population can agree that rape is morally wrong, and therefore agree that the government should take extensive measures to prevent it. 

In the context of prostitution, some try to argue that laws on prostitution assert a specific perspective on the morality of selling sex and more broadly on the morality of sex between consenting adults, a matter that many would agree is distinctly outside of the political authority of the state. They believe that laws on prostitution inevitably are resting on a particular view on the morality of sex and asserting a perspective on what counts as a virtuous sexual relationship. However, this argument only applies when one is acting on the assumption that sexual relations in prostitution are always or almost always free, voluntary, and consensual, meaning these arguments are restricted in their applicability in practice. In this case, the regulation of prostitution should be viewed as less of an assertion about the morality of sex work, but more about the morality of the abuse and exploitation that occurs during sex work. Generally everyone agrees this abuse and exploitation is wrong, and therefore it is the government’s right and responsibility to protect women from the forms of systematic harm that they face during prostitution. 

Additionally, because this harm is disproportionately faced by women in prostitution, regulating prostitution is also an issue of promoting equality. Many would also argue that fundamentally prostitution is a matter of sex inequality, as in prostitution women as the sellers have to be subservient to the desires of a male customer to receive payment. Equality, being an ethical principle, makes any decisions about how to regulate prostitution that are based on promoting equality a moralistic decision. However, people generally share the belief that sex discrimination or inequality is inherently immoral, meaning laws that are trying to promote the status of vulnerable female sex workers are at least somewhat in the realm of “public morality.” This means that it is, to some extent, the government’s duty to try to mitigate the inequality perpetuated by sex work. 

Because the government has a responsibility to protect individuals from abuse and reduce sex inequality, I believe the government cannot condone prostitution with policies that fully legitimize it, like those of legalization.  If states legalize prostitution, this shows they are complicit in perpetuating sex inequality and actually limiting the real autonomy of women. This complacency can also occur through the normalization of sexualizing women, which increasingly heightens sex inequality in society and enforces that women should think of themselves in the context of a man’s desires. I also believe the government can’t implement policies that make sex work more unsafe, like those of criminalization, as this clearly fails to uphold their responsibility to protect the safety of citizens. 

Case Study of Criminalization

The sex work industry in Thailand grew exponentially during the Vietnam War, largely due to the presence of U.S. military bases that fostered a booming “rest and relaxation” economy centered on sexual services. At the same time, the mechanization of agriculture work in Thailand put a lot of women out of jobs, as men increasingly filled the remaining farm jobs, leaving women with only low-paying factory work After the social constraints around prostitution had disappeared, many of these women looked to sex work to improve their financial position. After the Vietnam War had ended and most of the American servicemen had left Thailand, the infrastructure that had been created such as bars, brothels and nightclubs, still existed. Furthermore, the reputation of Thailand as a place for cheap sex with available and willing women had been established and had spread throughout the larger global community. 

In the following years, the Thai government leaned into this reputation, especially during times of economic hardship, using it to promote tourism. In doing so, it implicitly endorsed the commodification of Thai women, marketing the country as an exotic escape where Western norms did not apply and where women were portrayed as docile and compliant. Yet, despite recognizing the economic benefits of the sex work industry, the government also criminalized it with both the 1960 Prostitution Suppression Act and the 1996 Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act.  Even though prostitution has been deemed illegal, officials are known to tolerate commercial sex, causing law enforcement authorities to turn a blind eye, especially when they receive bribes to do so. The Thai government’s reliance on the revenue generated from sex work has barred Thailand from being able to successfully curb sex trafficking activities, and it is clear that while prostitution is outlawed the industry has still continued to thrive. 

In Thai cities such as Bangkok, Phuket, Pattaya, and Chiang Mai, the sex industry is more structured and commercialized, offering a wide range of services including massage parlors, go-go bars, and nightclubs. Urban female sex workers often have greater autonomy, choosing their clients and work settings with more independence. Factoring out from the broader social and economic pressures that push women into prostitution, many of the Thai women in cities actually choose to engage in sex work. They also report a sense of authority within their interactions, even expecting their clients to earn their attention and pleasure. The average age of sex workers in these cities is between 20 and 30, with far fewer cases of child prostitution compared to rural areas. Urban environments also offer more stability and predictability in terms of income and working conditions.

In contrast, rural areas in Thailand face a serious crisis of child prostitution which is shaped by poverty, limited job opportunities, and cultural beliefs. Activists have identified three main types of child prostitution in Thailand: trafficked children, children sold by their families to repay debts, and “free children” who live at home and work part-time. Anthropologist Heather Montgomery, in her research, highlights how the “free children” she interviewed often expressed agency in their decision to engage in sex work, citing a sense of moral duty to support their families which is rooted in the Buddhist concept of bun khun or filial gratitude. Still, while these children may see prostitution as a justified personal sacrifice for familial stability, the ethical failures of their parent’s neglect, the systemic poverty, and the complicity of local and global institutions cannot be ignored. Despite the local views that normalize child prostitution as reciprocal rather than exploitative, it is still a profound moral violation that must be addressed through structural change and protective policy. (Montgomery)

The criminalization of prostitution in Thailand overall does not meet the first criteria outlined, and has in fact had many harmful impacts on the safety of individuals and the health of the public. The illegal status of sex work has enabled “shady” practices within government and law enforcement, where corrupt police officers frequently accept secret bribes to turn a blind eye during anti-prostitution raids. These raids often occur without warrants and use even the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution, discouraging safe sex practices and undermining public health. When trafficking victims are discovered during raids, other sex workers are often detained as witnesses, further compounding their vulnerability. Most crucially, the criminalization of sex workers restricts their ability to seek help from law enforcement or pursue legal action in cases of abuse or violence. Sex workers in Thailand regularly endure physical, verbal, sexual, and financial exploitation from clients and managers, but cannot admit this publicly out of fear that they won't be protected by laws or might even be prosecuted themselves.

Because sex work is illegal, the industry has somewhat been pushed underground and remains unregulated, making it nearly impossible to implement or enforce basic labor standards. Brothels often pay below minimum wage and are allowed to deduct wages for any minor offense. Additionally, sex workers frequently only keep a portion of their earnings due to coercive financial arrangements, such as mandatory payments to recruiters or even their own traffickers to pay off so-called “debts.” This exploitation is intensified by the lack of legal recognition, which prevents sex workers from asserting their rights or negotiating safer working conditions. The increasing use of young girls as collateral for loans highlights the growing commodification of women as economic tools, and more than 50% of Thai girls over the age of 12 are not attending school, with many turning to sex work instead. Their young age and limited education place them at a high risk of exploitation and ensure their continued marginalization within society. While many sex workers report high job satisfaction due to the income they receive, the reality is that they are often trapped in unacceptable and dangerous conditions. (Vandecandelaere)

In regards to the second criteria, the criminalization of prostitution in Thailand fails to protect the autonomy of individuals, particularly women, and fails to recognize the complex social and economic factors that shape their choices. In Thailand women’s economic potential is often already limited by the material demands of their families, brothers, husbands, and even their entire villages. As a result, many women turn to sex work not solely out of choice, but out of necessity. Despite this, the income they generate through sex work does often provide them with a form of financial independence they likely couldn’t find elsewhere. Through their earnings form sex work many women are able to purchase land, buy quality goods, support their families, invest in their children’s future, or even start businesses of their own.

Moreover, many social groups in Thailand rely on prostitution as a vital source of income, and for many individuals it is the only option that saves them from economic hopelessness. A majority of the Thai population doesn’t want to see sex work eliminated from society entirely, and many sex workers themselves reject the idea of being forcibly “rescued” from the work that sustains their livelihoods. However, many of their choices to engage in sex work are shaped by social and economic structures in Thailand, such as the expectations placed on girls to care for elders, or the burden women bear in raising children after failed marriages. Because of the societal sex inequality that places these unfair burdens on women, sex work is often the most viable or only means to fulfill these women's obligations. For this reason, if the government truly wishes to reduce the sex work industry, they must first create societal support systems and provide alternative employment options that give women economic security equal to or greater than what sex work currently offers. Until then, criminalization only serves to restrict the already limited autonomy of some of Thailand’s most vulnerable populations. (Rethinking the Sex Industry: Thailand’s Sex Workers, the State, and Changing Cultures of Consumption)

In relation to the third criteria, the criminalization of prostitution in Thailand fails to meet the practical and moral responsibilities a government has to its citizens by both enabling systemic gender inequality and neglecting the protection and well-being of vulnerable populations. The policies that regulate prostitution in Thailand reveal a glaring double standard, as male consumers are not punished for buying sex in the same way that female sex workers are for selling it. Because the criminalization is ineffective in preventing prostitution, and it simultaneously doesn’t legitimize sex work the way legalization does, all that happens is the harmful societal norms the categorize women as less productive and capable are reinforced. Additionally, the increasing number of younger and younger Thai women and girls being sold into sex work further enforces the perception of women as “slaves” rather than capable wage earners, further commodifying them as sexual objects instead of acknowledging them as people deserving of rights and safety.

Thailand’s current approach to prostitution also shows little genuine concern for protecting sex workers or holding offenders accountable. Rather than offering actual alternative employment opportunities, the state’s primary initiative to support women leaving sex work is “rehabilitation” programs that train them for domestic service jobs which pay significantly less than sex work. While sex workers may earn 1000 baht in a single interaction, domestic workers typically make only about 13,000 baht (approximately $400) per month.

Furthermore, Thailand’s insufficient public welfare including a low minimum wage, inadequate unemployment benefits, and lacking pensions and child support fails to provide a viable safety net. The government criminalizes sex work, attempting to limit the economic opportunities for women, while simultaneously failing to provide women with legitimate opportunities and social supports. (“History of Prostitution and Sex Trafficking in Thailand - End Slavery Now”)

Case Study of Legalization

The Act Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes, passed in Germany in 2002, formally legalized sex work and recognized it as a form of labor. Prior to 2002, prostitution in Germany was prohibited, classified as an immoral transaction, and strictly prevented under the German Civil Code. During this time period, sex workers didn’t have a legal right to demand payment for their services and didn’t have access to any forms of insurance or other benefits. These policies were intended to make working conditions unendurable as a way to push women out of sex work. The Prostitution Act in 2002 made a shift that many agreed was significant and positively-intended, attempting to address many of the demands made by sex workers prior to its ratification, but many also felt it didn’t do enough to protect the rights of sex workers. Today, women who are offering sexual services can legally require payment in return, are free to select their clients and level of payment, and the German parliament has abolished the official characterization of prostitution as "immoral."

Furthermore, sex workers have the legal right to unemployment benefits, sick pay and a pension, and the running of a brothel was made legal. Even though on a federal level prostitution is legal, there is still a lot left to the authority of the cities as to how to manage and regulate it, greatly impacting the geography of prostitution throughout Germany. 

In relation to the first criteria, Germany’s policies of legalization and their regulation of prostitution have in many ways promoted the safety of sex workers and the health of the public. They have implemented supportive public health measures including free and anonymous HIV/STI testing through the Infection Protection Act. These services help prevent the spread of STIs increasing correlating with the increasing prominence of sex work, protecting the health and safety of both sex workers and the larger public. However, there is still difficulty with enforcing the various safety regulations Germany has implemented. For example, although brothels have been made legal, many brothel owners have registered themselves as “landlords” to avoid having to implement the labor protections that were meant to protect sex workers from exploitative and dangerous working conditions. (Sex Work Discourse in Germany: Historicizing the Legalization Debate | Humanities Writ Large) They did enact amendments to the law in 2017 in attempts to tighten regulations on the management of brothels, but many Germans still feel that the law has failed to curb exploitation and still believe prostitution is associated with abuse and coercion. (MacAlister) 

To consider the second criteria, Germany’s legal framework has allowed sex workers significant autonomy in choosing clients and negotiating payment. The government’s regulation of sex work has provided workers with control over their working conditions and a legal basis to demand fair compensation. However, many argue that the legalization and normalization of sex work in Germany has also resulted in unintended consequences that undermine individual autonomy, particularly for women. In her book Legalized Prostitution in Germany: Inside the New Mega Brothels, Annegret D. Staiger writes about the increasing integration of sex work and sexualized imagery into public life, pointing out the “abundant erotic imagery in public spaces.” While some in Germany view this as a celebration of sexual freedom, Staiger argues that it reflects “a dark age of unbridled sexism, gender inequality, and the heterosexual male gaze.” She highlights how brothel advertisements are prominently displayed and how “sexual double entendres” are common in public language, further demonstrating how the commodification of sex in society may reinforce gender inequality and reduce women’s autonomy in the process. While more legal rights for women may exist in Germany, the broader cultural impact of normalizing sex work could still compromise autonomy for women in both sex work and in daily life.

For the third criteria, Germany’s legalization of prostitution illustrates a complex attempt to fulfil the ethical responsibilities of a government towards its citizens. The Prostitution Act, in granting labor rights, legal protections, and health services to sex workers, reflects the German government’s commitment to reducing the stigma and harm faced by sex workers. However, as previously stated the government’s regulations have not been consistently enforced, and violence and exploitation is still occuring for sex workers. Additionally, the state’s role in heightening the sexualization of women in German society has led some, like Staiger, to believe that the government has fostered even more gender inequality. In using a harm-reduction approach in the first place, the German government is also allowing the sex work industry to grow and thrive, and is complacent to the fact that the industry perpetuates exploitation and violence against women even when regulated.

Case Study of Partial Decriminalization

Partial decriminalization, also known as the Nordic Model, was first introduced in Sweden and has since been implemented in Norway, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, France, and Israel. Sweden is a valuable example of how the Nordic Model works when implemented. The Swedish Government describes their execution of the Nordic Model as follows: “Since 1 January 1999 it has been a crime to buy sexual services inside Sweden, and an individual who obtains a casual sexual service relation for compensation is sentenced to pay fines or serve a prison term of up to six months for the purchase of sexual services. In contrast to previous measures against prostitution the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services targets demand, i.e., the sex buyer or prospective sex buyer.” On top of placing criminal penalties on buyers of sexual services, the Nordic Model offers social support services, targeting what sex workers identify as primary needs including "housing, financial assistance, psychosocial support, and more” (Mathieson 403). In order to access these services sex workers do not need to exit prostitution, but the government does begin removing barriers that often prevent women from exiting the sex work industry. In Sweden they have also implemented education campaigns that target buyers and teach the broader public about the harms of prostitution. These support structures for women exiting prostitution are a necessary element for any holistic, comprehensive policy on prostitution. 

Much research has been done in Sweden to evaluate the impacts of the law. In 2010 a report was issued, citing a significant reduction in the number of persons involved in street prostitution. Researchers were able to attribute this decrease directly to the implementation of the Nordic Model by comparing it to the levels of street prostitution in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden before and after the law was put in place. This published report also contradicted the prediction that the law would push the prostitution market underground, arguing that if this were the case, there would have been a significant increase in "indoor prostitution," such as Internet prostitution, which had not occurred. (Swedish Institute) It is likely that the Nordic Model is successful in not pushing the prostitution market underground while criminalizing prostitution often does so because sex workers do not have to experience fear of being caught or punished for engaging in sex work. Instead, the number of men reporting purchasing sex dropped from 12.7% in 1996 (before law took effect) to 7.6% in 2008 (Waltman). A general social attitude shift is also attributed to the decrease in the purchase of sex, as Swedish culture often prides itself on its commitment to gender equality, so labeling prostitution as inequality acts as a substantial deterrent.

Additionally, research disproved the claims that sex workers would be more likely to face violence and engage in “unsafe” sex practices out of heightened financial desperation caused by the ban. (Mathieson, Branam, and Noble, “Prostitution Policy”) It also disproved that sex workers would create a more adversarial relationship with law enforcement, reporting that officers stated sex workers were more willing to provide statements against buyers. This is likely because women in the Nordic Model are put on a more equal level with police officers than they are in criminalized settings. Based on the evidence above, I believe that the Nordic Model, as seen in Sweden, fulfills the first criteria of promoting the safety and wellbeing of individuals and society. 

   It is known as a sex equality approach to prostitution, and it is fundamentally based on the belief that prostitution inherently perpetuates sex inequality in society. They believe the social conditions of inequality function to channel individuals into prostitution, and placing women and girls subservient to male purchasers and managers continues to deprive them of autonomy and heighten inequality. For this reason, the Nordic Model aims to abolish prostitution, but does so through criminalizing the purchase of sexual services to eliminate demand. To prove the model’s effectiveness in achieving this goal, studies compared the development of the prostitution industries in Denmark and Sweden. In 1999 Denmark decriminalized prostitution whereas Sweden implemented the Nordic Model. Estimates show that between 1999 and 2002 prostitution in Sweden dropped 30% to 50%. On the other hand, 2008 estimates in Denmark, a country with a population size 40% smaller than that of Sweden, to have three to four times higher street prostitution. (Mathieson) This highlights the effectiveness of the Nordic Model in reducing prostitution in society, and it demonstrates that this outcome is attainable without further increasing sex inequality, as occurs under criminalization, where women suffer disproportionately more. 

The rationale is that this structure elevates the status of women in prostitution while targeting those who harm sex workers, namely buyers and third party profiteers. Given the asymmetrical positions of buyers and sellers of sexual services, defenders of the Nordic Model argue that laws cannot target individuals selling prostitution because that would further worsen this inequality. Defenders of the Nordic Model also believe it is unacceptable for governments to concede to the inevitability of prostitution and turn to harm reduction as a way to support sex workers. They believe a society that claims to defend principles of legal, political, economic, and social equality must reject the idea that women and girls can be commodities that are bought, sold, and exploited by men, which often occurs for women in prostitution. For this reason, I believe the Nordic Model fulfills the third criteria, as it makes extensive efforts to eliminate inequality, protect vulnerable groups from harm and exploitation, while also not completely restricting the choices of women. 

For the second criteria, while the Nordic Model does limit a woman’s autonomy to decide to engage in sex work as it works to limit the amount of clients she will have, it also provides women with support and services to access alternative employment so as to not completely restrict her financial autonomy. In addressing sex inequality in society as a whole, the Nordic Model also begins to address the inequalities that limit women’s autonomy and push them into prostitution. Furthermore, in attempting to prevent sex work from occuring while elevating the power and status of women when sex work does occur, the Nordic Model seeks to prevent the violations of autonomy that occur during prostitution. 

The Ethical Arguments For and Against Each Approach

After analyzing the ethical implications and effectiveness of each of the approaches in practice, I would like to present you with a final ethical analysis for and against each approach. In the end, I will present my argument for why the Nordic Model is the most ethical approach, and why the other approaches fall short. 

An ethical rationale behind criminalization would say that if we have decided that in practice prostitution often perpetuates sex inequality, leads to physical and mental harm for female sex workers, and presents a potential risk to the public’s health and wellbeing, of course the government should criminalize it to try to get rid of it. However, prostitution exists in almost all countries, regardless of whether it is legal or not, and in some countries like Thailand, the industry thrives despite being illegal. In cases like these, the government often relinquishes all other responsibilities to help establish support for sex workers looking to exit the industry or to protect sex workers from the many risks of prostitution. For example, when sex workers report being a victim of sexual violence to the police in countries where prostitution is criminalized governments often fail to give the case adequate attention simply because the victim is a sex worker. 

This approach also fails to recognize the role the government plays in pushing women into prostitution. For example, the Thai government has been one of the largest proponents of the sex work industry in Thailand, yet still criminalizes sex workers for engaging in it. This same concept can be applied to countries that fail to implement laws that enforce gender equality in the workplace, whether this is equality in payment or employment opportunities, as this is generally a large factor in creating the level of financial desperation that pushes women to engage in prostitution. While I recognize it may be a slippery slope to imply that less responsibility should be placed on criminals if substantial external factors contributed to them committing a crime, I do believe that the government still has the responsibility to recognize their role in creating these external factors and should adequately support these vulnerable women and protect them from further exploitation. This entails providing comprehensive support services including housing and employment assistance as well as other mental health care. 

In addition to the ethical issues with criminalization in its theoretical form, countries where prostitution is criminalized have many issues applying the law in practice. For one, police officers often enforce the law against buying and selling unequally, with research showing sellers of sex are arrested much more frequently than buyers. Additionally, under criminalization sex workers form an adversarial relationship with the police. In many cases, police officers have been found to coerce or extort sex workers for sexual acts using the threat of arrest to force their compliance. Furthermore, sex workers are often reluctant to call the police for assistance when they are victims of a crime both inside and outside of prostitution settings. Even when these women do report issues, their complaints are often dismissed because of the stereotypical thought process that sex workers cannot be victims of sexual crimes. Criminalization further heightens sex worker’s vulnerability as customers know sex workers are hesitant to involve police for safety or enforcement, making customers much more likely and able to take advantage of these women. 

Finally, there is no substantial evidence that the criminalization of both buying and selling sex works as a deterrent and effectively eliminates prostitution from societies. In the end, the only real purpose for the criminalization of prostitution is to suggest the government’s moral condemnation for the commodification of sex, as it there is no basis to support any argument that it is trying to improve the lives of sex workers in any way when criminalization clearly does not do this. For this reason, I believe criminalization is the worst approach to regulating prostitution. 

There are many real, valid arguments to be made that full decriminalization or legalization of sex work is the most beneficial for sex workers. First, decriminalizing sex work maximizes sex worker’s legal protection, and supports their access to things like justice and healthcare. Legalizing sex work also allows the government to create regulations under which sex work can most safely take place, including mandating protection and payment. This would in theory protect sex workers from having to worry about personally enforcing safe sex practices or about their clients threatening to revoke payment as a form of coercion.

Furthermore, in many countries where sex work is decriminalized, people push for treating sex work as any other form of work, meaning sex workers would receive benefits including insurance, paid time off, etc. However, while it is true that stigma can be a big source of harm for sex workers, there are also many risks to society associated with normalizing this type of work, as it condones a practice where no matter the legal policies in place women will fall victim to exploitation and are in a position subservient to men. 

Additionally, the rationale behind legalization rests upon a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary or coerced sex work, and I believe this distinction is near impossible to make in actuality, as many of the women often fall into sex work out of financial desperation or because of other external pressures. While this can be the case for many forms of work, meaning individuals may have to start working in other jobs as a result of financial desperation or because of a lack of alternative employment options, it is important to distinguish prostitution from these other jobs as no one should ever have to turn to allowing their body to be used for sex as a last resort. Also, although it is important to note that there may be a small subsection of women who do work in sex work completely autonomously and even enjoy the work they do, this group is substantially smaller than the amount of demand there is for sex work, forcing more and more women into prostitution to need to meet this demand. 

Moreover, many arguments for legalization or decriminalization rest on the fact that realistically, prostitution as an industry will continue no matter what policies the government implements. For this reason, they believe legalizing or fully decriminalizing sex work the best way to improve the lives of sex workers and reduce the harms associated with prostitution. However, I believe that the government has a duty to not fall complacent to any forms of violence or inequality happening against women, and it is therefore unethical for the government to concede to the fact that they cannot do anything to eliminate an industry that is the source of so much harm for women. For this reason, I believe the most acceptable approach to regulating prostitution is the Nordic Model. 

In the end, I believe the Nordic Model is the best approach for regulating prostitution. The Nordic Model aims to provide sex workers nearly all the same benefits legalization provides, aside from the fact that it gives sex workers the maximum opportunity to make money in sex work as demand will theoretically bereduced. However, this is a necessary drawback for the government to maintain its integrity and the commitment to the government’s responsibility to protect civil rights and equality. In protecting sex workers from persecution, partial decriminalization doesn't impede upon their ability to seek legal protection and exercise other key rights. Additionally, although many believe that limiting demand limits women’s opportunities to make money and overall financial autonomy, I believe that the government should put more effort into building up other job opportunities and social support for female sex workers and women in general, instead of making prostitution more financially rewarding by increasing its prevalence. However, it is critical to note that if a government is only partially decriminalizing sex work, risking sex workers ability to continue making a stable, substantial income, the government also has that responsibility to implement support programs that help sex workers seek alternative employment and other help they may need. While it is true that there would likely be a period of transition where sex workers have to go without the same income they had previously been making as  a sex worker, this is a necessary adjustment period to help these from falling deeper into a place where recovery is unattainable. 

Furthermore, the argument that the Nordic Model impedes on an individual’s “right to sell sex” moves from arguing that individuals have a right to engage in sexual activity to arguing individuals a right to market that activity. However, this transition is more complicated, as involving economic exchange invites obligations for the service being provided, creating many different power dynamics and implications that can force women into positions where they are having to engage in sexual acts they aren’t completely comfortable with. Additionally, in practice, many rights are often violated during sex work, meaning that completely allowing it to happen doesn’t prevent any rights violations. 

That being said, the model still has imperfections, highlighted in practice in Sweden. For example, a 2001 Swedish Supreme court decision determined that whether a sex worker “consents” to the acts is relevant for applying the law and deciding penalties. The case’s decision implied that crimes committed during sex that had been purchased was a crime against public order and not the sex worker as a person. This meant the law didn’t allow damages for sex workers against the individual that had harmed them during sex work. This decision resulted in lower penalties which limits the law’s potential to effectively hold buyers accountable and to fund services needed to support persons in prostitution. 

Despite a few shortcomings, I still believe the Nordic Model does the best job at ethically prioritizing the responsibility a government has to its people. First, I would like to highlight that no matter the harm reduction measures implemented, prostitution will likely never function fully autonomously and without substantial amounts of trafficking, coercion, or exploitation. For this reason, the argument that legalizing prostitution elevates the autonomy of sex workers is invalid. A government cannot be complacent with the fact that no matter the harm reduction they attempt to put in place, sexual exploitation of women will occur and women's bodily and sexual autonomy will continue to be violated. 

Second, the Nordic Model fulfills the responsibility a government has to protect both public health and the safety of sex workers. Widespread prostitution can undoubtedly cause a public health crisis when functioning in its imperfect form. While in an ideal world stigma, intimate partner violence, and mental health struggles would be a non-issue, and regular STI screenings and impenetrable protections would prevent physical health risks like STIs and unintended pregnancies, this is not reality. The empirical evidence has repeatedly shown higher risks of mental health issues for sex workers, many cases of violence directed at sex workers, and high rates of both STIs and unintended pregnancies. For the two latter, these are risks uniquely associated with the profession of sex work, and are risks no individual should have to face in the workplace. For this reason, the government cannot allow the industry of prostitution to continue and even grow, but they also cannot punish the women who fall into this industry and potentially further worsen their overall safety and wellbeing. This is why the Nordic Model’s approach, attempting to abolish prostitution, is the best course of action. 

Finally, the government has the responsibility protect civil rights and promote social justice, two ideals that are directly risked by the existence of prostitution. Prostitution continues to perpetuate sex inequality in society by reinforcing the domination of men over women and the idea that women should be available and accessible to conform to a man’s desires. Additionally, the government also has to recognize the heightened risk of exploitation faced by vulnerable populations, and their duty to protect said populations. For these reasons, not only does the government need to make an effort to decrease or possibly eliminate prostitution, but they need to do so in a manner that elevates the status of women so as to not further increase inequalities and address the existing disparities that prevent women from exercising full autonomy. 

Works Cited

1910 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910.

Adriaenssens, Stef, and Jef Hendrickx. “Sex, Price and Preferences: Accounting for Unsafe

Sexual Practices in Prostitution Markets.” Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 34, no. 5,

Nov. 2011, pp. 665–80, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01400.x.

“Aligning Public Health and Public Safety to Improve Health for Sex Workers | Center for Public

Health and Human Rights.” Center for Public Health and Human Rights,

publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-public-health-and-human-rights/research/womens-health-

rights/current-projects/aligning-public-health-and-public-safety-to-improve-health-for-se

x-workers.

Ban on the Purchase of Sexual Services - an Evaluation 1999-2008 English Summary | La Strada Documentation Center About Human Trafficking.

documentation.lastradainternational.org/doc-center/2419/ban-on-the-purchase-of-sexual-s

ervices-an-evaluation-1999-2008-english-summary.

Benoit, Cecilia, S. Mikael Jansson, et al. “Prostitution Stigma and Its Effect on the Working

Conditions, Personal Lives, and Health of Sex Workers.” The Journal of Sex Research,

vol. 55, no. 4–5, Nov. 2017, pp. 457–71, doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1393652.

Benoit, Cecilia, Michaela Smith, et al. “‘The Prostitution Problem’: Claims, Evidence, and

Policy Outcomes.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 48, no. 7, Nov. 2018, pp. 1905–23,

doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1276-6.

Bonache, Helena et al. “Prostitution Policies and Attitudes Toward Prostitutes.” Archives of

sexual behavior vol. 50,5 (2021): 1991-2006. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01891-9

Brents, Barbara G., and Kathryn Hausbeck. “Violence and Legalized Brothel Prostitution in

Nevada.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 20, no. 3, Jan. 2005, pp. 270–95,

doi:10.1177/0886260504270333.

cad, et al. “Thailand: Government Debates Legalizing Prostitution.” Off Our Backs, vol. 34, no.

1/2, 2004, pp. 7–7. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20837978. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Church, S. “Violence by Clients Towards Female Prostitutes in Different Work Settings:

Questionnaire Survey.” BMJ, vol. 322, no. 7285, Mar. 2001, pp. 524–25,

doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7285.524.

Cho, Seo-Young, et al. “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” SSRN

Electronic Journal, Jan. 2012, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1986065.

Daniel, Toni, et al. “Avoidance and Empowerment: How Do Sex Workers Navigate Stigma?”

Sexualities, Sept. 2023, doi:10.1177/13634607231201736.

Decriminalize Sex Work. “Equality Model or Nordic Model of Prostitution Explained.”

Decriminalize Sex Work, 30 Aug. 2024, decriminalizesex.work/equality-model-2.

Deering, Kathleen N., et al. “A Systematic Review of the Correlates of Violence Against Sex

Workers.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 104, no. 5, Mar. 2014, pp. e42–54,

doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.301909.

Di Nicola, Andrea. “The Differing EU Member States’ Regulations on Prostitution and Their

Cross-border Implications on Women’s Rights.” Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights

and Constitutional Affairs, PE 695.394, 2021,

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/695394/IPOL_STU(2021)695394_

EN.pdf.

Ditmore, Melissa Hope, and Dan Allman. “An Analysis of the Implementation of PEPFAR’s

Anti‐prostitution Pledge and Its Implications for Successful HIV Prevention Among

Organizations Working With Sex Workers.” Journal of the International AIDS Society,

vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2013, doi:10.7448/ias.16.1.17354.

Donnan, Hastings, and Fiona Magowan, editors. Transgressive Sex: Subversion and Control in Erotic Encounters. NED-New edition, 1, Berghahn Books, 2009. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qcmr7. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Elder, Sace. “Prostitutes, Respectable Women, and Women from ‘Outside’: The Carl Grossmann Sexual Murder Case in Postwar Berlin.” Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern Germany, edited by Richard F. Wetzell, 1st ed., Berghahn Books, 2018, pp. 185–206. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qct7p.10. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Faini, Diana, et al. “‘I Did Not Plan to Have a Baby. This Is the Outcome of Our Work’: A

Qualitative Study Exploring Unintended Pregnancy Among Female Sex Workers.” BMC

Women S Health, vol. 20, no. 1, Dec. 2020, doi:10.1186/s12905-020-01137-9.

Farley, Melissa, et al. “Prostitution, Violence, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Women’s

Health, vol. 27–27, 1998, www.prostitutionresearch.com/Farley&Barkan%201998.pdf.

Gangoli, Geetanjali, and Nicole Westmarland, editors. International Approaches to Prostitution: Law and Policy in Europe and Asia. 1st ed., Bristol University Press, 2006. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgxs0. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Gerassi, Lara. A Heated Debate: Theoretical Perspectives of Sexual Exploitation and Sex Work. 1 Dec. 2015,

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4730391/#:~:text=As%20long%20as%20capitalism%

20exists,oppressions%20of%20sex%20and%20class.

Gesser, Nili. “‘I Was Already There Once’: Cumulative Attempt Capital of Marginalized Women Exiting Substance Use and Street Prostitution Contributes to Their Recovery Capital.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3–4, Apr. 2024, pp. 554–67, doi:10.1002/ajcp.12736.

González‐Arribas, Olga, et al. “Health Situation Among Women Experiencing Homelessness

Who Have Been Involved in Prostitution.” Journal of Community & Applied Social

Psychology, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 2025, doi:10.1002/casp.70046.

Gordon, Elana. “Prostitution Decriminalized: Rhode Island’s Experiment.” WHYY, 4 Aug. 2017, whyy.org/articles/prostitution-decriminalized-rhode-islands-experiment.

Gray, Jacquelyn. “Why Sex Trafficking Is Such a Big Problem in Las Vegas.” A&E, 4 Oct. 2024,

www.aetv.com/real-crime/sex-trafficking-in-las-vegas.

Gunderson, Anne. “The Effect of Decriminalizing Prostitution on Public Health and Safety.”

Chicago Policy Review, 28 Apr. 2023, chicagopolicyreview.org/2018/02/26/the-effect-of-decriminalizing-prostitution-on-public-health-and-safety.

“History of Prostitution and Sex Trafficking in Thailand - End Slavery Now.” Freedom,

www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/history-of-prostitution-and-sex-trafficking-in-thaila

nd.

Hung, Jason. “Why Legalizing Prostitution in Thailand Can Help Bangkok Regulate

Commercial Sex and Curb Sex-trafficking Systematically and Institutionally.” Frontiers

in Sociology, vol. 8, Nov. 2023, doi:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1227247.

Jeal, Nikki, and Chris Salisbury. Self-reported Experiences of Health Services Among Female

Street-based Prostitutes: A Cross-sectional Survey. 1 July 2004,

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1324803.

Jessica, Flanigan. “In Defense of the Nordic Model.” Oxford University Press eBooks, 2019, pp. 128-C3.N64, doi:10.1093/oso/9780190659882.003.0004.

“Legal Network Report Calls for Decriminalization of Prostitution in Canada.” PubMed, 1 Dec. 2005, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16544395.

Liang, Peng, et al. “The Prevalence and Correlates of Unintended Pregnancy Among Female Sex Workers in South China: A Cross-sectional Study.” Reproductive Health, vol. 21, no. 1, July 2024, doi:10.1186/s12978-024-01853-7. limpisawas, rangsima. “Thailand: Child Prostitution.” Off Our Backs, vol. 27, no. 3, 1997, pp. 11–11. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20835778. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Ma, Haixia, and Alice Yuen Loke. “A Qualitative Study Into Female Sex Workers’ Experience of Stigma in the Health Care Setting in Hong Kong.” International Journal for Equity in

Health, vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 2019, doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1084-1.

MacAlister, Jamie. Frau: The Dangers of Legalized Sex Work in Germany. 14 Feb. 2022,

trintimes.ca/news/frau-the-dangers-of-legalized-sex-work-in-germany.

Magee, Lauren A., et al. “Sexually Transmitted Infections in Association With Area-Level

Prostitution and Drug-Related Arrests.” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, vol. 48, no. 7,

Dec. 2020, pp. 508–14, doi:10.1097/olq.0000000000001345.

Mathieson, Ane; Branam, Easton; and Noble, Anya (2016) "Prostitution Policy: Legalization,

Decriminalization and the Nordic Model," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 14: Iss. 2,

Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol14/iss2/10

Modisaotsile, Innocent, et al. “Heightened Risk of Unintended Pregnancy Among Sex Workers and Sex Worker Organizations’ Response During the Stringent COVID-19 Containment Measures in East and Southern Africa.” China Population and Development Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2023, pp. 37–47, doi:10.1007/s42379-023-00128-1.

Moen, Ole Martin. “Prostitution and Sexual Ethics: A Reply to Westin.” Journal of Medical

Ethics, vol. 40, no. 2, Dec. 2013, p. 88, doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101902.

Montgomery, Heather. Modern Babylon?: Prostituting Children in Thailand. 1st ed., Berghahn Books, 2009. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qcjw8. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Murphy, Lyn Stankiewicz. “Understanding the Social and Economic Contexts Surrounding

Women Engaged in Street-Level Prostitution.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing, vol. 31,

no. 12, Dec. 2010, pp. 775–84, doi:10.3109/01612840.2010.524345.

National Academies Press (US). “The Governmental Public Health Infrastructure.” The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century - NCBI Bookshelf, 2002,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221231/#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20

acts%20in,6)%20direct%20management%20of%20services.

Nmn. “Has The Nordic Model Worked? What Does the Research Say?” Nordic Model Now!, 16 Nov. 2023, nordicmodelnow.org/2019/12/22/has-the-nordic-model-worked-what-does-the-research-say.

“Nordic Model Failure - Decriminalize Sex Work.” Decriminalize Sex Work, 16 June 2024,

decriminalizesex.work/nordic-model-failure.

Peter Santenello. “Vegas’ Dark Side - the Stories of Ex-Prostitutes .” YouTube, 17 June 2023,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAlXdyjmWUo.

Pitcher, Jane. “Sex Work and Modes of Self-employment in the Informal Economy: Diverse

Business Practices and Constraints to Effective Working.” Social Policy and Society, vol.

14, no. 1, Sept. 2014, pp. 113–23, doi:10.1017/s1474746414000426.

Potterat, John J., et al. “Mortality in a Long-term Open Cohort of Prostitute Women.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 159, no. 8, Mar. 2004, pp. 778–85, doi:10.1093/aje/kwh110.

“Prostitution Laws: Health Risks and Hypocrisy.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol.

171, no. 2, July 2004, p. 109, doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041057.

Rethinking the Sex Industry: Thailand’s Sex Workers, the State, and Changing Cultures of

Consumption. quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mfsfront;c=mfs;c=mfsfront;

idno=ark5583.0012.005;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mfsg.

Rio, Linda M. “Psychological and Sociological Research and the Decriminalization or

Legalization of Prostitution.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 20, no. 2, Apr. 1991, pp.

205–18, doi:10.1007/bf01541945.

Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique E. “Juvenile Entry Into Prostitution.” Violence Against Women, vol. 18, no. 5, May 2012, pp. 562–79, doi:10.1177/1077801212453140.

S E X W O R K E R S & A L L I E S N E T W O R K G L O B A L H E A L T H J U S T I C E

P A R T N E R S H I P. “CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINALIZATION FOR SEX

WORKERS.” S E X W O R K E R S & a L L I E S N E T W O R K G L O B a L H E a L T

H J U S T I C E P a R T N E R S H I P, June 2020,

law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/ghjp/documents/consequences_of_criminalizat

ion_v2.pdf.

Sawicki, Danielle A., et al. “Culturally Competent Health Care for Sex Workers: An

Examination of Myths That Stigmatize Sex Work and Hinder Access to Care.” Sexual &

Relationship Therapy, vol. 34, no. 3, Feb. 2019, pp. 355–71,

doi:10.1080/14681994.2019.1574970.

School, Harvard Law. Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? 9 Sept. 2014,

orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-traffick

ing.

Seals, Maryann. “Worker Rights and Health Protection for Prostitutes: A Comparison of the

Netherlands, Germany, and Nevada.” Health Care for Women International, vol. 36, no.

7, Oct. 2013, pp. 784–96, doi:10.1080/07399332.2013.850085.

“Sex Work.” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law | Georgetown Law,

www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/in-print/volume-xxiv-issue-2-annual-review-20

23/sex-work.

Sex Work Discourse in Germany: Historicizing the Legalization Debate | Humanities Writ Large. humanitieswritlarge.duke.edu/highlights/sex-work-discourse-germany-historicizing-legalization-debate.html.

Sex Workers. 29 July 2022,

www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-programmes/populations/sex-workers.

Shaver, Frances M. “‘The Prostitution Problem’: Why Isn’t Evidence Used to Inform Policy

Initiatives?” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 48, no. 7, Dec. 2018, pp. 1955–59,

doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1374-5.

Sherman, Susan G., et al. “Structural and Environmental Influences Increase the Risk of

Sexually Transmitted Infection in a Sample of Female Sex Workers.” Sexually

Transmitted Diseases, vol. 48, no. 9, Feb. 2021, pp. 648–53,

doi:10.1097/olq.0000000000001400.

SPECTOR, SCOTT, et al., editors. AfterThe History of Sexuality: German Genealogies with and Beyond Foucault. 1st ed., Berghahn Books, 2012. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qdc8r. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Staiger, Annegret D. Legalized Prostitution in Germany: Inside the New Mega Brothels. Indiana University Press, 2022. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv21zp27f. Accessed 12 May 2025.

“Sweden: Legalization of Prostitution Condemned in Germany.” Off Our Backs, vol. 32, no.

11/12, 2002, pp. 7–7. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20837690. Accessed 12 May 2025.

Swedish Institute. Selected Extracts of the Swedish Government Report SOU 2010:49: “The Ban Against the Purchase of Sexual Services. An Evaluation 1999-2008.” Translated by

Mireille L. Key and Jennifer Evans, 2010,

www.xn--ntverketpris-gcb.se/DiverseTexter/TheBanAgainstThePurchaseOfSexualServic

es-AnEvaluation1999-2008.pdf.

“Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings.” Migration and Home Affairs, 7 Apr. 2025,

home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/organised-crime-and-human-trafficki

ng/together-against-trafficking-human-beings_en.

Toubiana, Madeline, and Trish Ruebottom. “Stigma Hierarchies: The Internal Dynamics of

Stigmatization in the Sex Work Occupation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 67,

no. 2, Jan. 2022, pp. 515–52, doi:10.1177/00018392221075344.

Trentmann, Frank, editor. Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British History. 1st ed., Berghahn Books, 2003. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c0gm0d. Accessed 12 May 2025.

“U.S.: Courts Rule Anti-prostitution Policy Restriction on AIDS Funding Violates Right to Free

Speech.” PubMed, 1 Dec. 2006, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17373086.

Waltman, Max. “Prohibiting Sex Purchasing and Ending Trafficking: The Swedish Prostitution

Law.” University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository,

repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol33/iss1/507.

Watson, Lori. “Why Sex Work Isn’t Work - Logos Journal.” Logos Journal, 11 Sept. 2023,

logosjournal.com/article/why-sex-work-isnt-work.

“When Prostitution (Sex Work) Is Legalized, What Happens to Crime Rates? - A-Mark

Foundation.” A-Mark Foundation, 3 June 2024,

amarkfoundation.org/reports/when-prostitution-sex-work-is-legalized-what-happens-to-cr

ime-rates/#:~:text=Another%20found%20that%20conditions%20improved,number%20o

f%20attempted%20murders%20increased.

“Why Prostitution Shouldn’t Be Legal - Demand Abolition.” Demand Abolition, 2 Mar. 2018,

www.demandabolition.org/research/evidence-against-legalizing-prostitution/#:~:text=Ma

ny%20claim%20if%20the%20sex,pimping%2C%20and%20other%20related%20crimes.

Vandecandelaere, Hans. “Sex Workers in Thailand: A Study of the Industry and its Workers.”

Etui, interview by Usa Lertsrisanthad et al. Feb. 2020,

https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Prostitution%20in%20Thailand-%20the

%20sex%20workers%27%20perspective_2019.pdf

Yates, Gary L., et al. “A Risk Profile Comparison of Homeless Youth Involved in Prostitution

and Homeless Youth Not Involved.” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 12, no. 7, Nov.

1991, pp. 545–48, doi:10.1016/0197-0070(91)90085-z.