Is it time to drop the term ‘prostitution’ from policy discourse?

Abstract

In this paper, I wish to explore whether it is time to drop the use of the term ‘prostitution’ in English policy discourse. I argue here that ‘prostitution’ is a culturally loaded term and is insufficiently precise in describing the different contexts in which the exchange of sex for money or other resources between adults takes place. This lack of clarity has implications for policy action, which in turn materially affects the lives of those involved in the sex industry. I draw on MacKinnon’s (1989) thesis of the eroticisation of dominance as a productive framework for explaining why violence, harm and coercion are possible within the exchange of sex for money (or other resource), though not inevitable. I propose that we distinguish four categories: sex entrepreneurship, sex work, survival sex and sexual exploitation. For some scholars, such categorisations overlook how disparate practices are connected (Jeffreys, 2009), most obviously by patriarchy or economic inequality. However, I believe we need to see both the connections and the distinctions: if we conflate different practices, we lose the particularity of the contexts of practice and weaken the rationale for policy action. Worse, policy interventions may be harmful. I suggest these four categories can help us identify and distinguish between structural and interpersonal harm and structural and interpersonal coercion and help to formulate attendant criminal justice and social justice measures.

Chapter 1: Should Real Love Hurt? The Eroticisation of Dominance, Submission and Coercive Control in Contemporary Pop Music

“…This means that while I recognise the agency of individuals to author, negotiate and disrupt power through discourse and other social practices, I believe that power structures weigh heavily on social life, which individuals have varying resources to challenge (over their own life course, and in comparison to others). Although I recognise discourse as a social practice, and have used critical discourse analysis in other work (see, Mulvihill, 2014), I was for this study reluctant to be boxed in by too strict a method, nor was I clear that the purpose was simply to 'expose' the patriarchal foundations of the chosen tracks. I therefore chose thematic analysis.…”

Prostitution and Sex Work, Who Counts? Mapping Local Data to Inform Policy and Service Provision

“…Here we use both terms, prostitution and sex work, as well as ‘selling sex’, to refer to this wide range of experiences and practices. We acknowledge the ideological leanings and limitations of both terms and the existence of other terms – for example ‘transactional sex’ and ‘survival sex’ (see McMillan et al , 2018; also Mulvihill, 2019), and that specific terms are experienced as harmful by some individuals. However, we use this range of terms here because they are the most widely-known, encompass the broader sex industry (and not only paid-for direct sex) and go some way to reflect the diversity in experiences and views on the sex industry.…”

“…Some are victims of trafficking and exploitation. For others, sex work can be empowering, or simply a way to pay the bills (Mulvihill, 2019; Pitcher, 2019). In this context, the selection of sources used to create estimates and breakdowns is not neutral: it determines which voices are amplified and which are left unheard.…”

Policing vulnerability in sex work: the harm reduction compass model

“…To identify different types of autonomy and scenarios individuals find themselves within the sex industry, the model draws on conceptualisations by Mulvihill (2019) to define four areas: sex entrepreneurship, sex work, survival sex, and sexual exploitation which can be seen in Figure 3. The first of these Sex entrepreneurship describes those individuals who have created a lucrative career selling sexual and/or erotic services.…”