A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sexuality Research and Social Policy
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Gender Policy Models and Calls to BTackle Demand^
for Sex Workers
Carol Harrington
1
Published online: 12 April 2017
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Why have proposals to Btackle demand^for sex
workers by criminalizing their clients gained political traction
in the UK? This article treats sex work policy debates as a site
of contested norms concerning gender, sexuality, individual
agency and the market. I argue that recent shifts away from
a male breadwinner/female homemaker model of family life
have disrupted established policy visions of desirable family
and employment patterns. Calls to Btackle demand^for sex
workers provide terrain to construct norms of gendered, sex-
ual and market conduct which align with new policy visions
of the dual earner family, nurturing fathers and employed
mothers. Analysing recent policy documents, this article
shows that governmental arguments in favour of Btackling
demand^claim the policy will promote both women’sem-
ployment and gender equality in personal relationships.
Furthermore, end demand discourse individualizes responsi-
bility for continued gender inequality to the deviant sexual
desires of a few bad men. The article concludes that end de-
mand discourse deflects tensions inherent in policies which
promote gender equality while reducing support for at-home
mothers and thus exacerbating feminized poverty.
Keywords Adult worker model .Activation policy .
Sex-buyers .Criminalizing clients .Prostitution .Sex work
policy
Introduction
The notion of Btackling demand^for prostitution by criminal-
izing clients but not sex workers has gained credibility across
Europe, provoking fierce policy debate in the UK. Sweden
introduced a law that criminalized paying for sex but not sell-
ing sex in 1999. Since then, the Swedish government has
strongly advocated for other countries to adopt their model.
Norway and Iceland passed similar laws in 2009 and after
much debate France criminalized paying for sex in 2016. In
2008, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and
the Global Sex Trade (APPG) formedto develop proposals for
Btackling demand^in England and Wales. In June 2015,
Northern Ireland criminalized paying for sex. However,
Scotland, England and Wales have not yet followed. The
Home Affairs Committee’s on-going Prostitution Inquiry is-
sued an interim report in 2016 stating they needed more time
to investigate the merits of criminalizing clients and would be
closely monitoring the situation following criminalization in
France and Northern Ireland (Home Affairs Committee,
2016).
Why has criminalizing paying for sex become a reasonable
political proposition in the UK at this point in history? The
notion of criminalizing clients first appeared at least as far
back as the early twentieth century within social hygiene
movements (Mackey, 2005). However, for the most part, pol-
icy in the UK has long reflected a sexual double standard that
punished and attempted to rehabilitate sex workers but not
their clients. Scholars have traced contemporary arguments
in favour of criminalizing clients and decriminalizing sex
workers to Bradical feminist^analyses of pornography, pros-
titution and heterosexuality (Scoular, 2004;Scoular&
O’Neill, 2008; Serughetti, 2013, p. 41). Much of this literature
contests radical feminism for failing Bto move outside the
hetero-normative order which separates work from sex^and
*Carol Harrington
Carol.Harrington@vuw.ac.nz
1
School of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University of
Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Sex Res Soc Policy (2018) 15:249–258
DOI 10.1007/s13178-017-0286-9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.