Decriminalization is the preferred policy by clients and providers alike for many reasons, but we're a long way away from achieving that in any U.S. states. What's more likely is the "Nordic model" which decriminalizes selling and criminalizes buying. This is supported by radical feminist organizations who want to help women exit the trade and believe clients support the demand for exploitation and trafficking, and it almost gained serious traction in the Hawaii state legislature.
I was surprised to see sex workers on Twitter say they would NOT support their own decriminalization if it meant that clients would still be criminalized. If it were this or full criminalization, they'd rather stick to full criminalization. But it's not that crazy:
1. It creates a greater power imbalance and less trust. Clients are rightfully vigilant under full criminalization, but at least they understand that providers are in a similar situation of needing to hide too, and because of this, they can hopefully trust providers will be discreet about the whole transaction. When that trust goes away (or should I say, becomes even less than it already is), there's less transparency. There have been reports that nobody's willing to screen anymore in Nordic model countries, and as Holly Evans points out, the murder rate of women in prostitution increases when a country goes from criminalization to Nordic model.
2. The Nordic model in practice doesn't mean less law enforcement. It means MORE law enforcement pushed against clients. It becomes a matter of saving women from supposed exploitation, not just punishing vice. Often where the Nordic model is introduced, the penalties for being a client officially increase. You could be a felon or a sex offender.
3. Another thing they say in that thread is that decriminalization is much better than the "legal and regulated" model. They want the government's hands OFF the terms of their work, not defining how and where they can do it. Regulation means consenting adults who don't follow the state's regulations, likely those in the most desperate situations, can still be penalized. I trust the market to regulate itself here, as it already has. It would also be more expensive to legally hire a provider. Someone who'd charge $350 locally would charge more like $1000 at a Nevada brothel, as the house takes half and it's heavily taxed. I've never been to a Nevada brothel, but if you have, can you chime in and tell us whether the experience and the assurance that it's totally legal is worth the price hike?
So any change to the law other than full decriminalization might SOUND nice, but read the fine print. If you're already satisfied with your access to providers under the current situation, you might not like what'll happen when the equilibrium is disrupted.
