By Mary Magdalene
Editor’s Note: While we were laying out this edition of The Revolutionist this bill that would have legalized prostitution in Colorado died. The issue of course remains, and we hope to see more decriminalization efforts in the future.
This question gets asked the world over in text threads, private messages, and in personal conversations. My emphatic response is “My favorite position is decriminalization!” Senate Bill 97, if passed, will repeal the criminal offenses of prostitution, soliciting and patronizing a prostitute, and keeping a place of prostitution. This bill is sponsored by Senators Nick Hinrichsen and Lisa Cutter and State Representatives Lorena Garcia and Rebekah Stewart. And I am excited!
I believe the research is clear; criminalization of sex work increases the risks of violence experienced by sex workers (SWs). These risks are further increased depending upon racial, social, sexual, and gender identities. Criminalization contributes to stigma, conceptions of morality, and the “whorearchy,” the hierarchy among sex workers based upon the type of sex work performed. Criminalization removes an SWs full consent. This is because consent is threefold: It requires that a person can choose who, when, and where. Choosing these three is challenging at best and near impossible at worst under criminalization. This is because when SW is criminalized, it is pushed underground and the agency over who, when, and where becomes blurred.
I am not a legal scholar, but the summary looks really promising to me, replacing prostitution with consensual commercial sexual activity. This distinction of consensual commercial sexual activity is important, as agency and autonomy are deeply implied. It makes clear that pandering — essentially forcing or coercing a person to engage in commercial sexual activity — remains criminalized. I also value that this bill does not allow for cities, counties, or municipalities to maintain criminalization based upon their moralistic whims.
I do take issue with the use and description of pimping/pimp, as this word reinforces systemic racism and is both gendered and classist. Better terms exist for describing the controlling and parasitic nature of a person or persons who financially benefit from a person selling consensual sex. Think exploiter. The definition provided in the bill — “Any person who knowingly lives on or is supported or maintained in whole or in part by money…” — does not clearly establish active management or coercive control that is associated with a “pimp” and is vague enough that it could include anyone who is financially supported by the income of a sex worker. It’s my opinion that the use of this word and its provided definition contribute to existing stigma, racist tropes, and issues with safety that I feel the bill is actively seeking to address.
Black Sex Workers of Colorado and Denver Slut Walk have been calling for letters of support, and DSW specifically has held informational Zoom meetings. These are solid sex worker–led, mutual aid organizations that have been speaking up, supporting SWs directly and fighting hard for policy change.
###
The Revolutionist is 100% volunteer run and subscriber funded. We do not sell our soul for advertising dollars, nor do we prostrate ourselves for grants from the non-profit industrial complex. We are community media. Join the community! Subscribe today at whatever rate you can and get a hard copy of The Revolutionist in your mailbox. Subscribing subsidizes free distribution copies.
The Revolutionist 