The Dangers of Defining Sex Work: Inclusion or Exclusion?

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

What counts as "sex work" and who is a "sex worker" has become an increasingly complex and contentious debate in recent years. This debate has been caused by a move away from traditional street sex work to online activity and the exchange of gifts rather than cold hard cash. However, some like Dr. Laurie Bennet-Cook have also brought up the subject of identity which asks whether one is a "sex worker" if they do not identify as such. For example, in the field of sexual healing where surrogate partners and sexological bodyworkers often feel that they do not fall within the field of sex work. Those engaging in this conversation range from journalists like Julie Bindel and politicians such as Wera Hobhouse, however, a noticeable void has been from within the industry as despite many sex workers coming forward with their own criticisms of the law, they are more often than not ignored. One reason for this ignorance is the belief that sex workers do not know what is in their best interests or have gone into sex work out of desperation and a major cause of this has been their perceived vulnerability.The perceived vulnerability of sex workers has been the cause for both attempts at saving and undermining them. This can be seen through the narrative of the fallen woman being perpetuated time and time again whether it be in the Wolfenden Report seeing the law as a protector of the vulnerable or contemporary documentaries claiming that "sex work" is inherently more exploitative than it is empowering. Opposing this are those who see sex workers as autonomous beings making rational decisions and that the law is a means of respecting this autonomy. Leading from autonomy, there are those who believe that sex workers have made their choices and have therefore chosen to lead a life outside of the law's protection; this can be seen in the conclusion of Wolfenden which stated that instead of protecting the vulnerable the law was to protect the public from these "public nuisances".I will be conducting interviews with individuals in the relevant sectors and will also be analysing current literature on the subjects whether these be journal articles or current proposals for reform. One of my prospective supervisors, Dr Rachel Swann, has an established network of contacts through her own research that I will utilize in order to access my participants.In conducting this research, particular ethical concerns will be focused on such as anonymity, confidentiality, and the risk of harm to researcher or participant(s). Participation will be sought through obtaining informed and voluntary consent, and appropriate timeframes for consideration to take part and withdrawal from the research will be detailed. I will apply for ethical approval through the School Research Ethics procedure, and in discussion with another prospective supervisor, Dr Roxanna Dehaghani, who is the School Research Ethics Officer. Any other concerns that emerge will be appropriately addressed.The main form of data collection will be interviews. These will be semi-structured to preserve the framework of the study and ensure replicability between interviews but to also allow room for the interview structure to be adapted slightly depending on how they progress and to allow for further exploration of the content. Semi-structured interviews have been chosen as they will allow participants to ascribe their own meaning to the research (unlike structured interviews) but can also allow data to be discovered (unlike unstructured interviews). The interview will be approached in an open, conversational manner, with the interview schedule acting as a reminder or guide rather than a plan. Secondly, there will be a legal doctrinal analysis which will look at legal and policy works on the topic of sex-work regulation. My document analysis may extend beyond this to include a wider range of accounts such as those by journalists in order to diversify the scope of my research.