The Dangers of Defining Sex Work: Inclusion or Exclusion?

定义性工作的危险：包容还是排斥？

• 批准号: 2430699
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2430699
• 关键词: Dangers; Defining; Sex; Work; Inclusion

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.

近年来，什么是“性工作”，谁是“性工作者”已经成为一个越来越复杂和有争议的争论。这场争论是由从传统的街头性工作转向在线活动和交换礼物而不是冰冷的现金引起的。然而，像劳里·贝内特·库克博士这样的人也提出了身份认同的问题，即如果一个人不认同自己是“性工作者”，那么他是否是“性工作者”。例如，在性治疗领域，代理伴侣和性学身体工作者经常觉得他们不属于性工作领域。参与这一对话的人包括像朱莉·宾德尔这样的记者和像韦拉·霍布豪斯这样的政治家，然而，尽管许多性工作者站出来批评法律，但他们往往被忽视。这种无知的一个原因是，人们认为性工作者不知道什么对他们最有利，或者是出于绝望而从事性工作，而造成这种情况的一个主要原因是他们被认为是脆弱的，人们认为性工作者是脆弱的，这是试图拯救和破坏他们的原因。这一点可以从堕落妇女一次又一次地被延续的叙述中看出，无论是在《沃尔芬登报告》中将法律视为弱势群体的保护者，还是在当代纪录片中声称“性工作”本质上更具剥削性，而不是赋予权力。反对这一点的人认为性工作者是自主的人，可以做出理性的决定，法律是尊重这种自主权的一种手段。有些人从自主性出发，认为性工作者已经做出了选择，因此选择过着法律保护之外的生活;这可以从沃尔芬登的结论中看出，该结论指出，法律不是保护弱势群体，而是保护公众免受这些“公害”的影响我将与有关部门的个人进行访谈，并将分析有关这些问题的现有文献，无论是期刊文章还是当前的改革提案。我的一位未来的导师，Rachel Swann博士，通过她自己的研究建立了一个联系网络，我将利用这个网络来接触我的参与者。在进行这项研究时，特别的伦理问题将集中在匿名性，保密性和对研究人员或参与者造成伤害的风险上。将通过获得知情和自愿同意来寻求参与，并将详细说明考虑参与和退出研究的适当时间框架。我将通过学校研究伦理程序申请伦理批准，并与另一位未来的主管Roxanna Dehaghani博士讨论，他是学校研究伦理官员。出现的任何其他问题都将得到适当处理，数据收集的主要形式将是访谈。这些将是半结构化的，以保留研究的框架，并确保访谈之间的可复制性，但也允许访谈结构根据进展情况略有调整，并允许进一步探讨内容。选择半结构化访谈是因为它们允许参与者将自己的意义归因于研究（与结构化访谈不同），但也可以允许发现数据（与非结构化访谈不同）。面试将以开放、对话的方式进行，面试时间表将作为提醒或指导，而不是计划。第二，将进行法律的理论分析，研究有关性工作管制专题的法律的和政策著作。我的文件分析可能会超出这一范围，包括更广泛的帐户，如记者，以多样化我的研究范围。