In this post I’ll examine the pros and cons of decriminalising prostitution (I.E. the provision of sexual services in return for payment). Prior to considering the arguments concerning decriminalisation it is necessary to set out the law, as it pertains to prostitution in the UK.


In the UK it is illegal to pay for sex with a child (I.E. a person under the age of 18) however, it should be noted that the age of consent for sexual relations (not involving commercial sex) is 16 for both men and women.

It is illegal for a prostitute to solicit in a public place and “kerb crawling (driving around in search of commercial sex) is also prohibited under UK legislation.

It is legal for one person to work as a prostitute, from a flat or other premises, however where two or more individuals work together the premises is regarded as a brothel and, as such is illegal.

It is legal for a person to advertise their services as an escort, however where escort agencies “control” escorts this is prohibited by UK law.

In 2009 the law was changed to make paying for sex with a person who has been coerced into prostitution illegal. This is a “strict liability” offence which means that the person paying for the service does not need to be aware that the prostitute has been forced into prostitution for an offence to have been committed. It is not illegal to pay for the provision of sexual services, however a person may find themselves prosecuted if they are found to have had sex with a person forced into the sex industry irrespective of whether they where in fact cognisant that compulsion had occurred.

(For a summary of the legal position in the UK please see the following link


1.      Freedom of the individual – Men and women are soverign over their own bodies (I.E. we own ourselves), consequently neither the state, society, the community or any other individual has the right to tell consenting adults what they can or can not do with their own property. People who argue in favour of this position do not (necessarily) contend that prostitution does no harm. They may accept that prostitution causes psychological damage to those engaged in it, however they contend that we, as individuals have the right to take actions which are harmful to ourselves provided that we do not injure others in so doing. According to this perspective even if the person working as a prostitute is harmed by her employment, provided that he or she chose their occupation without coercion of any kind they should be left, unmolested to pursue their calling.

The above position does not assume that there should be no measures in place to regulate prostitution. Indeed proponents of the libertarian stance frequently contend that prostitution must be conducted so as to avoid the creation of a public nuisance. Consequently advocates of individual liberty will frequently argue in favour of confining prostitution to designated areas, zones separated from the wider community in order that those who find prostitution objectional need not be subjected to observing the industry in action.

2.      Men/women should not be penalised for paying for sex – this is closely related to 1 (above). In essence the argument here is that it is wrong to penalise those who unknowingly pay for sexual services provided by a person who has been coerced into prostitution. According to this viewpoint criminal liability should rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the person who has compelled the prostitute into the industry rather than with the client. Some spokespeople for those engaged in prostitution have argued that by criminalising the purchasers of sexual services the state is deterring clients from reporting suspicions of coercion because, by so doing they are opening themselves up to prosecution for paying for sex with someone who has been coerced into working as a prostitute.

In Sweden it is an absolute offence to pay for sex irrespective of whether or not the person offering the service is acting of their own free will. Some opponents of the Swedish law contend that this has made the lives of prostitutes much more difficult as men are nervous and, as a consequence may treat prostitutes worse than was the case prior to the coming into effect of the legislation. In addition the law opens up the possibility of blackmail in that clients may be blackmailed by sex workers into paying monies due to threats of exposure (and prosecution) if they fail to comply).

3.      Legalisation of brothels would protect prostitutes – At present a lady or man may offer sexual services from premises provided that he or she works alone. However if more than one person works the premises is classified as a brothel and is, as a consequence illegal. Many prostitutes and their advocates argue that single people, working alone are at much greater risk of violence than are those working in brothels (the safety in numbers argument if you like). Supporters of this position point to the Netherlands as an example of where brothels offer protection to both prostitutes and their clients.


1.      Prostitution is the exploitation of women and children and should not be tolerated in any shape or form – Supporters of this perspective argue that very few of those working as prostitutes are doing so of their own free will. Many of them where abused (sexually and physically) as children which makes them easy prey for those intent on trapping them into prostitution. The clients are the problem as they create the demand for ever more prostitutes thereby driving the market to recruit ever more sex workers. The answer is to tackle the demand by following the example of Sweden and prohibiting the purchasing of sexual services while, at the same time not penalising the prostitutes themselves.

2.      Creating legal brothels increases the demand for prostitution and enhances the opportunities for criminals – Proponents of this view believe that the legalisation of brothels would not decrease the availability of trafficked prostitutes. Indeed they contend that in the Netherlands the decriminalised sector exists alongside a thriving criminal market. In addition the legalisation of brothels would lead to an increase in drug trafficking and other criminal activity associated with prostitution.


For arguments against the decriminalisation of prostitution please see the Prostitution Research and Education website which can be found at

For arguments in favour of decriminalising prostitution please see the Sexual Freedom Coalition’s website which can be accessed at


About kevinmorris101

I live and work in London and blog as a hobby. If you would like to contact me please send an email to animalia at (the address is rendered in this manner in order to try and defeat spammers)!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.



  2. Valda.DeDieu says:

    Dear Kevin:

    Thank you for calling me and informing me about this piece which you have written.

    My point of view that I would like to add to this discussion is namely this: Prostitution, strictly defined as a consenting individual, therefore, an adult, arranging for the sale of sexual services to another adult, MUST NEVER be confused with the criminal exploitation of children, which is ABUSE and/or trafficking, whether it be adult/children, which is a MORALLY ABHORRENT, PERVERTED CRIME.

    It is this confusing of the three practices which ironically leads to further exploitation of women and children due to trafficking. While the exchange of money for sexual services between consenting adults, by consenting adults, for consenting adults may be a SIN, it should not be a CRIME; otherwise every adulterer, every couple in (or not in) a relationship engaging in intimacy, could very well be prosecuted under the same premise–SIN, ergo, crime.

    The law is designed to protect the INNOCENT, the helpless, the weak, the VICTIMS. Therefore any ABUSE of children, in any form, CANNOT, by its very egregiousness be defined under the terms of mere “prostitution.” Sexual abuse and trafficking of children and women is morally abhorrent, a SIN, a perversion AND, CRIMINAL, because THOSE VICTIMS DO NOT and indeed, CANNOT, give consent.

    As my book LONG PAST DEAD points out, trafficking, which should really be a top priority, is often given low status, beneath terrorism, arms dealing, drugs and, prostitution. Why? Often the same people who deal in terrorist acts, drugs and arms-dealing, are scum who prey on children’s bodies. Yet in order to catch them, they are allowed to pursue their perversions in the hope that the authorities will capture the “bigger fish”, which is more “glamorous” leading to bigger headlines. The capture of a “Global terrorist” brings more headlines, more funding, more prestige, than the rescue of some nameless children…Tell me, what does this say about our society, our hearts as human beings?

    Thank you for your provocative headlines, Kevin. I do hope you read my novel, BLOODPACT, a more intricate story, not at all straightforward, which tells of a woman who hunted down a child predator, and executed him.


    Valda DeDieu

    • Dear Valda
      Thank you for your thought provoking response. Your point that there is a distinction between “sin” and “law” is an important contribution to the debate although, as an agnostic I wouldn’t use the term “sin” myself. In terms of the trafficking of persons I’d certainly describe it as abhorent but a “sin”, in the religious sense is, as I say not a word I’d use.

      Is there an argument for decriminalising paid sex (between consenting adults) on the grounds that it would free up police time to concentrate on tackling the problems of child prostitution and trafficking instead of, as at present concentrating resources on trying to stamp out prostitution in it’s entirety?

      I’d certainly recommend your book “Long Past Dead” to other readers of this blog, (for my review of Valda’s book please visit

      Kind regards,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s