Should Sex Workers Be Considered Employees - Essay Example

Should sex workers be considered employees? By Contents Contents 2 Bibliography 17 Introduction The case of Stringfellows v Restaurants Ltd. V Nadine Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 provides an opportunity to evaluate the difficulties involved in relegating sex workers to employee status. This case involved the work status of a lap-dancer who was paid a fee for lap-dance services at a two clubs owned by the defendant and relied on client’s payment for individual services. Since there was no structured wage earning and the lap-dancer was not entitled to vacation or other benefits from the club owners. As a result, she was not an employee but rather, self-employed and assumed all economic risks with respect to her earnings.1 This case reveals the complexities of the debate over the feasibility of considering sex workers who are by and large ‘service providers’ in an entertainment industry as employees and in doing so engages the feminist debate over whether or not sex workers are legitimate employees.2 The feminist debate on sex work is divided into two opposing views. On the one hand, radical feminists view sex work as nothing more than a facilitator of male ‘sexual aggression’ against women.3 Indeed the male power theme associated with prostitution is captured by those who liken prostitution with slavery and thus conjures up reflections of white slavery. However, within the European Union (EU), anti-prostitution policies are typically aimed at eliminating street prostitution and treating prostitution as a public nuisance that is primarily an involuntary career choice.4 On the other hand, post-modern liberal feminists argue that women are free to do as they wish with their ‘own bodies and sexuality’.5 Thus liberal feminists take the position that sex workers are voluntarily engaged in sex work and in should be protected as any other worker should be. Thus from the radical feminists’ perspective, sex work should be banned. From the perspective of the postmodern liberal feminists, sex work is a valid and legitimate form of work and should therefore be regulated as such.6 The radical feminists’ perspective hinges on abrogation which is influenced by dominance feminist theory which views sex work as an exploitation of women.7 Postmodern liberal feminists on the other hand propose a ‘theoretical model of sex-worker rights’.8 However, when the definition of employee is taken into account, the feasibility of sex-worker rights is questionable. This is because an employee by definition is an individual requiring protection from an employer who is in turn obligated to protect his or her employee and the employee’s rights.9 This paper examines the liberal feminists’ theoretical model of sex-worker rights and analyses whether or not a case can be made for considering sex workers as employees. In analysing whether or not a case can be made for considering sex workers as employees, this research paper discusses both sides of the feminists’ debate. Although sex work refers generally to pornography, telephone sex, erotic dancers, escort services and prostitution, this research focuses on prostitution because it is the oldest sexual profession and by far the most controversial.10This paper is therefore divided into three parts. The first part of this paper analyses the dominance feminist theory. The second part of this paper analyses the feminists’ theoretical model of sex-worker rights. The final part of this paper discusses the likely consequences of considering sex workers employees and determines whether or not it is feasible. 2. Dominance Feminist Theory: Sex Workers as Employees Radical feminists and dominance feminist theory share the view that sexuality is a core component of gender inequality. In this regard, sexuality is perceived as a ‘social construct of male power’ to the extent that sexuality is a male defined term, and to which women are obliged to submit.11 Women may be forced to submit to male domination through sex, but eventually come to accept their obligation to submit and as such consent to male domination. Not all women submit and those who do not submit can be forced into submission.12 Given this reality, women are objects used for the satisfaction of men. Therefore, sex itself cannot be viewed as work. In the social conditions authored by men, women are objectified and sex is the exploitation and degradation of women by men. Commercial sex is nothing more than an abuse of women and sex and is similar to rape, harassment, pornography, battery and sexual abuse against minors.13 The problem here is that this view dismisses the female sex worker’s complicity in commercial sex. No consideration is given to the female’s conscious decision to engage in sex work and to expose herself to degrading and exploitive behaviour. When looked at in this way, it is not the absence of labour law protection that facilitates the dangers of sex work, but the nature of sex work itself. Sex work involves sexual desire, varying sex workers with vastly different reasons for sex work and clients with vastly different sexual desires and how they wish to fulfil them.14 Therefore, the dominant feminist theorists’ reasons for prohibiting sex work and opposing the idea of sex work as legitimate labour, is flawed. Not all sex workers are submissive and dominated and not all clients are dominant male forces. Nevertheless, radical feminists like Kathleen Barry offer some insight into the rationale behind dominance feminist theory in the context of sex work. Barry sees sex work as a symptom of patriarchy and its demands for the subordination of women. In this regard, patriarchy is structured in such a way that women are identified almost entirely by the extent to which they are sexually submissive to males. When women engage in sex work they are acting as victims of patriarchy and should be saved from sex work and not supported in any way. What is required is a transformation of patriarchal hierarchy so that women may have access to legitimate work and are therefore not motivated to engage in sex work.15 Radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon expounds on the rationale for the continued criminalization of sex work. According McKinnon, gives voice to the institutionalization of sexuality from the perspective of males. The institutionalization of sexuality from the male perspective envisions a heterosexual world in which ‘male sexual dominance and female sexual submission’ are institutionalized.16 It is therefore incorrect to view sex work as nothing more than a consensual exchange in which the male fulfils a sexual need and the female fulfils an economic need.17 Mackinnon also makes the point that sex work should never become a legitimate source of labour simply because women do not ‘own’ or ‘possess’ their sexualities.18 Sex work is seen as nothing more than the institutionalization of females’ subordination and reliance on males and as such is the exploitation of women by men. Thus sex work is not work per se, but is best understood as sexual slavery or trafficking in sex or prostitution. Therefore, the correct approach to sex work is complete abolition.19 The females’ voluntary decision to engage in sex work is therefore not taken into account. As Pendleton argues, many women engage in sex work as a means of employment and do not see their decision as coerced by male dominance. Many sex workers view their decision as a manifestation of autonomy and power. Thus the idea that female sex workers are victims is not troubling to sex workers. The main concern for sex workers is the ‘stigmatization’ of their choice of employment and in particular the ‘whore’ shaming that they receive from mainstream society.20 Thus for these sex workers, if sex work was changed to permit sex workers to be treated as legitimate employees, their status might change and as a result, they may not be exposed to the dangers of prostitution. Radical feminists are nevertheless, dissatisfied with the regulation of sex work in the UK. In the UK, prostitution itself is not a crime. Activities associated with prostitution are illegal and this includes loitering or solicitation in streets or in a public area with the intent to prostitute.21 Kerb-crawling is also a crime22 and prostitution in public can also be subject to an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.23 The overall result of anti-prostitution legislation is therefore that sex work itself is not unlawful and the law targets the activities of women who solicit prostitution, and not the males who purchase the services of prostitutes.24 Thus contrary to the perspective of radical feminists and the dominance feminist theory, the law does not treat prostitutes or sex workers as victims of male dominance, but perpetrators of anti-social and criminal activities. If sex workers were to be treated as employees, they would then have the right to insist on their right to work and this would invariably create a conflict between the regulation of prostitution by labour law and criminal law. Radical feminists are opposed to the criminal law regulating prostitution and just as opposed to any labour law legitimating prostitution. 3. Post-Modern Liberal Feminism and a Theoretical Model of Sex Worker Rights Post-modern liberal feminism oppose the views of radical feminists and argue instead that sex work need not be viewed as exploitive, but rather as a source of power and ‘agency’ (Ahmed, 2011, p. 230).25 Sex work must be viewed as an individual choice and thus should be decriminalized. The decriminalization of sex-work will inevitably place sex-work in the realm of legitimate work and in doing so, protects women from the aggression that radical feminists complain of. Moreover, as a legitimate form of work, women engaged in sex-work will be protected from threats to health and life such as AIDS/HIV (Ahmed, 2011).26 It is not clear how the decriminalization of sex work will or can protect female sex workers from the threat of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS/HIV. The threat of sexually transmitted diseases exist independent of prostitution and the onus is on the prostitute or sex worker to take precautions against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.27 In fact many prostitutes report using condoms and refusing to engage in risky sexual behaviour. 28 However, the risk of sexually transmitted diseases may be reduced through decriminalization of prostitution activities in the sense that sex workers will have the right to protection from deliberate acts of oppression where they are forced to engage in commercial sex without the use of a condom or are forced to engage in risky sexual behaviour. As a result of the stigmatization of prostitution and the criminalization of prostitution activities, prostitutes are reluctant to report crimes against them in the course of their work. Reporting would act is an admission of social deviance and/or criminal behaviour.29 While amenable to the idea of protection against violence and sexual assault, prostitutes tended to be concerned about the financial consequences of lawful prostitution. There were concerns about regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases, reporting income, paying taxes and the possibility of being required to obtain and pay for an operational licence.30 Even so, according to post-modern liberalists and the theoretical model for sex workers, sex work is a legitimate source of work arising out of the voluntary consent of the sex worker and the client. Such this consensual arrangement is a contract and should be treated as any other contract under the law. The autonomy of the individuals involved should take precedence over social morals. This view is guided by John Stuart Mill’s argument that government should distance itself from the ‘private affairs of its citizens’.31 However, since prostitution usually involves the offer of services to members of the public, it is not a contract of service that can be properly regarded as private. Liberalists promoting the theoretical model for sex workers believe that regarding sex workers as employees places greater control of the activity with the sex worker and solves many of the problems associated with prostitution. Moreover, rather than penalising female prostitutes who perform a ‘legitimate service, the law should increase punishment for violence committed against prostitutes and/or involuntary prostitution’.32 Theorists and activists in favour of prostitution argue that prostitution is a legitimate service because it provides a valid sexual outlet for men who are sexually frustrated and thus prevents these men become a burden to and/or ‘menace to society’.33 Post-modern American feminist Laurie Shrage argues that prostitution as a valid service should be regulated rather than criminalised. In this regard, prostitutions should be required to obtain a license which should only be issued if the prostitute successfully completes courses preparing them for professional prostitution services. A license would be conditional upon the prostitution complying with professional standards of sex provision and for protecting society from the risk of damage associated with commercial sex.34 The exact nature of these standards are not explained. Shrage only suggests that courses should include knowledge and skills about human sexuality from a biological and social perspective.35 It can therefore mean that prostitutes should be aware of and take precautions against the risk of violence or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. As Jeffreys argues however, prostitution does not require any special skills only that the service provider possesses a body part, is able to keep emotional attachment at arm’s length and is able to identify and mitigate against dangerous situations. Such skills are expected of all individuals who interact in a social world and maintain relationships.36 In other words, prostitution is not a trade that should be regarded as therapeutic or involving special skills requiring licensing. Thus despite the arguments for making sex work a legitimate form of labour subject to regulation, it is difficult to justify the argument. However, post-modern liberalists insist that prostitution is a career choice which empowers and liberates females. The problems associated with prostitution in terms of sexual violence, the spread of disease and the stigmatization of sex workers stems from the criminalization of prostitution and related activities. Criminalization and stigmatization drives the profession underground where sex workers operate in deteriorating conditions and are exposed to health and safety risks. For this reason alone, sex workers should be treated as employees and subject to health and safety regulations accorded all employees.37 As with the radical perspective that sex work should be abolished altogether, the post-modernist liberalist view that sex work should be legitimized is also controversial. Both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. However, it would appear that for the most part, neither perspective is capable of justifying a change in the present law. The main problem with change is derived from the fact that neither the radical feminist nor the post-modern liberal feminist have satisfactorily identified a victim. Although radical feminists and post-modern feminists perceive that sex workers are victims, there are differences in their reasons for this conclusion. Post-modern feminists blame the criminalization of sex work as the primary reason for victimization of prostitutes. Radical feminists blame male dominance in a patriarchal society for the victimization of sex workers. The law does not really identify a victim, but it is clear that from the perspective of the law, the activities associated with sex work causes societal disorder and at the same times adds to corruption of social morals.38 Having considered both sides of the feminist debate, the next sections examines whether or not the case for considering sex workers employees can be justified. 4. Sex Workers as Employees For the most part, concerns about commercial sex tend to be linked to science and criminology. From a scientific perspective, prostitutes were viewed as mentally sick individuals who were prone to contract and spread sexually transmitted diseases. From a criminological perspective, prostitutes are linked to crime especially organized crime and the trade in illicit drugs.39 Aside from the potential tensions between labour law and criminal law relative to sex work, there is a potential conflict in labour law. For example, a worker is defined by the Employments Rights Act 2003 as anyone who is the subject of an employment contract.40 An employee is a category of worker.41 In order to determine whether or not a worker is under an employment contract it is first necessary to establish that there is an employee who is expected to work in exchange for a wage. Secondly, there must be an employer who is willing to pay a wage for the work. Thirdly, the employee/worker must be prepared to surrender some control to the employer. Finally, where no written contract exists, the terms of the contract must be determined by reference to things said and done or typically done in practice.42 This is problematic for the legitimizing of sex work primarily because prostitution is typically carried out privately and between the provider of service and the receiver of service. One can therefore expect that there is no objective evidence of the terms of the contract in the absence of a signed, written agreement. Thus prostitution fails to satisfy the statutory definition of worker and therefore the idea of regarding sex workers as employees is untenable. In addition, the idea of legitimating sex work is compromised by the right of the employee to insist upon the right to health and safety at work under the labour law. Since sex work is private, it is difficult to imagine how health and safety can be regulated and enforced in sex work without infringing upon the right to privacy of the parties. As Feminist writer, Overall argues, a closer examination of sex work alone provides a justification for its criminalization. Sex work involves a number of problems including danger, the risk of abuse, robbery, exploitation and emotional pain. The risk of contracting and spreading AIDS heightens the danger involved in prostitution because there are many reports of clients refusal to use condoms and raping prostitutes. Rapes and robberies also creates a working environment where women generally hate males and become emotionally damaged.43 In a controversial turn, a United Nations group, UNAIDS, calls for the legalization of prostitution and the lifting of its status as a regulated labour. According to UNAIDS, the main problems associated with the spread of AIDS is the criminalization of prostitution which is a profession pursued by those who are most vulnerable to AIDS. The criminalization of prostitution worsens the risk of contracting and spreading AIDS primarily because sex workers operate under fear of arrest. As a result, they often negotiate a sexual contract quickly and rarely have the opportunity to establish boundaries and negotiate methods for engaging in safe sex.44 In addition, under fear of arrest, sex workers are forced to work in seclusion and as such are exposed to violence and poor working conditions. This increases the risk of contracting and/or spreading AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Forced underground by criminalization of prostitution, sex workers are unable to hire body guards and as such are further exposed to health and safety risks as they do not have the resources to screen and monitor clients. Moreover, the criminalization of prostitution informally grants violent clients a form of ‘impunity’ so that repeat acts of violence can be perpetrated on prostitutes since a fear of prosecution for prostitution prevents prostitutes reporting acts of violence to law enforcement.45 Thus, UNAIDS suggest the legalization of prostitution with a view to removing the barriers to protection of sex workers from violence and the risk of contracting and spreading HIV/AIDS. If legalized, prostitutes would receive equal protection of the law with respect to working conditions and health and safety at work regulations.46 The problem with the UNAIDS recommendations is much the same as the problem with the radical feminists’ argument. Both arguments assume that prostitutes have no choice but to engage in prostitution and to endure its dangerous working conditions. The UNAIDS, like post-modern liberal feminist, proposes that the solution to this dilemma is to legalize prostitution, while the radical feminist propose abolition of prostitution. In general however, there are a number of problems associated with prostitution which renders it virtually unmanageable under labour law. In considering whether or not prostitution as the oldest form of sex work should be considered a legitimate source of employment, the issues for consideration go beyond post-modern liberalists’ arguments for autonomy and power and the radical feminists’ argument of male power and dominance. Feminists’ arguments must be considered together with social concerns about the legitimacy of prostitution. The social concerns stem from perceptions of prostitution as sinful, and perceptions of sex workers as ‘social misfits, sexual slaves, victims of pimps and drug addiction, and tools of organized crime.’47 Despite efforts by feminists movements such as Call off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE) to change attitudes toward prostitution and to transform it as a legitimate source of work, public perceptions of prostitution as a social problem have remained unchanged for the most part.48 This is significant because stigmatization which is thought to motivate violence against prostitutes, will not likely be changed by legitimizing prostitution and giving it a work status. Public perceptions of prostitution as a social ill will not likely be changed by legitimization and the expected gains from legitimization are unlikely to be achieved as a result. When considering whether or not the radical feminists’ argument that prostitutes are victims of male power and dominance, it is also necessary to consider other factors contributing to the reason women engage in prostitution. Although the main reason is economic survival, a study conducted by Cusick and Hickman reveal that the primary reason for women taking up prostitution is to support an illicit drug habit.49Therefore, legitimising a socially unacceptable trade so that those engaged in this trade can have the means to support an illicit drug habit is highly questionable. This would therefore only add to the social ills perceived to be associated with prostitution. A study conducted by Gorry, Roen and Reilly adds weight to the radical feminists’ argument for the abrogation of prostitution. Gorry, et al., argued that much of the research highlight the health and safety risks in terms of violence and sexually transmitted diseases associated with prostitution. However very little attention has been paid to the psychological effects of prostitution. Gorry, et al., interviewed 7 street prostitutes in the UK and 5 health professionals who provide clinical support for prostitutes. The interview results indicate that street sex workers in the UK suffer negative emotional consequences which are directly linked to the indignity of selling sex.50 Given both the physical and emotional damages associated with prostitution, the radical feminists approach to the legitimization of prostitution, although flawed, is preferable to the post-modern liberalists’ approach. Although there are prostitutes that are genuinely engaging free choice and joining the profession for legitimate economic reasons, the large majority are engaged in prostitution for the purpose of supporting an illicit drug habit. Regardless of the reason for joining the profession, it appears that these prostitutes are driven to the profession by some form of coercion. For example, prostitution is chosen because the prostitute has a need to survive and enters the profession in order to earn the necessary funds for self-support or for supporting the family. However it would appear that if this category of prostitutes were able to qualify for legitimate work, prostitution would not be the selected form of employment. This is because prostitution comes with both physical and mental health consequences. Others are forced into prostitution for the purpose of supporting an illicit drug habit. Given the emotional harm associated with prostitution, it is suggested that prostitution is degrading to the female. Moreover, there is something inherently wrong with selling ones’ self and sex for any form of economic gain. This promotes promiscuity and other forms of risky behaviour and in the meantime, minimizes intimacy and cheapens the idea of sex as the consummation of a healthy relationship.51 Promiscuity, risky behaviour and the trivializing of sexual relationship can have a negative impact on young people who might see sexual promiscuity as socially acceptable since prostitution is viewed as a legitimate source of work. Therefore, the social ills associated with prostitution makes it impossible to advocate that sex work be considered a legitimate source of work. Based on the physical and emotional harm associated with sex work, the case for considering sex work employees cannot be justified. All of these factors contribute significantly to what Cruz terms the ‘unmanageable’ aspect of commercial sex.52 The unmanageable aspect of sex work including the risk to health and safety and the limitations on streamlining sex workers and their clients makes it very difficult to manage under labour laws. 5. Conclusion The post-modern liberal feminists’ argument that prostitution represents an expression of female power and liberalization is novel and interesting. However the truth of this argument is questionable at best since the overwhelming consensus in the literature is that sex work is inherently dangerous and exposes prostitutes to male dominance and power through violence and robberies. In addition, public attitudes toward prostitution represents a form of public shaming of prostitutes. Therefore overall, prostitution does not represent liberalization nor female power but rather represents what the feminist radicals describe as powerlessness, degradation and abuse. It is entirely doubtful that legalization of prostitution would reverse the status quo since public perceptions of prostitution will likely perpetuate the treatment of prostitutes. When considered together with the risk of spreading sexually transmitted disease, it is clear that prostitution is far too dangerous an activity to regulate as a legitimate career. It places far too much of a burden on a society that does not support prostitution and regards it negatively. The burden on society involves the funding of regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases, the public nuisance associated with prostitution and the social disorder born out of the link between prostitution and illicit drugs. If the majority of prostitutes engage in prostitution for the purpose of funding an illicit drug habit, prostitution directly provides a market for illicit drugs for which public funds are used to fight the sale and use of illicit drugs. In addition, illicit drugs are linked to crimes of theft and violence and therefore contributes to social disorder. Therefore, rather than legitimize prostitution, the laws should be changed to ensure that prostitution is more strictly criminalized and police powers of arrest are strengthened. Policy changes should be directed toward empowering females with equal education and career opportunities for economic survival. Bibliography Journal Articles Ahmen, A. ‘Feminism, Power, and Sex Work in the Context of HIV/AIDS: Consequences for Women’s Health.’ (2011) 34 Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 225-258. Albin, E. ‘The Case of Quashie: Between the Legalisation of Sex Work and the Precariousness of Personal Service Work.’ (2013) 42(2) Indiana Law Journal, 180-191. Castro, A. ‘Better in Theory: The Road to Prostitution Reform in Pennsylvania.’ (Spring 2012) 9 (1) Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, 37-71. Cavalieri, S. ‘Between Victim and Agent: A Third-Way Feminist Account of Trafficking for Sex Work.’ (2011) 86 Indiana Law Journal, 1409-1458. Cruz, K. ‘Unmanageable Work, (Un)livable Lives: The UK Sex Industry, Labour Rights and the Welfare State.’ (December 2013) 22(4) Social Legal Studies, 465-488. Cusick, L. and Hickman, M. ‘Trapping in Drug Use and Sex Work Careers.’ (2005) 12(5) Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 369-379. Dreyfus, T. ‘Sex, Work, Law and Sex Work Law: Towards a Transformative Feminist Theory.’ (Spring 2013) 4(1) MP: An Online Feminist Journal, 6-35. Gorry, J.; Roen, K. and Reilly, J. ‘Selling Your Self? The Psychological Impact of Street Sex Work and Factors Affecting Support Seeking.’ (September 2010) 18(5) Health & Social Care in the Community, 492-499. Hubbard, P.; Matthews, R. and Scoular, J. ‘Regulating Sex Work in the EU: Prostitute Women and the New Spaces of Exclusion.’ (2008) 15(2) Geography, 137-152. Jenness, V. ‘From Sex as Sin to Sex as Work: COYOTE and the Reorganization of Prostitution as a Social Problem.’ (August 1990) 37(3) Social Problems, 403-420. Lutnick, A. and Cohan, D. ‘Criminalization, Legalization or Decriminalization of Sex Work: What Female Sex Workers Say in San Francisco, USA.’ (2009) 17(34) Reproductive Health Matters, 38-46. MacKinnon, Catharine, A. ‘Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory.’ (Spring 1982) 7(3) Signs, 515-544. Overall, C. ‘What’s Wrong with Prostitution? Evaluating Sex Work.’ (Summer 1992) 17(4) Signs, 705-724. Sloan, L. and Wahab, S. ‘Feminist Voices on Sex Work: Implications for Social Work.’ (2000) 15 Affilia, 457-479. Sutherland, K. ‘Work, Sex, and Sex-Work: Competing Feminist Discourses on the International Sex Trade.’ (2004) 42(1) Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 139-167. Warr, D.J. and Pyett, P.M. ‘Difficult Relations: Sex Work, Love and Intimacy.’ (May 1999) 21(3) Sociology of Health & Illness, 290-309. Zatz, N.D. ‘Sex Work/Sex Act: Law, Labor, and Desire in Constructions of Prostitution.’ (Winter 1997)22(2) Signs, 277-308. Textbooks Canter, D.; Ioannou, M. and Youngs, D. ‘Sex and Violence: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution.’ In Canter D.; Ioannou, M. and Youngs, D. (Eds.) Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution. (Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009) Ch. 1. Dank, B.B.M. and Refinetti, R. Sex Work and Sex Workers. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1999). Davidov, G. ‘The Reports of My Death are Greatly Exaggerated: Employee as a Viable (Though Over-Used) Legal Concept,’ In Davidov, G. and Langille, B. (Eds.) Boundaries and Frontiers of Labour Law, (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2005) Ch. 7. Frug, M. J. ‘A Post Modern Feminist Legal Manifesto.’ In Weisberg, D. K. and Steinberg, R.J. (Eds.) Applications of Feminist Legal Theory to Women’s Lives. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996) 250-260. Helfgott, J.B. Criminal Behavior: Theories, Typologies and Criminal Justice. (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2008). Jeffreys, S. The Idea of Prostitution. (Victoria, Australia: Spinifex Press Pty. Ltd., 2008). Miller, W.R. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2012). Murthy, P.; Upadhyay, U.D. and Nwadinobi, E. ‘Violence Against Women and the Girl-Child: A Silent Global Pandemic.’ (In Murthy P. and Smith, C. (Eds.) Women’s Global Health and Human Rights. (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2010) 11-24. Pendleton, E. ‘Love for Sale: Queering Heterosexuality.’ In Nagle, J. (Ed.) Whores and Other Feminists. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2013) 73-82. Phoenix, J. ‘Be Helped or Else! Economic Exploitation, Male Violence and Prostitution Policy in the UK.’ In Giusta, M.D. and Munro, V. (Eds.) Demanding Sex: Critical Reflections on the Regulation of Prostitution. (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008) Ch. 2. Tewksbury, R. and Cagne, P. ‘Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: Men Who Patronize Prostitutes.’ In Holmes, R.M and Holmes, S.T. (Eds.) Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes. (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2001) 85-98 Wahab, S.; Anderson-Nathe, B. and Gringeri, C. ‘Joining the Conversation: Social Work Contributions to Feminist Research.’ In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.) Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. (London, UK: SAGE Publications, 2012) 455-474. Statutes Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Employments Rights Act 2003. Sexual Offences Act 1985. Street Offences Act 1959. Miscellaneous Publications UNAIDS. ‘Judging the Epidemic: A Judicial Handbook on HIV, Human Rights and the Law.’ (May 2013) Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 1-244. Cases Autoclenz v Belcher (2011) UKSC 41. Stringfellows v Restaurants Ltd. V Nadine Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735. Read More