Sex work or prostitution?

Scholars are rightly expected to explain why we use ‘sex work’ instead of ‘prostitution’, but I am also wary of the risk that if researchers endlessly reproduce lengthy justifications, we will reproduce the anxiety surrounding the issue itself. Moreover, debates over terminology are often proxies for more fundamental matters that the discourse does not come to grips with. In my terminology, I take a slightly more relaxed approach, while still being precise.

Although sex work has been part of the English language since the early 1930s and sex worker has been in use since the early 1970s (OED 2024a, b), it was sex worker Carol Leigh (1997) who popularised the term in the early 1980s, as activists in the US sex workers’ movement asserted that their occupation should be recognised and accorded rights similar to those of other working people. Other activists and scholars were quick to discuss and apply this phrase (see Chapkis 1997; Kempadoo and Doezema 1998; Nagle 1997; Perkins et al. 1994; Rubin 1992). Since then, the choice between sex work or prostitution and sex worker or

46

prostitute has been contentious and part of the struggle to define meanings in the feminist ‘sex wars’ (Snitow et al. 1983; Vance 1992a). In Sweden, when the term sex work was first used, social commentators likened it to ‘The invasion of the body snatchers’, the 1970s movie where the earth was insidiously invaded by aliens (Ohlsson 2002). Today, in upholding, defending and expanding Sweden’s policy, the government sees it as one of its tasks to counteract the use of the term ‘sex work’ (Socialdepartementet 2017; Regnér et al. 2016).

In social science research, the choice of terminology has largely reflected divisions between differing understandings of commercial sex. Sex work and sex workers are used mainly by those with a multifaceted approach, and prostitution and prostitutes by those with an oppression paradigm (for these different approaches, see Chapter 2). Today, there are signs of a more relaxed use of ‘prostitution’, but ‘prostitute’ is rarely used because this term signals passivity, reflecting a person’s social and psychological state rather than their actions and choices (see Kempadoo and Doezema 1998).

As anthropologists Susan Dewey, Treena Orchard and Tiantian Zheng (2015) say, using emic terminology presents challenges when even the use of the phrase ‘sex work’ ignites debates. Moreover, as researchers studying sex work reflect on our conversations with others, we realise that people have vastly different experiences of and attitudes toward selling sexual services. Some embrace the terms sex work and sex worker, while others distance themselves from this terminology because of its political or Western connotations. Still others regard the distinction between sex worker and prostitute as irrelevant; they see the activity as a practical way of securing drugs, housing, or money to meet their basic needs (Dewey et al. 2015; Lakkimsetti 2020; Östergren 2006, Skilbrei 2019).

I alternate between these terms to respect the diversity of experiences within and perspectives on the sex trade. As Susan Dewey, sociologist Isabel Crowhurst, and anthropologist and social work scholar Chimaraoke Izugbara (Crowhurst et al. 2021) say, I seek to account for the differing positions along the field’s political spectrum, not to dilute those differences but to encompass them. Another reason to alternate terms is that they reflect how different legislatures define the sex trade and the legal status of individuals selling sex in their jurisdictions. While it is possible to talk about sex work and sex workers in law and policy terms in the New Zealand context, this is not the case in Sweden.