Not Your Mama's Feminism: The Policy in Practice - The Softer Side of Criminalization

Somewhere along the way, feminism learned a new language.

Click Here for Audio Version

What was once openly punitive is now framed as diversion, exit, or support.

People are told they aren’t being punished - they’re being helped.

But the help comes with conditions, and those conditions begin with arrest.

The shift is rhetorical, not structural.

• The police still initiate the process

• The courts still control the outcome

Freedom is still contingent on compliance.

The Assumption Beneath the Policy

The assumption driving these systems is not subtle. It is the belief that people in the sex trade cannot be trusted to define their own needs, that safety must be coerced, and that support only works when backed by punishment. Once this assumption is embedded in policy, autonomy is no longer possible.

Compliance becomes the measure of worthiness, and freedom becomes conditional.

When Choice Disappears

What disappears in these systems is not just flexibility, but real choice. Choice means the ability to accept help without surrendering privacy, livelihood, or bodily autonomy. Under arrest-based “support” models, assistance is no longer something a person can opt into or out of; it becomes something they must earn through compliance.

Services are not offered freely - they are rationed, monitored, and withdrawn when behavior fails to meet institutional expectations.

In these systems, support functions act as leverage.

• Housing

• Treatment

• Childcare access

Even basic stability are conditioned on surveillance and obedience.

• Miss an appointment.

• Fail a drug test.

• Push back against a case plan that doesn’t fit your life.

The response is not adjustment or care, but punishment. The softened language of help obscures the reality that the power to decide remains entirely with the state.

Control is not eliminated; it is simply rebranded as compassion.

Imagine This Applied Anywhere Else

Now imagine this same logic applied to other industries. Consider construction work - one of the most dangerous sectors in the country, marked by high injury rates, long-term physical damage, workplace deaths, wage theft, and the routine exploitation of undocumented workers.

• We do not arrest construction workers “for their own safety.”

• We do not require them to enter court-supervised exit programs to access healthcare.

• We do not threaten jail if they fail to complete job training or decide the work still makes financial sense for them.

• We do not condition housing or medical care on a worker’s willingness to abandon construction entirely.

We recognize that labor-related dangers are not solved by criminalizing workers, but by addressing the conditions under which the work takes place.

How Other Dangerous Work Is Treated

Instead, when harm occurs in other industries, the response - at least in theory - is structural. We regulate employers. We strengthen safety standards. We expand labor protections. We create pathways for workers to organize, demand safer conditions, seek compensation, or transition to other work if and when they choose. The key distinction is that the worker retains agency throughout the process.

This framework applies across sectors where risk and exploitation are well-documented: agriculture, meatpacking, domestic work, mining, fishing, warehousing, and gig driving.

These industries involve injury, economic coercion, immigration vulnerability, and systemic abuse. Workers in these fields may want to leave. They may need training, healthcare, or income support. But no one suggests arrest as the gateway to assistance. Help is not contingent on handcuffs.

Why Sex Work Is Treated Differently

We do not arrest grocery shoppers to “protect” farmworkers. We do not run diversion courts for warehouse workers harmed by unsafe quotas. We do not frame probation, surveillance, and behavioral monitoring as compassionate labor policy.

Yet when it comes to adult consensual sex work, these same tools are suddenly defended as feminist interventions.

Here, coercion becomes care. Arrest becomes protection.

The removal of autonomy is reframed as safety. The difference is not the level of risk involved - many industries are equally or more dangerous. The difference is moral judgment. Sex work is treated not as labor requiring rights, protections, and options, but as deviance requiring correction.

The Myth of “Alternate Jobs”

Supporters of exit-based policies often respond by asking why people cannot simply be helped into other jobs. The framing suggests benevolence, but it obscures a deeper assumption: that sex workers must abandon their industry entirely before they are worthy of support.

This expectation is not placed on any other group of workers.

The “alternate jobs” offered through exit programs are rarely pathways to stability. They are typically low-wage, precarious positions in industries already known for exploitation - retail, food service, cleaning, caregiving, warehouses, agriculture, or gig work. These jobs often demand rigid schedules, physical endurance, emotional labor, and constant supervision, while offering little flexibility, poor pay, and few protections.

For people navigating disability, trauma, caregiving responsibilities, criminal records, or immigration barriers, these jobs are not safer alternatives - they are often less sustainable.

Many pay less than sex work while requiring longer hours, more exposure to harassment, and greater vulnerability to wage theft. What is sold as an exit often leads to more profound economic instability.

Safety Without Surrender

No other workers are required to abandon their industry to deserve safety. A coal miner can demand better conditions without being told to leave the mines. A restaurant worker can report harassment without being forced into a new career. A factory worker can organize, retrain, or stay - without a judge deciding whether they have been compliant enough to eat, sleep indoors, or keep their children.

Sex workers are the exception. Not because the work is uniquely harmful, but because it is uniquely policed. In place of rights, they are offered rescue. In place of autonomy, supervision. And in place of genuine choice, a narrow set of options is enforced by the threat of punishment.

That is not safe. It is control - dressed up as concern.

What Real Equality Would Require

Genuine equality would treat sex work like every other form of labor affected by risk, stigma, and exploitation. It would mean access to services without arrest, healthcare without surveillance, job training without coercion, housing without compliance requirements, and the right to stay, leave, or transition on one’s own terms. It would mean trusting people to know what they need and recognizing that autonomy is not a reward for good behavior but a baseline condition of safety.

Control Isn’t Care

Buyer criminalization and mandated exit programs do not offer equality. They offer control with better branding. And until feminism is willing to apply the same labor logic to sex work that it applies everywhere else, the handcuffs remain - no matter how gentle the language wrapped around them.