Did Cambridge decriminalize sex work? A lawyer’s perspective

On Oct. 5, the Cambridge City Council passed a policy designed to protect sex workers and prevent trafficking. This initiative was developed by the Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective (BSWAC), a sex worker-led organization born out of the Cambridge Women’s Center that represents sex workers and sex trafficking survivors in Greater Boston. I’m a staff attorney at Justice at Work, and I supported BSWAC by drafting the policy. Because the new order has created confusion and touches on a longstanding and sensitive debate, it’s important to clarify its intended scope. 

The order instructs the city manager to work with the city’s staff and local departments to strengthen anti-poverty measures; prevent trafficking of LGBTQIA+ youth; establish a dedicated helpline for sex workers to report abuse without interacting with police; and ensure harm-reduction services and safe reporting options for sex workers.

The council also declared that the arrest and prosecution of “adult persons for consensual sex work” and “persons who provide support services to sex workers absent unlawful means [that is, fraud, force, or coercion]” should remain among the lowest enforcement priorities. Cities cannot change state criminal laws or tell district attorneys what to do, but they can influence police enforcement priorities and express their policy positions to prosecutors. 

In Cambridge, there are few police tips about and prosecutions of offenses like soliciting or nightwalking, but the council’s order still matters: It helps alleviate sex workers’ pervasive fear of arrest.

The order, which no council member voted against, reflects an unambiguous consensus to protect sex workers. Views differ, however, on whether the order includes people beyond sex workers. The partial criminalization approach to sex work (also called Nordic or End Demand) advocates penalizing clients and people who provide services to sex workers, which may include landlords, drivers, security guards, and outreach workers (together, “support aides”), but not sex workers. The theory is that these penalties will reduce demand in the sex trade and, ultimately, liberate “prostituted women” from oppression. In contrast, full decriminalization aims to eliminate criminal sanctions for all parties involved in consensual adult sex work and related activities, including clients and support aides. Trafficking and sexual exploitation involving force, fraud, or coercion, as well as rape and assault, remain criminal offenses under this approach. This model does not seek state regulation, and some proponents may explicitly oppose it.

When a provision directing the City Council to support the “full decriminalization of consensual adult sex work statewide” at the State House was struck from the final order, some news outlets interpreted its removal as an indication that clients were excluded. That conclusion goes too far, however. The omission likely reflects differing views among councilors and the general public on whether clients are covered. Sex worker rights advocates like me believe they should be. 

The press coverage overlooked another important element of the order: It explicitly names “sex work” as a form of labor, rather than something done to women. This language is incredibly significant for sex workers, who often feel dehumanized by labels like “victims,” “prostituted women,” or “whores.” It also matters for workers and service providers who fear arrest simply for coming together to share resources and keep each other safe.

This battle should now be taken to the state legislature. Further education will hopefully convince lawmakers that full decriminalization is the safest policy. Human rights and global health organizations and experts agree that this model best promotes access to health care, social services, and justice. Criminalizing any aspect of the transaction — including clients — can increase disease, violence, stigma, and discrimination. The sex industry, though imperfect, provides a livelihood for people navigating the hardships of an increasingly difficult economy. At my office, when workers face vulnerabilities and risks, we do not aim to shut down their industries. We support their right to organize and fight for dignity, which deters scofflaw employers and raises the floor for all workers. Full decriminalization facilitates this kind of worker-led organizing, which is necessary to realize a safer and more just economy.

***

The writer is an employment law attorney, supporting worker centers in Massachusetts and workers in low-paying jobs, some of whom are workplace crime-survivors. She earned a doctoral degree from Harvard Law School focused on the intersection of sex worker experiences and the law.

A stronger

Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.

We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.

Please consider a recurring contribution.

Donate now