The rise of platforms such as OnlyFans has forced discourse surrounding sex work further into the public eye – giving rise to conversations (and judgement) regarding its empowerment, ethics, and politics. Despite turns around income potential and personal autonomy, discussions often return to the same central question. It is frequently framed as a simple binary: black or white; good or bad; acceptable or impermissible. Ultimately, the issue is reduced to one fundamental question: should one be allowed to do this or not? Unfortunately, it is not a very productive conversation, with sex work having existed for thousands of years regardless of whether it was encouraged or punished by hegemonic societies. In a time when discrimination has been become appropriated and weaponized by those in power, a more compelling question would be to examine what it looks to have a person alienated for their profession and what the consequences are of valuing certain forms of labor over others.

Sex and money can be considered two of the most uncomfortable conversation topics in the world for the average person, so naturally making money through sex is doubly disagreeable. Socially, sex work has long been considered a deviant and unbecoming occupation with the media often obscuring or purposefully mispresenting the sex worker community. Censorship of educational material and the promotion of harm reduction practices towards sex workers like education on safety strategies, recognizing and responding to sexual abuse, and managing health risks occurs regularly across social media platforms (European Sex Worker´s Rights Alliance, 2022; Yadav, 2020). Furthermore, common frames used to portray sex work include criminalization, nationalization and regularization (Fuson, 2016). 

These frames often oversimplify the complexities of sex work by emphasizing law violations or political perspectives while marginalizing the lived experiences and personal narratives of sex workers. For example, in the reporting of murder and abuse cases of sex workers news outlets tend to emphasize the profession and its “risky lifestyle” as opposed to the actual victim (Lennon, 2021). The stigma extends into other lifestyle spheres with business owners and landowners refusing to lease or run advertisements for sex workers (Stardust, 2017) and healthcare professionals denying adequate care to sex workers through extended waiting times and perpetuated stereotypes towards medical history (Faissner et al., 2024). This social devaluation and stigmatization lead to serious personal implications for the individual and their identity. 

Sex workers continue to experience disproportionately high rates of mental health conditions, particularly depression and anxiety. Studies have found that more than half of sex workers in Europe have received a diagnosis of either depression or anxiety at some point in their lives (Puri et al., 2017). Sadly, this is a reinforcing cycle that leads to institutional mistrust and destabilization of the public services intended to keep people safe. Discrimination discourages sex workers from seeking adequate healthcare, increases the risk of untreated illnesses and the transmission of diseases such as HIV (Lyons et al., 2020). It also increases forced reliance on informal methods of financial processing and alternative payment methods, often leading to a lack of transparency and oversight of financial systems (El Qorchi et al., 2003). Demonstrating that prejudice towards a certain societal group is not only harmful to their personal well-being, but also to society as a whole.

Furthermore, sex work exists within a complicated web of legal systems that remain unable to determine whether criminalization or legalization is the best approach. Criminalisation, in part or in full, punishes the selling and buying of sexual services and is the framework most commonly found across the United States, Asia and Africa (NSWP, 2021b). Legal repercussions in the form of fines and a criminal record amount to exclusion from voting elections, limited access to financial aid, and reduced opportunity for other means of employment (Yale Global Health Justice Partnership, 2020). Excluding a certain group from political participation solely based on their profession undermines democratic representation and limits the inclusion of perspectives that are essential for effective policymaking. Research shows that countries that criminalise sex work actually report higher rates of sexual violence against this population as fear of arrest and punishment discourages reporting of abuse and limits access to legal protection (Deering et al., 2014). 

Although legalisation, a framework typically adopted in European countries, recognizes sex work as a legitimate form of employment, it also goes out of its way to severely limit it (NSWP, 2021). For example, sex workers must register with the government and obtain a subsequent license while establishments that facilitate the selling of sexual services are confined to specific zones and geographical locations (NWSP, 2021b). Aside from the serious implications for worker privacy and anonymity, many sex workers, due to immigration status or statutory age limits (Cruz, 2018), are unable to meet these requirements. Instead they are forced to continue operating outside of the legal framework, making it and its ensuing employee protections conditional. This creates a two-tiered system where some, often the minority of workers (Loch, 2022), are protected and the rest are not. The right to a minimum wage, regulation of working hours and rest periods, and access to social benefits have been recognised as fundamental labour protections beginning in the twentieth century (ILO, 2015). Restricting these protections to only a subset of workers weakens their universal effectiveness and limits their contribution to economic growth across labour markets (Buchele & Christiansen, 1999).

Alienation can take different forms, but its consequences are clear. When labor is hierarchized into “worthy” vs “unworthy”, the effects extend far beyond the individuals directly affected. Stigma and exclusion weaken trust in public institutions, undermine public health, distort labor markets, and reduce the effectiveness of legal protections intended to be universally applied. A society that selectively withholds rights and dignity based on occupation ultimately undermines the foundations upon which it depends.