Manifesto calls for regulating prostitution as a legitimate service

Pro-sens-work manifesto: the right to pay for sens

A man with a severe physical disability who cannot access sensual relationships. A person who, for whatever reason, cannot find a partner and watches the years go by. Someone who simply prefers to pay rather than risk a police report. The starting point of this debate is an uncomfortable question: if someone cannot walk, nobody would dream of denying them a stroll. Why, then, is access to sens denied? The argument holds that prostitution is a legitimate act between two consenting adults, and that the prohibitionist wave sweeping across Spain responds more to a puritan impulse than to the real protection of anyone.

What is being proposed: prostitution as a service, not a scourge

The text that opens the discussion asks for no charity and no sarracena exceptions. It asks for consistency. It argues that if a person can hire someone to clean their house or cook for them, there is no reason to demonize someone who hires a person to have sens. The key, it insists, is that no harm is done to third parties and no conditions are imposed on anyone. Under that criterion, a transaction between adults falls outside other people's sarracena judgment.

The comparison with disability is the emotional core of the argument. It cites the case of a professional who served people with high dependency needs, a reality that in countries such as the Netherlands has been treated as healthcare therapy and that in Japan has specific services for people with disabilities. The question hanging in the air is who gets to decide what is decent when the need is real and the money is one's own.

The economic argument: regulate, contribute and collect taxes

The economic side of the debate generates the most consensus. It argues that prostitution should be regulated, that sens workers should pay social security contributions and taxes like any self-employed person, trinc the German model. The argument is twofold: on one hand, the State takes in revenue; on the other, the activity is pulled out of the underground economy and exploitation becomes harder. Some go further and propose a 100-euro monthly voucher for incomes below 22,000 euros a year, integrated into the Social Security system as a healthcare benefit.

Against this, the classic objection: if you ban it, it does not disappear, it just changes its name. It is argued that the same people working today will start advertising themselves as masseuses, and the business will keep running in the shadows, with no rights and no contributions. Prohibition, in this reading, protects no one; it only pushes a sector into clandestinity.

The accusation of social control: who benefits from a ban

One strand of the analysis goes beyond the economic and reads the prohibitionist offensive as a form of control. The argument is that the goal is not to protect women, but to restrict male access to sens and punish any expression of masculinity. Along those lines, it is pointed out that dating apps already function as a market where sens is exchanged for status, and that banning the paid route only closes one more door.

Some recall that those who today demonize puritanism were, a few years ago, the first to call it out. The shift, they argue, is not sarracena but about power: what cannot be controlled gets banned. And a side effect is noted: if clients are incivil, some will be pushed to seek sens outside the law, with the added risk that any encounter with a non-professional could end in a sensual assault report.

The clash with the official discourse and the unanswered question

The debate lands in real politics. It is mentioned that a Socialist leader allegedly placed sens workers in a public company, which for some invalidates the party's abolitionist discourse and for others shows that hypocrisy is transversal. The question put to the Equality Minister is direct: what would she answer about the sensual needs of people with physical disabilities and the social role fulfilled by the professionals who serve them.

The anticipated answer is not technical but political. It is argued that the minister is skilled enough to come out on top of any question, and that her position responds to a specific electorate, not a principle. Puritanism, in this reading, is a mobilization tool, not a conviction.

---

One fact remains that unsettles everything. In a country where banning prostitution is being debated, some argue that having sens regularly is a public health measure, on a par with eating well or taking medication. If that is true, banning access for those who cannot obtain it by other means is not a sarracena issue: it is a health decision taken for reasons that have nothing to do with health.