在自由民主憲政國家的法治理念中，警政與司法的角色並非強加一種認同於公民，強迫人們遵循單一的生活形式，而是透過法律，為新形成的性與認同開發討論空間與學理概念，促使相互爭辯的群體或生活風格保持和諧。同時，市民社會的政治，並非在於設計政策，使具特定認同的群體凌駕其他，而是透過公開對話與協商，提出必要的改變，使具備各種認同的群體，不必靠著暴力與壓制共同生活。因此，任何行政管理原則，都必須透過（包括憲法層次的）法律協商，協調各種群體間的社會關係，而不是為國家所管理的公共政策，尋求方法與目的。 然而，在台灣，針對成年性工作者的行政管理原則─《社會秩序維護法》第80條─卻反其道而行。它歸屬於維護社會基本運作的行政法，而非制裁犯罪的刑法，但卻將其管制範疇擴及人民自由的剝奪。這不僅侵犯刑事制裁體系，也明顯違反了憲法對人身自由權的保障。更重要的是，該條款以拘禁人身自由的保安處分懲罰性工作者，無疑地是將十九世紀階級鬥爭所發展出來的法律工具，導入性／別領域。它在女人內部建立單一的性價值觀與高度不平等的性階層，將性工作者由受害者、低劣者，轉化為必須被改造的對象，從而達成淨化社會整體的目的。精確地說，如同納粹德國時期一般，它以「國家效能」，斷定女人的性優劣，並依照（排斥他者的）性／別秩序，決定不同群體的存與歿。這是一種永久淨化的國家種族主義，一種維持社會常態化的方式。因此，本文將探討，在該法條的立法過程中，性工作者如何被確認為罪與罰的有效主體，以及這個性／別秩序的生成演變。

n a free and democratic constitutional state, the police and judiciary should not impose a monistic lifestyle, but should rather maintain peace between contending groups and lifestyles. Politics in a civil society is not so much about instituting policies designed to help one group dominate others, but about public dialogue and negotiation of the measures necessary to allow divergent groups to coexist without violence and suppression. Administrative regulations, then, are about negotiating the rules (including the constitution) which govern the relations between different groups, and not about finding the ends and means for state-managed public policy. However, Article 80 of the Social order Maintenance Act creates totally adverse conditions for adult sex workers, intrudes on the penal code, and violates the Constitution. From the perspective of the politics of sexuality, this law reflects the power of subjugation. It establishes a single set of sexual values, transforming sex workers from victims into the subject of a social purification campaign. The nullification of this law is the precondition for a true and just discourse (Foucault, 2003: 57-58). Maintaining social order is thus not a foundation, but a normative injunction that operates insidiously by installing itself into political discourse as its necessary ground. On November 6, 2009, the Justice of the Constitutional Court declared through Juridical Explanation No. 666 that Article 80 of the Social Order Maintenance Act is a violation of the Constitution and should be rendered invalid within two years. The follow-up development is not yet conclusive. Even so, what is really necessary is to bring the cultural dynamics behind policies into sharper view, and trace the implications of further regulations.