SEXfor
SALE
PROSTITUTION,
P O R N O G R A P HY,
AND THE
SEX INDUSTRY
Second Edition
EDITED BY
RONALD WEITZER
First published by
Routledge 2000
This edition published 2010
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009.
To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.
© 2000 Taylor & Francis
© 2010 Taylor & Francis
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sex for sale: prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry/Ronald Weitzer.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
1. Prostitution. 2. Pornography. 3. Sex-oriented businesses. I. Weitzer, Ronald
HQ115.S49 2009
306.74–dc22
2009005994
ISBN 0-203-87280-0 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN10: 0–415–99604–X (hbk)
ISBN10: 0–415–99605–8 (pbk)
ISBN10: 0–203–87280–0 (ebk)
ISBN13: 978–0–415–99604–4 (hbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–415–99605–1 (pbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–203–87280–2 (ebk)
C
P T E
H A
R
1
SEX WORK:
PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
Ronald Weitzer
Sex work involves the exchange of sexual services, performances, or products
for material compensation. It includes activities of direct physical contact
between buyers and sellers (prostitution, lap dancing) as well as indirect sexual
stimulation (pornography, stripping, telephone sex, live sex shows, erotic
webcam performances). The sex industry refers to the workers, managers,
owners, agencies, clubs, trade associations, and marketing involved in sexual
commerce, both legal and illegal varieties.
O V E R V I E W O F TH E S E X I N D U STRY
Sex for sale is a lucrative growth industry. In 2006 alone, Americans spent
$13.3 billion on X-rated magazines, videos and DVDs, live sex shows, strip
clubs, adult cable shows, computer pornography, and commercial telephone
sex.1 Rentals and sales of X-rated films jumped from $75 million in 1985 to
$957 million in 2006.2 In just one decade, the number of X-rated films
released annually more than doubled, from 5700 in 1995 to 13,588 in 2005.3
There are around 3500 strip clubs in America, and the number has grown over
the past two decades.4 In addition to these indicators of legal commercial sex,
an unknown amount is spent on prostitution.
A significant percentage of the population buys sexual services and
products. In 2002, 34% of American men and 16% of women reported that
1
RONALD WEITZER
they had seen an X-rated video in just the past year.5 As of 2000, 21% of the
population had visited an Internet pornography site (32% of men, 11% of
women).6 The most recent figures on strip club attendance are from 1991,
when 11% of the population said they had done so in the past year; fewer people
(0.5%) had called a phone sex number in the past year.7 And a significant
percentage of American men have visited a prostitute. The General Social
Survey reports figures on the number of men who said that they had ever paid
for sex—between 15–18% in eight polls from 1991 to 2006 (in 2006, 4% said
they had done so in the past year).8 Remarkably similar figures are reported for
Australia (16%) and the average within Europe (15%),9 and 11% of British
men say they have paid for sex with a prostitute.10 Because prostitution is
stigmatized, the real figures may be significantly higher. In some other
societies, even more men say they have paid for sex. For example, in Spain 39%
of men have done so during their lifetime, and in northeastern Thailand 43%
of single men and 50% of married men had visited a prostitute.11 An unusual
question was included in a recent British survey: respondents were asked
whether they would “consider having sex for money if the amount offered was
enough”: 18% of women said yes, as did 36% of men.12
A steady trend is toward the privatization of sexual services and products:
porn has migrated from the movie house to the privacy of the viewer’s house.
Video, Internet, and cable TV pornography have exploded in popularity,
almost totally replacing the adult theaters of decades past. The advent of the
telephone sex industry and escort services also has contributed to the
privatization of commercial sex. And the Internet has changed the landscape
tremendously—providing a wealth of services, information, and connections
for interested parties. Internet-facilitated sex work has grown as a sector of the
market, while street prostitution has remained relatively stable over time,
although it has declined in some areas.13
Despite its size, growth, and numerous customers, the sex industry is
regarded by many citizens as a deviant enterprise: run by shady people and
promoting immoral or perverted behavior. There has been some “mainstreaming” of certain sectors of the sex industry (as documented in Chapter 12
by Lynn Comella), but it would be premature to conclude that sex for sale has
now become normalized, as some claim. Polls show that 72% of Americans
think that pornography is “an important moral issue for the country,”14 and
61% believe that it leads to a “breakdown of morals.”15 The most recent poll
(in March 2008) reported that fully half the population defined viewing
porn as “sinful behavior.”16 And almost half the population thinks that
pornography is “demeaning towards women” (one-quarter disagreed and the
remainder were undecided).17 When asked about the idea of “men spending
2
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
an evening with a prostitute,” 61% of Americans consider this morally
wrong,18 and two-thirds believe that prostitution can “never be justified,”
while 25% considered it “sometimes justified” and 4% “always justified.”19
(The term “justified” in this question is somewhat opaque, and we can only
speculate as to what respondents have in mind when they say prostitution can
“sometimes be justified.”) Two-thirds of the British population believe that
“paying for sex exploits women,” and young people are even more likely to
hold this opinion: 80% of those aged 18–24.20
Regarding public policies, most Americans favor either more controls or
a total ban on certain types of commercial sex. More than three-quarters (77%)
of the public think that we need “stricter laws” to control pornography in
books and movies,21 and half believe that pornography is “out of control and
should be further restricted.”22 In 2006, two-fifths of Americans (39%) felt
that pornography should be banned, and this figure has remained about
the same for two decades (41% held this view in 1984).23 A huge majority of
women (70%) want porn outlawed today, compared to 30% of men.24
Stripping and telephone sex work also carry substantial stigma. Almost half
of the American public believes that strip clubs should be illegal, while an
even higher number (76%) thought telephone numbers offering sex talk
should be illegal.25 Despite these personal opinions, people seem to think that
the country is headed in the direction of increasing tolerance. There are no
national polls on this question, but a 2002 survey of Alabama residents found
that 73% believed that “society as a whole” sees stripping as an occupation for
women to be “more acceptable today than ten years ago.”26 Many Alabama
residents are dissatisfied with this trend, however. In the same poll, 54% felt
that “stripping as an occupation is degrading or demeaning to the women,”
and only 24% thought that it was not, with the remainder undecided.
What we have, therefore, is a paradox: a lucrative industry that employs
a significant number of workers and attracts many customers but is regarded
by many people as deviant and in need of stricter control, if not banned
outright. The sex industry continues to be stigmatized, even when it is legal.
C O M P E TI N G PA R A D I G M S
When I mentioned the topic of prostitution to a friend recently, he said, “How
disgusting! How could anybody sell themselves?” A few weeks later an
acquaintance told me that she thought prostitution was a “woman’s choice,
and can be empowering.” These opposing views reflect larger cultural
perceptions of prostitution, as well as much popular writing on the topic.
3
RONALD WEITZER
Many people are fascinated, entertained, or titillated by sex work; many others
see it as degrading, immoral, sexist, or harmful; and yet others hold all these
views. Indeed, some prominent people have simultaneously condemned and
patronized the sex industry, and have been caught in hypocritical behavior:
■
■
■
■
■
■
Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) prosecuted prostitution rings when he served
as the state’s Attorney-General, but resigned the governorship in disgrace
after it was revealed in March 2008 that he had spent $4300 on an escort
employed by the exclusive Emperor’s Club agency. Shortly thereafter, it
was reported that he had also been a client of another escort agency,
Wicked Models. Prosecutors later determined that Spitzer had paid for
sex “on multiple occasions,” yet they declined to press criminal charges
against him.27
In 2007, Senator David Vitter (R-La) was linked to a Washington, DC,
escort agency. He refused to relinquish his Senate seat, but nevertheless
issued a public apology: “This was a very serious sin in my past for which
I am, of course, completely responsible.” He was also accused of repeatedly
visiting a New Orleans brothel in the late 1990s, according to both the
madam and one of the prostitutes. Vitter is well known for his conservative, “family values” positions.
In 2006, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev.
Ted Haggard, resigned after revelations that he had frequently paid for
sex with a male prostitute and had used methamphetamine with him. The
Association claims to represent 30 million evangelical Christians in the
United States.
In 1988, a prominent television evangelist, Rev. Jimmy Swaggart,
resigned his church leadership after photos were released of him with a call
girl in a New Orleans hotel (she later appeared on the cover of Penthouse
magazine). He continued his television ministry. Three years later, when
stopped by a police officer in California for a traffic violation, a prostitute
in his car told the officer that Swaggart had propositioned her for sex.
In Britain, Anthony Lambton, the Under-Secretary for Defense, resigned
in May 1973 after being photographed in bed with a call girl. A few days
later, another Cabinet member and the leader of the House of Lords,
George Jellicoe, resigned after confessing his own liaisons with call girls,
what he called “casual affairs.” Jellicoe had been in Parliament for 68
years, and he and Lambton were members of the Conservative Party.
Another member of the British Parliament, Mark Oaten, resigned in
2006 after it was reported that he had a year-long relationship with a male
prostitute.
4
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
These are just a few of the many examples of public figures who have
purchased sex illicitly. And, in addition to political and religious elites, the
clients include officials in the criminal justice system, with police chiefs and
prosecutors sometimes caught buying sex even as they are obligated to enforce
the laws against prostitution.28
The poles of condemnation and normalization are reflected in two
paradigms in the social sciences.29 One of these, the oppression paradigm, holds
that sex work is a quintessential expression of patriarchal gender relations and
male domination. The most prominent advocates of this position go further,
claiming that exploitation, subjugation, and violence against women are
intrinsic to and ineradicable from sex work—transcending historical time
period, national context, and type of sexual commerce.30 These indictments
apply equally to pornography, prostitution, stripping, and other commercial
sex. The only solution is elimination of the entire sex industry, which is
precisely the goal of those who adopt the oppression paradigm.
In addition to these essentialist claims, some writers make generalizations
about specific aspects of sex work: that most or all sex workers were physically
or sexually abused as children; entered the trade as adolescents, around 13–14
years of age; were tricked or forced into the trade by pimps or traffickers; use
or are addicted to drugs; experience routine violence from customers; labor
under abysmal working conditions; and desperately want to exit the sex
trade.31 These writers often use dramatic language to highlight the plight
of workers (“sexual slavery,” “prostituted women,” “paid rape,” “survivors”).
“Prostituted” clearly indicates that prostitution is something done to women,
not something that can be chosen, and “survivor” implies someone who has
escaped a harrowing ordeal. Customers are labeled as “prostitute users,”
“batterers,” and “sexual predators.” As shown later, these labels are misnomers
when applied to most customers and most sex workers.
Violating a core canon of scientific research, the oppression paradigm
describes only the worst examples of sex work and then treats them as
representative. Anecdotes are generalized and presented as conclusive evidence, sampling is selective, and counterevidence is routinely ignored. Such
“research” cannot help but produce tainted findings and spurious conclusions,
and this entire body of work has been severely criticized.32 Unfortunately, the
writings of oppression theorists are increasingly mirrored in media reports and
in government policies in the United States and abroad.
A diametrically opposed perspective is the empowerment paradigm. The
focus is on the ways in which sexual services qualify as work, involve human
agency, and may be potentially validating or empowering for workers.33 This
5
RONALD WEITZER
paradigm holds that there is nothing inherent in sex work that would prevent
it from being organized for mutual gain to all parties—just as in other
economic transactions. In other words, coercion and other unseemly practices
are not viewed as intrinsic aspects of sex work. Analysts who adopt this
perspective tend to accent the routine aspects of sex work, often drawing
parallels to kindred types of service work (physical therapy, massage,
psychotherapy) or otherwise normalizing sex for sale. Eileen McLeod argues
that prostitution is quite similar to other “women’s work,” and that both sex
workers and other women “barter sex for goods,” although the latter do so less
conspicuously.34 Writers who adopt the empowerment perspective also argue
that the tenets of the oppression paradigm reflect the way in which some sex
work manifests itself when it is criminalized. Much less is known about
prostitution in legal, regulated systems. It is important, therefore, to avoid
essentialist conclusions based on only one mode of production.
This kind of work may enhance a person’s socioeconomic status and
provide greater control over one’s working conditions than many traditional
jobs. It may have other benefits as well: “Many prostitutes emphasize that they
engage in sex work not simply out of economic need but out of satisfaction
with the control it gives them over their sexual interactions.”35 Some writers
who adopt the empowerment paradigm go further and make bold claims that
romanticize sex work. Shannon Bell describes her book, Whore Carnival, as “a
recognition and commendation of the sexual and political power and
knowledge of prostitutes,” which sounds rather celebratory.
Both the oppression and empowerment perspectives are one-dimensional
and essentialist. While exploitation and empowerment are certainly present
in sex work, there is sufficient variation across time, place, and sector to
demonstrate that sex work cannot be reduced to one or the other. An alternative perspective, what I call the polymorphous paradigm, holds that there is a
constellation of occupational arrangements, power relations, and worker
experiences. Unlike the other two perspectives, polymorphism is sensitive to
complexities and to the structural conditions shaping the uneven distribution
of agency, subordination, and workers’ control.36 Within academia, a growing
number of scholars are researching various dimensions of the work, in different
contexts, and their studies document substantial variation in how sex work is
organized and experienced by workers, clients, and managers. Together, these
studies undermine some deep-rooted myths about prostitution and present a
challenge to those writers and activists who embrace monolithic paradigms.
Victimization, exploitation, choice, job satisfaction, self-esteem, and other
dimensions should be treated as variables (not constants) that differ between
types of sex work, geographical locations, and other structural and organiza6
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
tional conditions. The chapters in Sex for Sale provide additional evidence in
support of the polymorphous paradigm.
T YP E S O F S E X W O R K
A brief discussion of different types of sex work will illustrate the polymorphous approach.
Prostitution
Prostitutes vary tremendously in their reasons for entry, risk of violence,
freedom to refuse clients and particular sex acts, dependence on and exploitation by third parties, experiences with the authorities, public visibility,
number and type of clients, relationships with coworkers, and impact on the
surrounding community. Table 1.1 presents a typology of prostitution.
(Excluded from the table are borderline cases, such as lap dancing, “kept”
women or men, geishas, etc.)
Before proceeding to a description of the different types of prostitution,
it is important to note that individual workers may cross one or more
categories. For instance, independent call girls may also accept regular or
occasional appointments from an escort agency, and massage parlor or brothel
workers sometimes moonlight by meeting customers in private and keeping
the earnings for themselves. It is rare, however, for workers to experience
substantial upward or downward mobility. As a general rule “the level at
which the woman begins work in the prostitution world determines her
general position in the occupation for much of her career as a prostitute.
Changing levels requires contacts and a new set of work techniques and
attitudes.”37 Occasionally, an upper or middle-tier worker whose life situation
changes (e.g., because of aging, drug addiction) is no longer able to work in
that stratum and gravitates to the street. But transitioning from street work
to the escort or call girl echelon is quite rare, because most street workers lack
the education and skill set required for upscale indoor work. Likewise, very
few call girls and brothel workers have previously worked on the streets. If a
move takes place, it is usually lateral and of limited mobility, such as from the
streets to a down-market peep show or from a massage parlor to an escort
agency or from an escort agency to independent work.
The most consequential division in Table 1.1 is that between street
prostitution and the various indoor types. In street prostitution, the initial
transaction occurs in a public place (a sidewalk, park, truck stop), while the
7
Escort agency;
private premises/hotels
Brothel
Massage parlor
Bar/casino contact;
sex elsewhere
Street contact; sex in cars,
alleys, parks, etc.
ESCORT
BROTHEL WORKER
MASSAGE PARLOR
WORKER
BAR OR CASINO
WORKER
STREETWALKER
Low
Low to
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
PRICES
CHARGED
High
Low to
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low to none
Very high
Low to
moderate
Very low
Very low
Low to
moderate
Low
E X P L O I TAT I O N
RISK OF
BY THIRD
VIOLENT
PARTI E S
V I C T I M I Z AT I O N
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Very low
None
PUBLIC
VISIBILITY
Adverse
Equivalent to
impact of bar/
casino
Little, if discreet
None, if discreet
None
None
I M PACT O N
COMMUNITY
Note: Table refers to female workers. The brothel and massage parlor workers depicted here do not include those who have been trafficked against their will or
otherwise forced into prostitution, whose experiences differ from those who have entered this work consensually.
Exploitation by third parties means third party receipt of at least some of the profits.
Risk of violent victimization refers here to victimization of prostitute, not of customer.
Impact on community refers to effects on the surrounding neighborhood’s quality of life.
Independent operator;
private premises/hotels
BUSINESS
L O C AT I O N
CHARACTE R I STICS OF TYPE S OF PROSTITUTION
CALL GIRL
TA B L E 1 . 1
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
sex act takes place in either a public or private setting (alley, park, vehicle,
hotel, etc.). Many street prostitutes are runaways who end up in a new locale
with no resources and little recourse but to engage in some kind of criminal
activity—whether theft, drug dealing, or selling sex. Many street workers,
both runaways and others, experience abysmal working conditions and are
involved in “survival sex.” They sell sex out of dire necessity or to support a
drug habit. Many use addictive drugs; work and live in crime-ridden areas; are
socially isolated and disconnected from support services; risk contracting and
transmitting sexual diseases; are exploited and abused by pimps; and are
vulnerable to being assaulted, robbed, raped, or killed on the streets. This is
the population best characterized by the oppression paradigm. Other street
prostitutes, especially those free of drugs and pimps, are in less desperate
straits but still confront a range of occupational hazards. Judith Porter and
Louis Bonilla’s chapter in this volume (Chapter 7) offers a close look at street
prostitution and documents differences between three prostitution zones in
Philadelphia.
When most people think of prostitution, they are thinking of street
prostitution, but off-street sexual transactions are just as important and, in
many countries, far more common than street work even though we lack data
on the exact numbers in each sphere. (In Thailand, for example, an estimated
0.7% of prostitutes work the streets, while the figures for the United States,
Holland, and Britain are reportedly closer to 20%.)38 We do know that ads for
escort agencies and for independent call girls on the Internet are abundant and
ever increasing.
Indoor prostitution takes place in brothels, massage parlors, bars, hotels,
and private premises. Compared to street prostitutes, indoor workers are much
less likely to have a background of childhood abuse (neglect, violence, incest),
to enter sex work at a young age, to engage in risky behavior (e.g., to use
addictive drugs and to engage in unprotected sex), and to be victimized by
others. Off-street workers who have not been coerced into prostitution are
much less likely to experience assault, robbery, and rape. A British study of
115 prostitutes who worked on the streets and 125 who worked in saunas or
as call girls found that the street prostitutes were much more likely than the
indoor workers to report that they had ever been robbed (37 vs. 10%), beaten
(27 vs. 1%), slapped/punched/kicked (47 vs. 14%), raped (22 vs. 2%),
threatened with a weapon (24 vs. 6%), or kidnapped (20 vs. 2%).39 Other
studies similarly find disparities in victimization between street and off-street
workers, with some reporting high percentages of indoor providers who have
never experienced violence on the job.40 Although random sampling was not
possible in these studies, the fact that they consistently document significant
9
RONALD WEITZER
street–indoor differences lends credence to the general conclusion. In addition
to differences in ever being victimized, street workers are more likely to
experience more frequent and more severe victimization.
This does not mean that indoor work is risk free: structural conditions are
a key predictor of vulnerability—conditions that include workers’ immigration status, drug dependency, third-party involvement (as protectors vs.
exploiters), etc. Moreover, indoor work in the Third World usually exists
under harsher conditions than in developed countries, even when it is legal.41
Having said that, there is no doubt that indoor settings are generally safer than
the streets. Overall, “street workers are significantly more at risk of more
violence and more serious violence than indoor workers.”42 Moreover, it
appears that legal context makes a difference: that is, the safety of indoor work
increases where prostitution is legal (see later).
Those who work collectively indoors—in brothels, massage parlors,
saunas, clubs—have the advantage of the presence of gatekeepers and
coworkers, who can intervene in the event of an unruly customer. Indoor
venues often have some screening mechanisms, video surveillance, and alarm
systems. Call girls and escorts are more vulnerable given their isolation when
doing outcalls at hotels or clients’ residences. But they also have a greater
proportion of low-risk, regular clients (see Chapter 8, by Janet Lever and
Deanne Dolnick) and they have their own methods of vetting potentially
dangerous customers (though these methods are not foolproof). They share
with other workers stories of bad clients who are then blacklisted, and they
routinely check in by phone with the agency or a friend at a designated time
before and after a visit. As one agency booker stated: “The girls call to check
in when they first get to an appointment. We had code words, like ‘Red Bull.’
If I heard her say she needed a Red Bull, I’d try to distract the guy on the
phone so she could get out of there.”43 The autobiography of former prostitute
Dolores French describes her unique ways of alerting her agent (Sarah) that
she was in danger in a man’s hotel room:
Sarah told me certain code names that were to be used for cops and crazies. . . .
“Judy” meant a cop; “Phyllis” meant a crazy . . .. So I called Sarah and said:
“Everything is fine here. By the way, has Judy been in the office lately? Well, if
Judy comes by, tell her I’d like to meet her for coffee.” [Sarah said] “Did he ask
you to have sex?” “Oh yes, he’s lots of fun.” Any positive answer I gave meant
yes, any negative answer . . . meant no. It was amazing how wonderfully this all
worked. As soon as Sarah understood there was danger, she was on full alert . . .
She knew I was in a bad situation, and she knew it was up to her to help get me
out of it.44
10
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
Such providers learn ways of screening their clients before they meet as well.
A study of independent call girls noted that they develop “a sensitivity to
detecting potential danger in the caller’s attitudes, manners, tone of voice, or
nature of the conversation.”45
It is not widely known that indoor and street prostitutes differ in the
services they provide. Because street workers spend little time with customers,
their social interaction is fleeting. As one street worker remarked, “Usually,
they’re not even interested in talking to you. What they want is quick sex.”46
Indoor interactions are typically longer, multifaceted, and more reciprocal.
Diana Prince, who interviewed 75 call girls in California and 150 brothel
workers in Nevada, found that most of them believed that “the average
customer wants affection or love as well as sex.”47 Consequently, indoor
workers are much more likely to counsel and befriend clients, and their
encounters often include a semblance of romance, dating, friendship, or
companionship—what has become known as a “girlfriend experience” and the
counterpart “boyfriend experience” offered by male escorts (see Chapters 8
and 9). As one study of call girls discovered, “for many men, sex is the pretext
for the visit, and the real need is emotional.”48 Indeed, escort agencies and
independent call girls increasingly advertise their expertise in providing nonsexual benefits to clients. The Emperor’s Club escort agency, for instance,
billed itself (on its website) as offering an experience that would make life
“more peaceful, balanced, beautiful, and meaningful.” In a sense, the customer
buys a kind of “relationship” with an escort rather than just sex. Some
customers who become “regulars” have long-term relationships with providers
and develop a real emotional connection, albeit one that is paid for.49
The nature of physical contact also differs, in the sense that it is more
varied and more “romantic” than what a client and provider experience on the
street. Indoor workers are more likely than street workers to be caressed,
kissed, massaged, or hugged by, and to receive oral sex or manual stimulation
from, a client (see Chapter 8).50 Indeed, in at least some indoor venues, the
workers expect and request such sensual and sexual behavior from clients as a
routine part of the encounter.
Indoor workers tend to be more adjusted and satisfied with their work
than street workers, and the former differ little from non-prostitutes in mental
health and self-esteem. The stress and danger associated with street work
contribute to psychological problems. By contrast, escorts and call girls tend
to have the “financial, social, and emotional wherewithal to structure their
work largely in ways that suited them and provided . . . the ability to maintain healthy self-images.”51 Although call girls generally express greater
job satisfaction than do those employed by third parties (brothels, massage
11
RONALD WEITZER
parlors, escort agencies) and are subject to employer demands, the latter are
nevertheless more satisfied than street workers. An Australian study found
that half of call girls and brothel workers felt that their work was a “major
source of satisfaction” in their lives, while seven out of 10 said they would
“definitely choose” this work if they had it to do over again.52 And a worker
in one of Nevada’s legal brothels remarked: “I’ve always been a sexual person.
I enjoy doing it. I mean, the money’s wonderful but, hey, I enjoy what I do for
a living too. I love the people, it’s safe, it’s clean.”53 A majority of indoor
workers in other studies similarly report that they enjoy the job, feel that their
work has at least some positive effect on their lives, or believe that they provide
a valuable service.54
Prince’s comparative study of streetwalkers and call girls in California and
legal brothel workers in Nevada found that almost all of the call girls (97%)
reported an increase in self-esteem after they began working in prostitution,
compared with 50% of the brothel workers but only 8% of the streetwalkers.55
Similarly, a study of indoor prostitutes (most of whom worked in bars) in a
Midwestern city in the United States found that three-fourths of them felt that
their life had improved after entering prostitution (the remainder reported no
change; none said it was worse than before); more than half said that they
generally enjoy their work.56
Why would self-esteem be high or increase among those working in the
upper echelons? Psychological well-being is associated with a range of structural factors, including education, income, control over working conditions,
relations with third parties, and client base. Income is a major source of selfesteem among call girls. While middle range call girls earn $200–$500 an
hour, top-tier workers charge between $1000–$6000 an hour (or a session) and
they are also lavished with fringe benefits, such as expensive gifts and paid
travel to meet clients.57 Escort agency, brothel, and massage parlor employees
make considerably less because a large share (30–50%) goes to the agency.
Another reason for an increase in job satisfaction is revealed by indoor workers
who describe “feeling ‘sexy,’ ‘beautiful,’ and ‘powerful’ only after they had
begun to engage in sexual labor and were receiving consistent praise from their
clients.”58 In other words, in addition to the material rewards of high-end sex
work, positive reinforcement and other good experiences may help enhance
workers’ self-images.
At the same time, prostitutes of all types experience stigma from the
wider society, as shown by opinion polls and by public condemnation during
sex scandals involving public figures. This disapproval compels sex workers to
engage in various normalization strategies, including: compartmentalizing
their deviant work persona from their “real identity”; concealing their work
12
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
from family and friends; distancing themselves from clients; using neutral or
professional terms to describe their jobs (“working woman,” “provider”); and
viewing their work as a valuable service (providing pleasure or sex therapy,
comforting lonely men, keeping marriages intact).
The studies reviewed here and by other scholars provide strong evidence
contradicting some popular myths and the central tenets of the oppression
paradigm.59 While certain experiences are generic to prostitution (coping with
stigma, managing client behavior, avoiding risks), the literature indicates that
other work-related experiences, as well as the harms typically associated with
prostitution, vary greatly. The prostitution market is segmented between the
indoor and street sectors—marked by major differences in working conditions,
risk of victimization, and job satisfaction and self-esteem.
Other Types of Sex Work
Some sex workers specialize in one type of work, but others transition between
different sectors or work in two arenas simultaneously. Examples include
strippers who meet clients outside the club for sex; porn stars who tour strip
clubs where they are the “featured” entertainer and command much higher
prices than local talent; dancers and porn stars, male and female, who advertise
online for personal sexual encounters with their fans; and, as mentioned earlier,
prostitutes who work in more than one venue.
The variation characteristic of prostitution is no less true in other types
of sex work. Strip clubs and their dancers have been studied fairly thoroughly,
largely because of easy access to the clubs.60 One finding is that club structure
and norms are a strong predictor of workers’ job satisfaction and experiences
with both customers and managers, with some clubs being highly exploitative
and disempowering for dancers and others affording them substantial control over their working conditions. In other words, the social organization
of a club shapes the degree to which workers are exploited by managers,
DJs, bartenders, and bouncers, as well as the routine experiences they have
with customers. One study distinguished three types of clubs—“hustle
clubs” where dancers get little protection from management and have fairly
stressful relations with other dancers (because of intense competition) and
with customers (because managers instructed dancers to mislead and “hustle”
the men to extract money from them); “social clubs” that resemble the sociability of neighborhood bars and are marked by supportive relationships
between the workers and friendships with many of the patrons; and “show
clubs” that are more upscale, highly regulated by management, where a
premium is placed on putting on a “good show,” and where dancers are taught
13
RONALD WEITZER
to personify a “goddess” seeking adoration from and exercising power over
male customers.61
Clubs vary in the amount of customer violations of dancers’ personal
boundaries (such as uninvited touching and kissing, pulling off clothes),
insults, and rejection. Over time, the accumulation of such experiences can
deflate one’s self-esteem and result in job burnout.62 On the positive side,
many dancers find the work exciting, validating, empowering, and lucrative.
Customers may lavish them with compliments, tips, and gifts, and dancers
develop a genuine liking for at least some of their regulars.63 In terms of
empowerment, one study reported that dancers “derive a sense of satisfaction
at the power they felt they had over men” including manipulating men’s
fantasies and the “thrill of the chase” in the pursuit of money when they
engage in “strategic flirting” and perhaps lap dancing with individual audience members.64 At the same time, and like other sex workers, dancers often
attempt to normalize their work by trumpeting stripping’s “therapeutic” and
“educational” effects on the audience.65
Few studies compare male and female strip clubs, but those that do
suggest that female audiences tend to be more aggressive toward male dancers
than male audiences in female strip clubs,66 and that female patrons attended
clubs in groups as a bonding ritual or as part of a celebratory gathering,
whereas male patrons are more likely to seek an individualized experience and
are much more likely to be repeat customers.67 It also appears that male
strippers experience less stigma than their female counterparts.68 Relations
between customers and dancers in same-sex clubs have their own distinctive
patterns, as indicated by a study of gay male clubs69 and by Katherine Frank
and Michelle Carnes (Chapter 5) in their analysis of clubs featuring AfricanAmerican female dancers and customers, where the atmosphere is one not only
of sexual performance but also cultural bonding between the black women
involved. Of course, in both gay and straight clubs alike, power struggles over
personal boundaries are evident.70
Much of the literature on pornography is psychological, confined to
laboratory experiments in which (usually male) subjects are exposed to images
and then tested to see if exposure affects their attitudes toward women. Most
of these studies find that the key variable is violent content, not sexual
content, in increasing the viewer’s negative views of or aggressive disposition
toward women. Nonviolent pornography, like other nonviolent images, either
does not have such effects on viewers or has a weaker effect—depending on the
study.71 The main pitfall of such experimental studies is their problematic
external validity—that is, whether the findings in a lab are meaningful and
can be extrapolated to the real world. Laboratory experiments are highly
14
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
artificial conditions within which to watch and react to pornography; they are
radically different from the private settings where viewers typically view porn;
and the experimental subjects are typically male college students who may be
unrepresentative of the larger population of real-life porn consumers. In light
of these serious problems, it is surprising that so many lab experiments on
pornography have been conducted.
Parallel studies examine whether pornography has effects on the realworld treatment of women. Such research examines (1) whether places with
high availability of pornography (magazines, adult theaters, video rentals)
have higher rates of sex crime than places where pornography is less available
or (2) whether increased availability over time in one state or nation increases
rates of sexual offenses. A comprehensive review of the literature concluded
that macro-level associations between pornography and sexual aggression were
dubious:
■
■
■
These studies are bedeviled by their inability to control for all potentially
relevant influences on male behavior.
Some studies find that an apparent correlation between pornography and
sex crime disappears after other variables are included in the model.
Other studies report that increased availability of pornography coincided
with a decline in sexual offenses, precisely the opposite of what the
oppression hypothesis predicts. And some countries with an abundance of
porn, such as Japan, have low rates of victimization of women.72
Part of the explanation for these findings may be the fact that most
pornography in videos and magazines is nonviolent, as documented in several
content analyses.73 One study found that the most sexually explicit or hardcore
videos contained the least violence and the most reciprocal, egalitarian
behavior between the actors.74 If violence is rare in porn, it is unlikely to
promote sexual violence: “In the absence of any actual element of coercion,
viewers would not have any messages about sexual coercion to process and
would not be expected to change any of their attitudes in this area.”75
The abundance of narrow, statistical “effects” studies skews the literature
in one direction. Few researchers have investigated the deeper meanings
of pornography in the real world—to men and women, consumers and
nonconsumers. The neglect of actual consumers (as opposed to lab subjects) is
remarkable in light of the sweeping claims that are often made about
pornography’s impact on viewers. Still, a handful of studies have shown that
both men and women decode and use sexually explicit materials in a wide
variety of ways. Some women dislike the portrayal of women’s bodies in porn
15
RONALD WEITZER
and fear that men might compare them unfavorably to porn models,76 whereas
other women find pornography to be educational, entertaining, or stimulating.77 Some women who have little familiarity with pornography nevertheless
hold very negative views of it.78 Likewise, men interpret porn in multiple
ways: exposure reinforces callous or sexist views of women for some men, while
others interpret it quite differently. A study of 150 men by David Loftus found
that most of them experienced porn as being about fun, beauty, women’s
pleasure, and female assertiveness and power. They did not like depictions of
domination or aggression against women on “the rare occasions they see it in
pornography, and most haven’t even seen any.”79 It is “important to male
viewers that the women really do seem to be enjoying themselves, that they
are utterly involved in the sex for their own pleasure too, and not just serving
the interests of the male actors and onlookers.”80 They also recognized porn as
a fantasy world quite different from the real world in terms of people’s
behavior and appearance.81 Men with this orientation, who distinguish the
fantasy world of porn from the real world, seem to contradict some popular
assumptions about such men as well as laboratory studies that hypothesize a
unilinear, stimulus–response pattern when one is exposed to pornography.
Surprisingly, in-depth research on the porn industry and its workers is
almost nonexistent. This gap is partly filled by two unique chapters in this
book, both of which go behind the scenes with ethnographic studies of actors
and producers. Sharon Abbott (Chapter 2) interviewed male and female actors
in heterosexual films, documenting both positive and negative aspects of their
work experiences, their views of their work and their audiences, and how they
manage stigma. Jill Bakehorn (Chapter 4) had inside access to another sector
of the industry—pornography made by women for women. She finds that
female producers are often motivated by loftier goals than their counterparts
in the mainstream porn industry. Instead of just seeking to make money, many
of these female artists are motivated by feminist objectives, sex worker
activism, and a desire to create materials that are an alternative to conventional
representations of heterosexual sexual relations. This sector of the industry is
ignored by writers who view pornography as inherently objectifying and
demeaning toward women, and Bakehorn shows how this genre challenges
simplistic and monolithic characterizations of pornography.
Studies of male sex workers are growing, but much more research is
needed.82 These studies point to some important differences in the ways male
and female sex workers experience their work, but few of these studies are truly
comparative—examining male and female workers in the same work tier and
asking them identical questions. Juline Koken, David Bimbi, and Jeffrey
Parsons’ study (Chapter 9) helps to fill this gap. Not only does it compare male
16
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
and female workers but it also sheds additional light on the work experiences
of independent escorts. Similarly, little is known about gay male pornography.83 Joe Thomas (Chapter 3) examines how gay male video porn has
changed over time. Thomas also draws contrasts between gay male and
straight pornography, specifically the radically different meanings of porn in
gay and straight cultures. Pornography holds a fair amount of esteem within the
gay community, but carries substantial stigma in the straight world.
Finally, little is known about telephone sex agencies and their employees.84
Kathleen Guidroz and Grant Rich (Chapter 6) show that telephone sex workers
hold a mix of negative and positive impressions of their work. They are
troubled by callers who appear to be misogynists or pedophiles but they also
feel that the calls can be therapeutic, as in other lines of sex work. The operators
believe that they educate male callers about female sexuality and that they help
to deter those with perverse or violent tastes from acting on those fantasies; the
workers see this as providing a valuable “community service.”
P O LI C I E S A N D C O N F LI CTS
Strip Clubs and Pornography
Strip clubs and adult video stores are governed by local ordinances in America,
which means that what is permitted varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
and over time. Some places have ordinances restricting the location of such
establishments, stipulating where videos can be displayed in a store, or
regulating strippers’ attire and contact with customers. Many cities and
counties restrict sexually oriented businesses to nonresidential areas or
prohibit them from being near schools, parks, churches, and residences.
Such curbs do not satisfy those who want such establishments totally
banned. Local-level struggles occur periodically throughout the country.
Tactics include picketing outside an adult business, lobbying municipal
officials, petition drives, and videotaping customers entering clubs and stores.
Such efforts can pay off in convincing local officials to impose stringent
controls on adult entertainment venues. In addition to instrumental efforts to
change policy, groups use symbolic tactics as well: an Indiana group, for
example, recently erected a billboard with a red slash through a triple-X
symbol next to a picture of a young woman. The caption read: “Someone’s
Daughter”—an attempt to personalize the threat posed by porn.85
It is often claimed that adult stores and strip clubs have negative
“secondary effects” on surrounding communities, such as increased crime. This
argument was used successfully in the 1990s in New York City to justify the
17
RONALD WEITZER
closure of many establishments in the Times Square area. A detailed discussion
of the evidence supporting or contradicting the alleged adverse secondary
effects is not possible here, but research studies give little credence to this
claim. In fact: “Those studies that are scientifically credible demonstrate either
no negative secondary effects associated with adult businesses or a reversal of
the presumed negative effect.”86 The most sophisticated study found that
crime was much more prevalent in the immediate vicinity of bars and gas
stations than in the area near strip clubs, partly because of the security
measures (bouncers, video surveillance) implemented by strip clubs.87
Pornography is legal in America as long as it does not depict minors and
is not obscene. The prevailing test of obscenity remains the Supreme Court’s
landmark 1973 Miller v. California decision, which held that local “community
standards” are to govern definitions of what constitutes obscene materials. Local
prosecutors decide whether to prosecute a producer or distributor for a
particular sexually explicit film, magazine, or other work; if prosecuted, the
item is presented to a jury that decides whether it is obscene. Miller stipulated
that the obscenity test would be whether the average person in a community
would find that the work appeals to “prurient interests,” depicts sexual conduct
in a “patently offensive way,” and lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.88 The community standards rule means that a work that is considered
obscene in one jurisdiction may not be deemed obscene in another place. The
only national standard on obscenity is the blanket prohibition on producing,
possessing, or distributing child pornography.
Antipornography campaigns have been launched at various points in
American history, with mixed success. In the early 1980s, activists Andrea
Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon succeeded in getting the city councils of
Minneapolis and Indianapolis to approve far reaching antiporn ordinances. The
laws allowed any woman “as a woman acting against the subordination of
women” to initiate a lawsuit or file a complaint against anyone involved the
production, exhibition, sale, or distribution of pornography. The individual
would not need to demonstrate direct harm to oneself or others from pornography; instead, the claimant could simply act on behalf of women. The
ordinances defined pornography vaguely as “the sexually explicit subordination
of women, graphically depicted.”89 To be actionable, the work would have to
include one of nine features, including images of women “presented dehumanized as sexual objects,” women “presented as whores by nature,” or women
“presented in scenarios of degradation.”90 The terms “dehumanized,” “objects,”
“whores by nature,” and “degradation” are extremely elastic, and some people
see all pornography in these ways. In Minneapolis, the proposed ordinance was
vetoed by the mayor but the Indianapolis ordinance became law only to be
18
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
overturned in the courts on the grounds that it would prohibit a range of
materials that were legal under Miller.91
These municipal campaigns were followed by the equally controversial
1986 national commission appointed by Attorney-General Edwin Meese. The
commission distinguished itself with its politically stacked membership,
unfair procedures, and neglect of evidence running counter to its agenda.92
Almost all of the material presented in support of a government crackdown
on porn was anecdotal, based on the testimony of self-described victims
recruited to appear before the panel.93 It was therefore no surprise that the
commission concluded that exposure to pornography contributed to sex
crimes and other abuses of women.
The Meese Commission marked a turning point in the government’s
approach to pornography and demonstrated how quickly official policy and
enforcement practices can change in the field of sex work. The U.S. Justice
Department formally accepted the commission’s recommendations and
produced a report outlining steps the department was taking to implement
them.94 With a new Obscenity Enforcement Unit and its “Project Postporn,”
the Justice Department assumed a leading role in the campaign against the
industry. Drastic changes were envisioned, as the new unit proclaimed: “Only
by removing whole businesses from society . . . will significant progress be
made against the existing industry.”95 The unit used antiracketeering
(RICO) forfeiture laws to close adult book and video stores and relied on the
novel tactic of simultaneous, multidistrict prosecutions of pornography
distributors in order to bankrupt and close these businesses. Under this
innovative strategy, a company was charged with violations of federal
criminal law in several states at the same time. The goal was to force a
company out of business under the weight of logistical demands and legal
costs incurred in fighting numerous court cases in various jurisdictions. The
targets were not confined to child pornography or extreme porn (e.g.,
featuring bestiality or simulated rape scenes) but included mainstream porn
as well.96 Prosecutors in the obscenity unit typically included Utah as one of
the jurisdictions for multiple prosecutions, because its archconservative
climate virtually guaranteed a conviction.
Enforcement against the pornography industry increased dramatically
after the publication of the Meese report.97 Whereas only 100 individuals had
been prosecuted for violations of obscenity statutes between 1978 and 1986,
the number of indictments quadrupled between 1987 and 1991. A top official
in the obscenity unit revealed, “From 1988 to 1995, we [the Justice
Department] got 130 convictions, took in $25 million in fines and forfeiture,
and convicted most of the kingpins of the pornography industry at least
19
RONALD WEITZER
once.”98 Meanwhile, several federal courts denounced the multidistrict prosecution strategy as a form of harassment.
The Clinton administration discontinued the policy of multidistrict
prosecutions of distributors,99 and it changed the obscenity unit’s focus toward
child pornography, renaming it the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Unit
(CEOS). But, in a return to the past, the second Bush administration launched
a new effort against adult pornography. It expanded and allocated additional
resources to CEOS.100 The Washington office of CEOS includes a team of
specialists assigned to the daily task of searching the Internet for pornography,
tracing the producers, and pursing tips sent in by citizens.101
In May 2005, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales created a new office,
the Obscenity Prosecution Taskforce, dedicated solely to the investigation and
prosecution of hardcore pornography distributors.102 The taskforce’s agents
work with the 93 local U.S. attorneys to prosecute obscenity crimes under the
federal statutes that ban the transfer of obscene materials through the mail,
via computer services, or through any other means of interstate or foreign
commerce.
Some leading officials from the Reagan years have been reappointed to the
department’s obscenity unit, including the head of the unit, Brent Ward. As
U.S. Attorney in Utah during the Reagan administration, Ward vigorously
prosecuted distributors of video pornography, attempted to impose greater
controls on strip clubs, prosecuted a phone sex company, and closed Utah’s two
remaining adult theaters.103 Another major figure is Bruce Taylor, who served
in the Justice Department’s obscenity unit in the Reagan years, was legal
counsel for the nation’s premier antipornography group (Citizens for Decency
through Law, founded in 1956), and served as president of another antiporn
group (the National Law Center for Children and Families). He is now the
obscenity unit’s senior legal counsel.104 Since he has been such a major player
in the antiporn crusade, both as Justice Department official during two
administrations and as an activist, Taylor’s views on pornography are especially
noteworthy:
I still believe that pornography has a bad effect on society and on families, and
it’s not a good thing for guys to look at. It’s like the training manual for how
guys get to be chauvinist jerks. I mean, you don’t treat a woman well if you treat
her like she’s treated in a porn movie. It’s not the kind of thing you want your
boy to be looking at or that the guy who comes to date your daughter is looking
at. You don’t want your husband looking at it. You don’t want your boyfriend
looking at it. You don’t really want your wife looking at it.105
20
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
Taylor has a rather expansive definition of obscenity, which may be much
broader than what some community standards would define as obscene. For
Taylor, all depictions of penetration are by definition obscene, which means
that “just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video
stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable [as] illegal
obscenity.”106
The continuing debate over pornography illustrates the twin trends
regarding the sex industry in America. As noted earlier in the chapter, there
is evidence of a degree of normalization or mainstreaming of sexual commerce
and its growing availability via the Internet. At the same time, this trend runs
up against a countertrend fueled by some powerful forces inside and outside
local and federal governments—forces intent on criminalizing and stigmatizing the sex industry. The notion of a fierce “sex war” remains as apt today as
it was in the past, and these two trends are apparent both in the U.S. and
internationally.
Prostitution: Decriminalization and Legalization
Prostitution is treated in a more uniform manner in the United States, with
criminalization being the reigning policy. This means that solicitation to
engage in an act of prostitution is illegal, except in certain counties in Nevada,
where about 30 legal brothels exist. Other offenses include pimping,
pandering, trafficking, operating a brothel, and running an agency that offers
sexual services.
Approximately 80,000 arrests are made in the United States every year
for violation of prostitution laws,107 in addition to an unknown number of
arrests of prostitutes under disorderly conduct or loitering statutes. Most
arrests involve the street trade, although indoor workers are targeted in some
cities. Regarding street prostitution, arrests have the effect of either (1)
containment within a particular area, where prostitutes are occasionally
subjected to the revolving door of arrest, fines, brief jail time, and release, or
(2) displacement to another locale where the same revolving-door dynamic
recurs. Containment is the norm throughout the United States; displacement
requires sustained police crackdowns, which are rare. During crackdowns,
workers may simply relocate to an adjoining police precinct where enforcement is lax or move across the city limits into another jurisdiction.
Full decriminalization would remove all criminal penalties and leave
prostitution unregulated, albeit subject to conventional norms against
nuisances, sex in public, or disorderly conduct. Under full decriminalization,
street prostitution could exist on any street, so long as the workers and
21
RONALD WEITZER
customers did not disturb the peace or violate other ordinances. Partial
decriminalization would reduce but not eliminate penalties—the penalty might
be a fine instead of incarceration or the charge may be reduced from a felony
to a misdemeanor or violation. A third possibility is de facto decriminalization,
which simply means that the existing law is not enforced, yet the offense
remains in the penal code. Decriminalization may or may not be a precursor
to legalization (government regulation).
Proposals for full decriminalization run up against a wall of public
opposition. A 1983 poll found that only 7% of Americans thought that there
should be “no laws against prostitution” and, in 1990, 22% felt that
prostitution should be “left to the individual” and neither outlawed nor
regulated by government.108 American policymakers are almost universally
opposed to the idea, making it a nonstarter in any serious discussion of policy
alternatives. Advocates sometimes manage to get it placed on the public
agenda, however. In 1994, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors created a
Taskforce on Prostitution to explore alternatives to existing prostitution
policy. After months of meetings, a majority of the members voted to
recommend decriminalization,109 but the board of supervisors rejected the
idea. In 2008, a measure on the ballot in San Francisco stipulated that the
police would discontinue enforcing all laws against prostitution; the measure was rejected by 58% of voters. A similar ballot measure in Berkeley,
California, in 2004 called on police to give prostitution enforcement the
“lowest priority.” The measure was also defeated, with 64% voting against
it.110 Opposition was likely due to both measures’ laissez-faire approach;
people are more inclined to support some kind of regulation, just as they are
with regard to some other vices. Still, it is noteworthy that 42% of San
Franciscans voted for full decriminalization in 2008, suggesting that approval
of this kind of policy shift remains a distinct possibility in the future, at least
in this city.
Unlike decriminalization, legalization implies regulation of some kind:
vetting and licensing business owners, registering workers, zoning street
prostitution, mandatory medical exams, special business taxes, or officials’
periodic site visits and inspections of legal establishments. A segment of the
American public favors legalization (see Table 1.2), but only in Nevada do
legal brothels exist, since 1971 (see Chapter 11). The 30 brothels are relegated
to rural areas of the state and are prohibited in Las Vegas and Reno due largely
to opposition from the gaming industry. A slight majority of the Nevada
population supports this policy (52% in a 2002 poll felt that legal brothels
should be retained), and the system is even more popular in counties with legal
brothels. But this rural-only model is remote from the issue of prostitution in
22
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
TA B L E 1 . 2
AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D L E G A L I Z AT I O N O F P R O S T I T U T I O N
U N I T E D S TAT E S
AGREE (%)
Legalize prostitution (1991)1
Legalize prostitution (1996)2
Decriminalize prostitution, Berkeley, CA (2004)3
Decriminalize prostitution, San Francisco, CA (2008)4
Prostitution does not hurt Nevada’s tourism industry (1988)5
Retain legal brothels, Nevada (2002)6
O T H E R N AT I O N S
40
26
36
42
71
52
F A V O R L E G A L I Z AT I O N ( % )
Britain (1998)7
Britain (2006)8
Canada (1998)9
Czech Republic (1999)10
France (1995)11
Israel (2005)12
Netherlands (1997)13
New Zealand (2003)14
Portugal (2001)15
Western Australia (2000)16
Western Australia (2006)17
61
65
71
70
68
65
73
51
54
71
64
Sources: 1 Gallup poll, 1991, N = 1216. Legalize and regulate prostitution to “help reduce the spread
of AIDS”; 2 Gallup poll, 1996, N = 1019 (“prostitution involving adults 18 years of age and older
should be legal”); 3 November, 2004, ballot measure (Measure Q), instructing Berkeley police to treat
enforcement of prostitution law as the “lowest priority”; 4 November 2008, ballot measure (Measure
K), instructing San Francisco police to discontinue all prostitution arrests and defunding the city’s
john school; 5 Nevada poll, N = 1213, conducted November 1988 by the Center for Survey Research
at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 22% thought that prostitution “hurts the state’s tourism
industry”; 6 Nevada poll, N = 600, Law Vegas Review-Journal, September 17, 2002; 7 ITV Poll,
reported in Agence France Presse, November 16, 1998, N = 2000 (“legalizing and licensing brothels”);
8
IPSOS/MORI Poll, January 6–10, 2006, N = 1790 (“prostitution should be legalized”); 9 Compas
Poll, Sun Media Newspapers, reported in Edmonton Sun, October 31, 1998, N = 1479 (“legal and
tightly regulated” = 65%, “completely legal” = 6%; 10 IVVM poll, reported by Czech News Agency,
National News Wire, April 26, 1999 (“legalizing prostitution”); 11 French poll reported in Boston
Globe, January 22, 1995 (“legalized brothels”); 12 Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2005, N = 500 (legalization
of prostitution and licensing of prostitutes); 13 Dutch poll cited in Brants (1998) (“legalization of
brothels”); 14 New Zealand Herald, May 14, 2003, N = 500. “Don’t know” responses removed from
total (legal brothels); 15 Marketest poll of residents of Lisbon and Oporto, reported in Financial Times
and Diario de Noticias, August 14, 2001 (“legal brothels”); 16 Sunday Times poll, March 26, 2000
(legalization of brothels); 17 Poll reported in The West Australian, February 15, 2006 (legalization of
prostitution)
23
RONALD WEITZER
urban areas. Illegal prostitutes flourish in Las Vegas and Reno, despite the
existence of legal brothels in adjacent counties. What is needed is an urban
solution to an essentially urban phenomenon.
Since Nevada legalized brothels in 1971, no other state has seriously
considered legalization. Legislators fear being branded as “condoning”
prostitution and see no political advantages in any kind of liberalization. On
those rare occasions when the idea has been floated, it has had a short life. As
a Buffalo, New York, taskforce reasoned in 1999, “Since it is unlikely that city
or state officials could ever be convinced to decriminalize or legalize
prostitution in Buffalo, there is nothing to be gained by debating the merits
of either.”111 This seems to put the cart before the horse, by preempting debate
that might indeed result in new policy proposals. One exception to this cynical
view occurred recently in Hawaii (discussed later).
American opinion contrasts with that of some other western nations.
Recent polls, presented in Table 1.2, show that majorities in several European
countries endorse legalization, either in the abstract or in the form of brothels.
This is the case for approximately two-thirds of the British and French
populations, and similar majorities in France believe that legal brothels would
make it easier to control prostitution and that the change would not lead to
an increase in the French sex trade.112 A recent poll reported that 59% of the
British public believed that “prostitution is a perfectly reasonable choice that
women should be free to make”; this did not extend to family members, with
74% saying that it would be unacceptable for a female family member to work
as a prostitute and 87% saying it would be unacceptable for a spouse or partner
to pay a prostitute for sex.113 Dutch views on prostitution are equally
noteworthy: in a 1997 poll, 74% of the Dutch public regarded prostitution as
an acceptable job and 73% favored the legalization of brothels,114 and 2 years
later, 78% said prostitution was a job like any other, so long as there was no
coercion involved.115 As a Dutch woman told me when asked about prostitution in Holland, “It doesn’t even cross my mind that it should be illegal.” This
is not the typical view of the majority of Americans, who seem to take
criminalization for granted.
Legalization raises several important questions. First, is it likely to lead
to an increase in or proliferation of prostitution? The number of prostitutes is
partly affected by demand, which might limit the growth of the sex trade,
though it is possible that greater supply—especially under conditions of
legality—might increase demand. Were legal prostitution limited to one or a
few cities, it would undoubtedly attract an influx of workers into that locale.
Were it more widespread, each locale would hold less attraction to outside
workers, reducing the migration problem. The state may impose limits on the
24
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
number of sex establishments or the number of workers, as illustrated in the
Nevada case, and in New Zealand nationwide legalization in 2003 has not
increased the number of prostitutes.116 Prostitution has increased, however, in
some Australian states after brothels were legalized.
Second, will prostitutes comply with the regulations? This is an extremely
important question. Insofar as legalization includes stipulations as to who can
and cannot engage in sex work, those ineligible (e.g., persons who are underage,
HIV positive, or illegal immigrants) would be forced to operate illicitly in the
shadows of the regulated system. In addition, every conceivable form of
legalization would be rejected by at least some eligible prostitutes, who would
see no benefits in abiding by the new restrictions (e.g., mandatory registration
or health examinations) and would resent the infringement on their freedom.
A possible exception would be the zoning of street prostitution into a suitable
locale: away from residential areas but in places that are safe and unintimidating for prostitutes and customers alike. Some streetwalkers would reject this
arrangement for personal reasons, while others would find it satisfactory (as
evidenced in some European cities). Red-light districts in industrial zones
would be shunned because such areas typically lack places of refuge and
sustenance, such as restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, bars, parks, and
cheap hotels—amenities required by most streetwalkers.117 Even if a generally
acceptable locale could be found, there is no guarantee that street prostitution
could be confined to that area; possible market saturation in the designated
zone is only one reason why some workers would be attracted to other locales.
Moreover, while zoning presumably would remove street prostitution from
residential areas, it would not necessarily remedy other problems associated
with street work, such as violence and drug abuse. Indeed, such zones may
simply reproduce these problems in a more concentrated manner. Although no
U.S. jurisdiction has altered its prohibitionist policy toward street prostitution,
some other countries have experimented with a more tolerant approach,
including New Zealand and the Netherlands.
A Two-Track Prostitution Policy
If neither formal decriminalization nor legalization is a viable policy in the
United States at present, is there any other alternative to blanket criminalization? Since prostitution manifests itself in fundamentally different ways
on the street and in indoor venues, it may seem logical to treat the two
differently. A two-track policy would (1) target resources exclusively toward the
control of street prostitution and simultaneously (2) relax controls on indoor
prostitution.118
25
RONALD WEITZER
Track One: Indoor Prostitution
Some jurisdictions in the United States, Britain, and some other nations
have adopted an informal policy of de facto decriminalization of indoor
prostitution—essentially ignoring escorts, brothels, and massage parlors
unless a complaint is made, which is seldom.119 Police in other areas, however,
devote substantial time and resources to this side of the sex trade, where it
accounts for as much as half the prostitution arrests.120 Law enforcement
policies can differ dramatically even between adjacent areas. In Riverside
County in California, police have regularly arrested Internet sex workers and
their clients in recent years, whereas next door in San Bernardino County,
police focus instead on more serious crimes.121 Efforts against indoor prostitution typically involve considerable planning, and large-scale operations can
last several months, becoming rather costly affairs.
Seattle police recently launched an elaborate sting operation in which
undercover female officers placed ads and photos on Craigslist and made
appointments with men who responded to the ads; a total of 104 men were
arrested after they appeared at an expensive condo rented by the police
department and were observed discussing a price with the female vice cop.122
In another case, a vice squad officer in Omaha, Nebraska, posing as a visiting
businessman, arranged a date with an escort he met online, had a limo pick
her up and take her to a hotel where they drank wine, only to end in an arrest.
A taxpayers group accused the Omaha police of wasting resources in the
operation. The group’s president complained that the police “were not good
stewards with the taxpayers’ dollars in spending the resources that were spent
to have her arrested on a misdemeanor charge.”123 An even more shocking
practice takes place in Nashville, Tennessee, where police pay confidential
informants to help arrest indoor prostitutes, which typically involve some
physical or sexual contact between the informant and the worker. The
informants are paid $100 per bust and are used because police policy prohibits
officers from disrobing during an investigation,124 but the district attorney
argued that a recorded agreement on a price should be sufficient to make an
arrest (as it is in most other jurisdictions) and added that it was “contradictory
letting the confidential informant engage in the very act you’re trying to
stamp out.” In response, the head of the vice unit defended the practice:
“What’s the greater good? It may be distasteful to some people, but it’s better
that we have those places shut down.” In 2002–2004, a total of $120,000 was
spent to foster such encounters, with informants receiving more than
$70,000.125
Such operations are usually launched by local police, but the federal
government sometimes initiates a crackdown and it has done so more fre26
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
quently in recent years. In one case, federal agents raided more than 40 upscale
escort agencies in 23 cities. The sting was the culmination of a 2-year undercover investigation, costing $2.5 million.126 Why so costly? The attorney for
the “DC Madam,” Deborah Jeane Palfrey, describes how costs can skyrocket
in major investigations of a massage parlor or escort agency:
Her case most likely involved 10,000 to 15,000 billed hours of labor over a fiveyear period and cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. As an example of the
resources deployed here, consider the fact that agents retrieved photographs of
escorts as they mailed money orders to Jeane, going back ten years. Escorts were
also trailed to their appointments, confronted, and asked to disclose the
identities of their clients under the threat of prosecution. A spreadsheet of over
500 pages was compiled tracking these kinds of interactions.127
Under the two-track policy, these resources would be targeted toward street
prostitution.
Crackdowns on indoor prostitution can have the unintended result of
increasing the number of streetwalkers—thus exacerbating the most obtrusive
side of the prostitution trade. Closures of massage parlors and other indoor
venues have had precisely this effect in some cities, as a New Orleans vice
officer observed: “Whenever we focus on indoor investigations, the street scene
gets insane.”128 Massage parlors offering sex proliferated in the 1970s,
declined in the 1980s, but more recently have grown along with increasing
immigration from Asia and Latin America.129 In some jurisdictions the police
conduct ongoing surveillance on such establishments.
The success of a policy of nonenforcement toward indoor prostitution
would require that it be implemented without fanfare. A public announcement that a city had decided to take a “hands off” approach to this variety of
sex work might serve as a magnet drawing legions of indoor workers and
clients into the locale. But in cities where it is not already standard practice,
an unwritten policy of nonenforcement might be a sensible innovation. It
would free up resources for the more pressing problems on the street, and
might have the effect of pushing at least some streetwalkers indoors, as one
official commission reasoned: “Keeping prostitutes off the streets may be aided
by tolerating them off the streets.”130
Does the two-track approach favor the higher class, indoor sector and
unfairly target the lower echelon streetwalkers? Inherent in any two-track
approach are disparate effects on actors associated with each track, and with
respect to prostitution there are legitimate grounds for differential treatment:
(1) certain other types of commercial enterprise and individual behavior (e.g.,
27
RONALD WEITZER
nudity, urination, being drunk and disorderly) are prohibited on the streets
and (2) “this kind of policy may not be considered too inequitable if the costs
inflicted on society by the street prostitutes are greater . . . than from those
working in hotels” and other indoor venues.131 The legal principle on which
this proposal rests is that the criminal law should not interfere with the
conduct of consenting adults, provided that this conduct does not threaten the
legally protected interests of others. Whereas street prostitution is associated
with a variety of harms to workers and to host communities, indoor
prostitution is in accord with the harm-reduction principle.132 As the San
Francisco Committee on Crime flatly concluded, “continued criminalization
of private, non-visible prostitution cannot be warranted by fear of associated
crime, drug abuse, venereal disease, or protection of minors.”133 A Canadian
commission agreed: “The concern with the law is not what takes place in
private, but the public manifestation of prostitution.”134 And another
Canadian task force determined that “the two objectives of harm reduction
and violence prevention could most likely occur if prostitution was conducted indoors.”135 The policy implication is clear: “reassign police priorities
to those types of prostitution that inflict the greatest costs,” namely, street
prostitution.136
Track Two: Restructuring Street Prostitution Control
One advantage of the two-track model is that resources previously devoted to
the control of indoor prostitution can be transferred to where they are most
needed: the street-level sex trade. Under this model, the central objective of
the police and social service agencies would be to (1) protect workers from
violence and (2) assist workers to leave the streets. Some British cities such as
Liverpool and Manchester have experimented with this strategy, under a
formal “multi-agency partnership” approach to street prostitution.137 It is
certainly not the norm in the United States, but the policy was adopted in
2008 in New York State with regard to minors caught soliciting on the street.
Under the new law, persons under age 18 arrested for prostitution will be
channeled into services and programs (including safe houses, counseling,
vocational training, healthcare) instead of being charged with a crime and
prosecuted.138 The police still arrest the youths, which seems necessary in
order to compel compliance, but those arrested are not stigmatized by
prosecution in court and formal punishment. This policy could be extended
to adult street prostitutes as well.
This population has special needs because of their manifold, adverse life
experiences—including drug addiction, sexual trauma, emotional problems,
28
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
social stigma, arrest records, and health problems.139 In most American cities,
resources are scarce for both the homeless and sex-trading populations. For the
latter, the dominant approach is overwhelmingly coercive rather than rehabilitative, yet past experience abundantly shows the failure of narrowly punitive
intervention. Without assistance from service providers and meaningful
alternatives to prostitution there is little opportunity for a career change. In
order to reduce the amount of street prostitution, there is a desperate need for
a comprehensive program of temporary housing, job training, drug treatment,
healthcare, counseling, education, and other services.
A few blue-ribbon panels have recommended changes consistent with the
two-track model. Commissions in Atlanta and San Francisco advocated a dual
approach for precisely the reasons just described.140 A landmark Canadian
commission argued that abating street prostitution would require legislation
allowing prostitutes to work somewhere else, and it recommended permitting one or two prostitutes to work out of their own residence,141 a proposal
subsequently endorsed by another Canadian taskforce and by a British
government commission.142 Indoor work by one or two prostitutes was seen
as preferable to work on the streets or in brothels since it gives the workers
maximum autonomy and shields them against exploitation by pimps and
other managers. The commission also recommended giving provincial
authorities the option of legalizing small, nonresidential brothels, subject to
appropriate controls. Government officials rejected the recommendations of
all three commissions.
The state of Rhode Island is unique in its dual policy toward street and
indoor prostitution. State law criminalizes loitering for the purpose of
soliciting sex, but loitering occurs outdoors and indoor solicitation per se is
not a crime. Police have busted massage parlors for employing workers lacking
a massage license, but not for prostitution.143 Bills recently presented in the
state legislature to criminalize all prostitution have failed, as a result of
lobbying by the ACLU. Rhode Island thus stands alone in the United States
in its formal adoption of the two-track policy. Some other nations also embrace
the two-track approach—decriminalizing brothels or escort agencies and
retaining enforcement against street prostitution. The legislature in Western
Australia passed a bill of this nature in 2008.144
In 2007, the Hawaii State Legislature considered a bill that would
decriminalize the indoor track and zone street prostitution. The bill stipulates
the following:
A person commits the offense of prostitution if the person engages in, or agrees
or offers to engage in, sexual conduct with another person for a fee in a public
29
RONALD WEITZER
place that is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or
alarmed. For purposes of this section, a “public place” means any street,
sidewalk, bridge, alley or alleyway, plaza, driveway, parking lot, or transportation facility, or the doorways and entrance ways to any building that fronts
on any of these places, or a motor vehicle in or on any such place except areas
that are designated as exceptions to this section. . . . The legislature and counties
shall designate areas within their jurisdiction as exempt from the penalty
provisions. . . . Designated areas shall include portions of geographic areas that
have a history of this offense. The designated areas may be described both by
geographic boundaries and by time of day limitations.145
The first part of the bill decriminalizes indoor prostitution, and the second
part limits street prostitution to certain areas. The latter therefore departs
from the two-track policy because it does not provide resources to help street
workers get off the streets. The bill was supported by the ACLU, but it failed
to pass in the legislature. One of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Bob Herkes,
saw the bill as a strategic stepping stone: “It’s one of those bills you do it for
public dialogue instead of trying to get it passed,” and the bill’s advocates
hope to gain support for a similar bill in the future.146
Cracking Down on Clients
A major shift in enforcement policy over the past 15 years has been the
targeting of prostitutes’ customers. Traditionally, the act of patronizing a
prostitute was not a crime in the United States, but it is now criminalized in
all 50 states. In most areas, however, law enforcement falls most heavily on the
prostitute. In 2002, for example, only 9% of all prostitution-related arrests in
Phoenix were of men, 12% in Boston, and 14% in Las Vegas.147 However,
some cities specifically target the customers. In 2002, men accounted for 61%
of all prostitution-related arrests in Kansas City, 72% in Detroit, and 75% in
San Francisco.148
Customers are targeted in different ways. Police decoys walk the streets
and make arrests when they are solicited. Public humiliation is another
common approach, and it can be used after an arrest, as an added sanction, or
instead of an arrest. One common tactic is publishing the names of alleged
clients in local newspapers or on television. Kansas City created “John TV”—
a weekly cable TV show displaying the names, addresses, and pictures of men
arrested for attempting to solicit a prostitute.149 Kansas City activists also
created a “hooker hotline,” a recorded list of the names of persons arrested for
soliciting a prostitute. The hotline received several hundred calls every month.
30
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
In New Haven, Connecticut, posters naming a “John of the Week” were
stapled to trees and telephone polls in one prostitution stroll. Posters provided
the name and address of men observed soliciting a prostitute, with the
warning, “Johns! Stay out of our neighborhood or your name will be here next
week.”150 In Miami, freeway billboards have been used to announce the names
of convicted johns. Americans are divided on the idea of shaming johns in
these ways. A 1995 poll found that 50% of the public endorsed punishing
men convicted of soliciting prostitutes by placing their names and pictures in
the news.151 At least 280 American cities are using some kind of shaming
tactic against johns.152
A second tactic is a novel form of rehabilitation—the “john school” for
arrested customers. San Francisco launched its First Offenders Prostitution
Program in 1995, and between 1995 and early 2008, more than 5700 men
had attended the program.153 As of 2008, 39 other cities in America (as well
as cities in Canada and Britain) have created similar schools. The programs are
a joint effort by the district attorney’s office, the police department, the public
health department, community leaders, and former prostitutes. The men
avoid an arrest record and court appearance by paying a $1000 fee, attending
the school, and not recidivating for 1 year after the arrest.
Every aspect of the 8-hour course is designed to shame, educate, and deter
the men from future contact with prostitutes. The content and tone of the
lectures are designed for maximum shock value. During my observations at
the San Francisco school, the men were frequently asked how they would feel
if their mothers, wives, or daughters were “prostituted,” and why they were
“using” and “violating” prostitutes by patronizing them. The audience was
also exposed to a graphic slideshow on the dangers of sexually transmitted
diseases, horror stories about the wretched lives of prostitutes and their
oppression by pimps, and information about the harmful effects of street
prostitution on the host neighborhoods. My review of responses to a
questionnaire completed by the men at the end of the day found that many
seem to experience “consciousness raising” about the negative aspects of street
prostitution and pledge to never again contact a prostitute, but others
expressed cynicism or resentment at getting caught, at having to take the
class, at being “talked down to” by the lecturers, and being otherwise
demeaned. Some men insisted that they were innocent victims of police
entrapment.
The growing targeting of customers in the U.S. is part of a larger,
international trend toward criminalizing clients. The focus of antiprostitution
groups has increasingly been one of ending “the demand” for paid sex. In
1999, Sweden passed a law exclusively punishing the customers of prostitutes,
31
RONALD WEITZER
based on the assumption that they are the root of all evil in the sex industry.
Since then, some other nations have either adopted or are considering adopting
the Swedish system.
Policy changes are often driven by activists who hold a narrow view of
sex work. Over the past 30 years, prohibitionists and liberals have been locked
in battle, two sides that have clashing views regarding prostitution, pornography, and other sex work, and over government policies in this sphere.
Prohibitionists adopt the oppression paradigm described earlier in the chapter,
and actively promote it when they lobby public officials or appear in the
media. Conservative prohibitionists are disturbed by the danger sex work
poses to the family and moral fabric of society. Feminist prohibitionists
denounce all sex work as the ultimate expression of gender oppression,
violence against women, or “sexual slavery.” The other, liberal side argues that
commercial sex services are legitimate or valuable occupations, that pornography is protected under the Constitution (the right to free speech), or that
prohibition only drives the sex trade underground and exposes workers to
greater harms. This side tends to favor legalization or decriminalization as
policies best suited to harm reduction for prostitutes. These are fundamentally
different paradigms, turning on different images of the workers involved: sex
objects vs. sex workers, quintessential victims of male domination vs. agents who
actively construct their work lives. These are not abstract debates. Quite the
contrary. A sex war is raging in the public square in many nations around the
world, reflected in growing media attention and political debates in Australia,
Britain, South Africa, and the United States—to name just a few. Theoretical
perspectives have real-world consequences insofar as they are used by policymakers as a basis for new laws or new enforcement tools. As indicated earlier,
over the past decade, some nations, such as the United States, have embraced
the oppression paradigm and increased penalties and enforcement against
those involved in sex work. Some other nations have legalized prostitution and
some of these states have explicitly embraced the polymorphous perspective
by treating street and (all or certain types of) indoor prostitution quite
differently.154
C O N C LU S I O N
This book contributes to our knowledge of several aspects of sex work and the
sex industry, including dimensions that have rarely been studied in the past.
The book breaks new ground, but we need even more research on telephone
sex work, off-street prostitutes, the porn industry generally and gay and
32
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
lesbian pornography in particular, legal prostitution systems, the dynamics of
law enforcement, and the social forces driving changes in law and public
policy. We know little about contemporary brothels, massage parlors, escort
agencies, transgender prostitutes, and call girls, and we need much more
research on the men involved at all levels—customers, workers, managers,
producers, owners. This world does not offer easy access to the outsider, which
helps to account for the paucity of research in many key areas; but gaining
access should be viewed as a challenge rather than an insuperable barrier.
N OTE S
1. Top Ten Reviews provides the following figures (in billions) for
2006: Video Sales/Rentals $3.62, Internet $2.84, Cable/PPV/In-Room/
Mobile/Phone Sex $2.19, Exotic Dance Clubs $2.00, Novelties
$1.73, Magazines $.95. http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/
internet-pornography-statistics.html, accessed June 19, 2008. The site
reports that worldwide pornography revenue in 2006 was $97.1 billion.
2. Eric Schlosser, “The Business of Pornography,” U.S. News and World
Report, February 10, 1997; 2006 figure from Top Ten Reviews.
3. Top Ten Reviews.
4. William Sherman, “The Naked Truth about Strip Clubs,” New York
Daily News, July 8, 2007.
5. James Davis and Tom Smith, General Social Survey: Cumulative Codebook,
Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 2002.
6. Zogby International poll, 2000, N = 1031.
7. Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Monthly, no. 313, October, 1991.
8. Davis and Smith, General Social Survey. Another major survey found that
16% of American men aged 18–59 reported that they had paid for sex
at some time (Edward Laumann, John Gagnon, Robert Michael, and
Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the
United States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
9. Chris Rissel, “Experiences of Commercial Sex in a Representative
Sample of Adults,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
27 (2003): 191–197.
10. Ipsos/MORI Poll, January 6–10, 2006, N = 1790, aged 16–64.
11. Rissel, “Experiences of Commercial Sex”; Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale,
“Context and Patterns of Men’s Commercial Sexual Partnerships in
Northeastern Thailand,” Social Science and Medicine 44 (1997): 199–213.
12. Ipsos/MORI Poll, January 6–10, 2006, N = 1790, aged 16–64.
33
RONALD WEITZER
13. Hillary Rhodes, “Prostitution Advances in a Wired World,” Associated
Press, March 11, 2008; Bruce Lambert, “As Prostitutes Turn to
Craigslist, Law Takes Notice,” New York Times, September 4, 2007.
14. Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll, February 10, 2005,
N = 1001.
15. Davis and Smith, General Social Survey, 1994.
16. Ellison Research poll, March 11, 2008, N = 1007. This was the view of
42% of men and 57% of women.
17. Harris Poll #76, September 20–26, 2004, N = 2555. This was the view
of 38% of men and 57% of women.
18. Time magazine poll, conducted by Yankelovich/Skelly/White, July
26–31, 1977, N = 1044 registered voters.
19. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll, October 2006, N = 739.
20. ICM Research, Sex and Exploitation Survey, January 2008, N = 1023.
Women (68%) were slightly more likely to take this view than men (62%).
21. NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, June 10–14, 1994, N = 1502.
22. Penn, Shoen, and Berland poll, sponsored by Democratic Leadership
Council, July 23–27, 1997, N = 1009 registered voters.
23. General Social Survey, 2006 and 1984. The question asks respondents
which policy is closest to their own view: “There should be laws against
the distribution of pornography whatever the age.” “There should be laws
against the distribution of pornography to persons under 18.” “There
should be no laws against the distribution of pornography.” The figures
presented here are for the first option, a universal ban on distribution.
24. General Social Survey, 2006.
25. Gallup, Gallup Poll Monthly, 1991: 46% thought female strippers and
45% thought male strippers “should be illegal at bars or clubs.”
26. Only 5% thought that stripping was less acceptable today than a decade
ago. Institute for Social Research, University of Alabama, Capstone Poll,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 2002, N = 484.
27. Danny Hakim and William Rashbaum, “No U.S. Charges against
Spitzer for Prostitution,” New York Times, November 7, 2008, p. A1.
28. “Fresno Deputy District Attorney Busted for Soliciting a Prostitute,”
Channel 47 News online, Fresno, California, accessed August 27, 2008;
“Ex-Police Chief Charged in Pa. Prostitution Case,” Evening Sun
(Hanover, PA), August 27, 2008.
29. Part of this section of the chapter draws on two articles: Ronald Weitzer,
“Prostitution: Facts and Fictions,” Contexts 6 (Fall 2007): 28–33, and
Ronald Weitzer, “Sociology of Sex Work,” Annual Review of Sociology 35
(2009).
34
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
30. Kathleen Barry, The Prostitution of Sexuality, New York: New York
University Press, 1995; Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing
Women, New York: Putnam, 1981; Andrea Dworkin, Life and Death,
New York: Free Press, 1997; Sheila Jeffreys, The Idea of Prostitution,
North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex, 1997; Catherine MacKinnon,
Feminism Unmodified, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987;
Catherine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
31. Melissa Farley, “Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart: Prostitution Harms
Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” Violence Against Women 10
(2004): 1087–1125; Janice Raymond, “Prostitution as Violence against
Women,” Women’s Studies International Forum 21 (1998): 1–9.
32. Ine Vanwesenbeeck, “Another Decade of Social Scientific Work on
Prostitution,” Annual Review of Sex Research 12 (2001): 242–289; Ronald
Weitzer, “Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution,”
Violence Against Women 11 (2005): 934–949, and Ronald Weitzer,
“Rehashing Tired Claims about Prostitution,” Violence Against Women 11
(2005): 971–977.
33. Arlene Carmen and Howard Moody, Working Women: The Subterranean
World of Street Prostitution, New York: Harper & Row, 1985; Frederique
Delacoste and Priscilla Alexander, eds., Sex Work: Writings by Women in
the Sex Industry, Pittsburgh: Cleis, 1987; Nadine Strossen, Defending
Pornography, New York: Anchor, 1995; Wendy McElroy, XXX: A
Woman’s Right to Pornography, New York: St. Martin’s, 1995; Wendy
Chapkis, Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor, New York:
Routledge, 1997.
34. Eileen McLeod, Working Women: Prostitution Now, London: Croom Helm,
1982, p. 28.
35. Noah Zatz, “Sex Work/Sex Act: Law, Labor, and Desire in Constructions
of Prostitution,” Signs 22 (1997): 277–308, at p. 291.
36. Julia O’Connell Davidson, Power, Prostitution, and Freedom, Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998.
37. Barbara Heyl, “Prostitution: An Extreme Case of Sex Stratification,” in
Freda Adler and Rita Simon, eds., The Criminology of Deviant Women,
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1979, p. 198.
38. Thomas Steinfatt, Working at the Bar: Sex Work and Health Communication
in Thailand, Westport, CT: Ablex, 2002, p. 19.
39. Stephanie Church, Marion Henderson, Marina Barnard, and Graham
Hart, “Violence by Clients towards Female Prostitutes in Different
Work Settings,” British Medical Journal 322 (2001): 524–526.
35
RONALD WEITZER
40. See the studies cited in Ronald Weitzer, “New Directions in Research
on Prostitution,” Crime, Law, and Social Change 43 (2005): 211–235.
41. See Patty Kelly, Lydia’s Open Door: Inside Mexico’s Most Modern Brothel,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008; Prabha Kotiswaran,
“Born unto Brothels: Toward a Legal Ethnography of Sex Work in an
Indian Red-Light Area,” Law and Social Inquiry 33 (2008): 579–629;
Kemala Kempadoo, Sexing the Caribbean: Gender, Race, and Sexual Labor,
New York: Routledge, 2004; Kamala Kempadoo, ed., Sun, Sex, and
Gold: Tourism and Sex Work in the Caribbean, Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1999; Denise Brennan, What’s Love Got to Do with It?
Transnational Desires and Sex Tourism in the Dominican Republic, Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
42. Libby Plumridge and Gillian Abel, “A Segmented Sex Industry in New
Zealand: Sexual and Personal Safety of Female Sex Workers,” Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 25 (2001): 78–83, at p. 83.
43. Quoted in Joanne Kimberlin, “Women for Hire: Behind Closed Doors
in the Escort Industry,” The Virginia-Pilot, May 18, 2008, p. A11.
44. Dolores French, Working: My Life as A Prostitute, New York: E.P. Dutton,
1988, pp. 152–153.
45. Roberta Perkins and Frances Lovejoy, Call Girls: Private Sex Workers in
Australia, Crawley: University of Western Australia Press, 2007, p. 51.
46. Quoted in Elizabeth Bernstein, Temporarily Yours: Intimacy, Authenticity,
and the Commerce of Sex, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007,
p. 46.
47. Diana Prince, A Psychological Study of Prostitutes in California and Nevada,
doctoral dissertation, San Diego: U.S. International University, 1986,
p. 490.
48. Ann Lucas, “The Work of Sex Work: Elite Prostitutes’ Vocational
Orientations and Experiences,” Deviant Behavior 26 (2005): 513–546, at
p. 531.
49. A similar phenomenon has been documented for bar workers who spend
extended periods of time with their customers. A survey of Thailand’s
bar prostitutes found that more than 80% of them “had a relationship
w...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment