For this week, choose one of the following:
1. In 300 words or more, identify 5 things you learned about sex work and/or sex trafficking from both Weitzer essays. You must refer FOUR times to the Weitzer articles, at least two times from each Weitzer reading.
You must respond to ONE of your classmates by 11:59pm Sunday in no less than 100 words.
OR
2. In 300 words or more, use 3 of this week’s readings to provide examples that help explain the difference between sex work and sex trafficking, and/or between sex work and criminal sex offense. Why do the these concepts get conflated? What do sex workers’ experiences tell us about agency and choice?
You must respond to ONE of your classmates 100+ words
Feminist Criminology
2015, Vol. 10(3) 211 –234
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1557085114541141
fcx.sagepub.com
Article
Sex Workers/Sex
Offenders: Exclusionary
Criminal Justice
Practices in New
Orleans
Susan Dewey1 and Tonia P. St. Germain1
Abstract
Until 2012, the New Orleans criminal justice system forced persons convicted of
certain prostitution offenses to register as sex offenders under an antiquated (1805)
statute that criminalizes oral or anal sex in exchange for compensation. This article
explores attitudes and beliefs that enabled Louisiana’s misuse of the sex offender
registry against primarily indigent African American street-based sex worker
women and transgender individuals. Findings presented here derive from a feminist
interdisciplinary (cultural anthropology and law) methodological strategy that included
qualitative ethnography, quantitative examination of Louisiana’s 64 parish-specific sex
offender registries, and legal/policy analysis.
Keywords
sex work, prostitution, sex offender registration, intersections of race/class/gender,
legal issues, political/state crime
The lingering injustice, resulting from over 20 years of discriminatory enforcement of
this law at police and prosecutors’ whims, will now finally come to an end. The State of
Louisiana will now finally bring its conduct into compliance with the Constitution and
the court’s prior rulings. This is an unqualified victory for Black women, poor women,
and LGBTQ people who fought back against injustice and won.
—Andrea Ritchie, cocounsel in Doe v. Jindal and Doe v. Caldwell
(Louisiana Justice Institute, 2013).
1University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA
Corresponding Author:
Susan Dewey, Gender & Women’s Studies, 102 Ross Hall, 1000 E. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
82070.
Email: sdewey3@uwyo.edu
541141 FCXXXX10.1177/1557085114541141Feminist CriminologyDewey and St. Germain
research-article2014
mailto:sdewey3@uwyo.edu
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1557085114541141&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-09-16
212 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
This article draws on findings from a mixed methods study to analyze the means by
which the New Orleans criminal justice system employed Louisiana’s arcane “Crime
Against Nature by Solicitation” (CANS) statute1 to convict sex workers and conse-
quently force them to register as sex offenders. It examines how CANS’ application
disproportionately affected African American women and transgender individuals,
leading the Louisiana Supreme Court, in 2012, to deem the law unconstitutional and,
in 2013, to mandate the removal of convicted sex workers’ names from the sex offender
registry (Doe et al. v. Jindal et al., 2012; Doe et al. v. Caldwell et al., 2013). Following
an exploration of the complexities involved in public policy and legal debates sur-
rounding U.S. criminal justice responses to street-based sex work, this article employs
qualitative interview findings to elucidate four discriminatory forces African American
women and transgender individuals face in New Orleans. The impact of these forces
worsen dramatically as a result of sex offender registration following a CANS convic-
tion: gender-based violence, and exclusion from employment, housing, and family and
community. Subsequent analysis draws upon quantitative data gleaned from
Louisiana’s sex offender registry, which comprises 64 parish-specific2 jurisdictions, to
establish the overrepresentation of African American women and transgender indi-
viduals. Findings presented indicate that these four types of sociolegal exclusion func-
tion to deepen, formalize, and legitimize discrimination against African American
women and transgender individuals.
The Law Is Only as Good as the People Who Enforce It:
CANS and Criminal Justice Responses to Street-Based
Sex Work
They [the criminal justice system] call it “crimes against nature” but it doesn’t mean you
had sex with a child, it could be oral sex in a car with a man. It’s unfair to the woman
that’s trying to start over. It’s gonna force her back into circumstances that she don’t
wanna get back into. You can’t find nowhere to stay, your people not takin’ you in, you
just got out of jail, you have no job, what else can you do? So you go back to the familiar,
and that’s it. It’s hard. (Latasha, personal communication, August 2012)
Latasha, a mother of three who was struggling with crack addiction and homelessness
at the time of her CANS conviction, became a felon and a sex offender prior to the
legislative change. As a 45-year-old former New Orleans street-based sex worker,3
Latasha is just one of 230 women who, prior to the 2013 Louisiana Supreme Court
decision, registered as a sex offender following a prosecutor’s decision to charge, and
a court’s decision to convict, her with CANS, a felony offense, rather than the misde-
meanor charge of prostitution. This was true of a full 80% of women listed on the sex
offender registry of Orleans Parish and neighboring Jefferson Parish. Some of the
tasks women like Latasha were required to undertake following a CANS conviction
included providing law enforcement officials with their full contact information,
which was made public on the sex offender registry, carrying state-issued identifica-
tion that reads “sex offender,” paying hefty registration and other fines, and restricting
Dewey and St. Germain 213
themselves to living in certain areas (Louisiana R.S. 15:542). These legal stipulations,
as Latasha observes, virtually ensure that individuals who had received a CANS con-
viction as a result of their involvement in prostitution continued to struggle with find-
ing housing, employment, and faced stigma, marginalization, and potential violence
within their communities. As registered sex offenders, female and transgender sex
workers face the same felony charges, limits on their personal freedoms, and moral
opprobrium as those who have raped, kidnapped, and otherwise inflicted severe viola-
tions against another person’s bodily integrity.
CANS is an antiquated statute adopted in 1805 outlawing “unnatural carnal copula-
tion,” which comprises oral and anal (but not vaginal) sex (Louisiana Statute 14:89.2).
These activities became connected to the sex offender registry in 1996 under circum-
stances unique to Louisiana. Sex offender registries are still a relatively recent crimi-
nal justice practice that emerged as part of the Wetterling Act, which was amended in
1996 to require public disclosure of sex offender registrants’ names and addresses, and
again in 2006 to extend the minimum period of sex offender registration to 15 years
(U.S. Congress, 2006). This federal legislation clearly targeted violent sexual preda-
tors with a history of harming children, rather than women who, like Latasha, have
engaged in street-based sex work as a survival strategy while addicted and precari-
ously housed. Yet in 1996 Louisiana legislators opted to apply the sex offender registry
requirements to the crimes against nature statute (Louisiana RS 15:540), becoming the
only U.S. state to require people convicted of crimes that do not involve minors or
sexual violence to register as sex offenders.
Prior to the 2012 and 2013 Louisiana Supreme Court rulings, individuals convicted
under the CANS law had to carry state-issued identification, such as a driver’s license,
with the words “sex offender” printed below their name. They were required to pay a
US$60 annual registration fee as well as fees ranging between US$250 and US$750 to
print and mail postcards featuring their name, address, and photograph to their neigh-
bors every time they moved. Like any registered sex offender, CANS offenders who
failed to register and pay these fees were guilty of a separate crime that carried penal-
ties of up to 10 years in prison (Louisiana R.S. 15:542). Individuals with a CANS
conviction had their names, addresses, and convictions appear in newspapers, in an
online sex offender database, and at public sites such as schools and community cen-
ters (Louisiana R.S. 15:542).
In March 2012, in response to Doe et al. v. Jindal et al., the legislature passed
Louisiana House Bill 141,4 which ensured that prostitution and CANS offenses shared
the same penalty—no more than a misdemeanor conviction. The judge in that case
ruled that the sex offender registration requirement under CANS violated the Equal
Protection Clause and ordered the state of Louisiana to cease and desist from placing
any individuals convicted of CANS on the registry and to remove the plaintiffs from
the registry within 30 days. Prior to this ruling, law enforcement had a choice between
charging accused sex workers under the prostitution law, which was a misdemeanor,
or under the centuries-old CANS law, a felony. The result was that people convicted of
the CANS felony were forced to register as sex offenders and those convicted of pros-
titution were not. Yet the removal from the registry only applied to the nine plaintiffs
214 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
in the case, meaning that women like Latasha remained on the registry and could have
been required to continue as registered sex offenders for 15 years from the date of their
first registration (Louisiana R.S. 15:544).
To purge the names of all CANS offenders from the sex offender registry, a federal
class action lawsuit, Doe et al. v. Caldwell et al. had to be filed. On June 12, 2013, Doe
et al. v. Caldwell et al. was settled and Louisiana removed from the sex offender reg-
istry approximately 700 individuals who had been required to register solely because
of a CANS conviction. Analysis presented below examines the impact of sex offender
registration–related discriminatory forces following a CANS conviction on African
American women and transgender individuals, including gender-based violence and
exclusion from employment, housing, and family and community.
Sociolegal Research Context
Doe et al. v. Jindal et al. exposed how the New Orleans criminal justice system used
the CANS legislation to deliberately target African American women and transgender
individuals, two populations already suffering from multiple forms of sociolegal
exclusion. New Orleans, which has some of the nation’s highest rates of poverty,
crime, illiteracy, and generalized economic deprivation, lost 30% of its population
subsequent to Hurricane Katrina’s massive destruction (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a),
which only compounded the steady reduction in stable jobs in shipping and related
industries that had been ongoing since the 1970s (BondGraham, 2007; Frailing &
Harper, 2007). Researchers generally concur that Hurricane Katrina disproportion-
ately negatively affected African Americans living in poverty by exacerbating previ-
ously existing racial and socioeconomic inequalities (Barnshaw & Trainor, 2007;
Hawkins & Maurer, 2012), access to affordable or subsidized housing (Bullard &
Wright, 2007), and notions of personal and community safety (Hawkins & Maurer,
2011), issues often only further compounded for sex workers.
Louisiana women are among the poorest in the United States, the least likely to
have health insurance, and more than 40% of female-headed households in New
Orleans live below the federal poverty line (Jones-Deweever & Hartmann, 2006).
Median household income in New Orleans is US$37,325, a full US$15,437 less than
the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, 2013b), and less than half of New
Orleanians, opposed to 70% of Louisianans, own their homes (U.S. Census Bureau,
2012a, 2012b). Rates of crack and heroin use (as well as drug-related sex markets) are
equivalent to New York City, which is nearly eight times New Orleans’ size (Dunlap,
Johnson, & Morse, 2007).
These problems are systematically embedded in a political culture, long predat-
ing Hurricane Katrina, that not only seems to absolve itself of responsibility for its
less privileged constituents, but to actively target them. As Louisiana Republican
Congressperson Richard H. Baker observed in the wake of the most destructive
storm in the state’s history, “we finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans.
We couldn’t do it, but God did” (Long, 2007, p. 3). The speaker’s use of the phrase
“cleaned up” with reference to the massive destruction wrought by Hurricane
Dewey and St. Germain 215
Katrina on Louisiana’s poorest communities is symptomatic of the embedded nature
of a broader discriminatory culture mirrored in CANS-related law enforcement
practices.
Increased scrutiny of these law enforcement practices and mobilization toward
legal reform of the CANS statute, particularly the sex offender registration require-
ment, came in the wake of increased federal government scrutiny of the New Orleans
Police Department (NOPD). Just days after his inauguration as Mayor of New Orleans,
Mitch Landrieu (2010) wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to request that the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division engage in a full investigation of the
NOPD, noting,
I have inherited a police force that has been described by many as one of the worst police
departments in the country. This assessment is made based on several indicators including
the number of violent crimes, incidents of rape, and malfeasance by members of the
police department. The force itself has been dealt a demoralizing blow with the
investigations, indictments, and resignations stemming from incidents in the days
following Hurricane Katrina. It is clear that nothing short of a complete transformation is
necessary and essential to ensure safety for the citizens of New Orleans. The police force,
the community, and our citizens are desperate for positive change.
In response, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division conducted a full
investigation of the NOPD, reporting in 2011 that
the NOPD has long been a troubled agency. Basic elements of effective policing—clear
policies, training, accountability, and confidence of the citizenry—have been absent for
years. Far too often, officers show a lack of respect for the civil rights and dignity of the
people of New Orleans. (p. v)
The report resulting from the Department of Justice investigation also found that
NOPD officers practiced unrestrained discretion in making decisions about who to
arrest, and “failed to take meaningful steps to counteract and eradicate bias based on
race, ethnicity, and LGBT status in policing practices” (U.S. Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, 2011, p. v). This bias actively manifested in CANS, which the
same report referred to as “a statute whose history reflects anti-LGBT sentiment”
(U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2011, p. x).
These police behaviors resulted in racial profiling of African American women
and transgender individuals as part of “a pattern or practice of discriminatory polic-
ing in violation of constitutional and statutory law” (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Rights Division, 2011, p. xi). Such policing practices relied on an arresting officer’s
individual professional judgment with respect to detaining an individual on prostitu-
tion or CANS-related charges. Findings from both the U.S. Department of Justice
report and our own research strongly indicates that CANS-related policing conse-
quently took the form of bias-based profiling, in which an officer decides whom to
stop, search, or arrest based on racial or gender stereotypes, rather than reasonable
suspicion or probable cause.
216 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
Research Method
The interdisciplinary research team, made up of a cultural anthropologist and a
legal scholar, began preliminary research in December 2011 as part of a broader
project investigating belief systems about sex work and sex trafficking among
criminal justice professionals, sex workers, social service providers, and social jus-
tice activists. The research examined occupation-specific beliefs, perceptions, and
practices among these groups, particularly in terms of legal distinctions between
sex workers as individuals who voluntarily participate in criminalized behavior and
hence face prosecution, and sex trafficked persons as those who have been victim-
ized by a third party and hence have entitlement to social services and legal
protections.
Qualitative research comprised interviews with participants from four groups,
defined as follows: (a) criminal justice professionals, any public sector employee
sworn to uphold the law; (b) sex workers, those who self-identify as having traded
sex or sexualized intimacy for money or something of value at some point in their
lives; (c) social service providers, those paid to assist low-income or otherwise mar-
ginalized individuals with receiving government or charitable benefits and facilities,
including food, shelter, health care and housing; (d) social justice activists, who
engage in harm reduction–oriented efforts to enact what they believe to be positive
changes for particular communities. Data collected included 20 total semistructured
interviews with participants from each group. Interviews were audio-recorded with
permission and detailed field notes were taken when permission to record was
declined. Two of the criminal justice professionals and all five of the sex workers
interviewed did not permit recording. Data analysis employed methodological trian-
gulation of interview transcripts, field notes from interviews and observation, legal
documents, news reports, and materials produced for dissemination by social justice
groups.
The coinvestigators undertook a quantitative analysis of all 64 parish-specific sites
of the Louisiana sex offender registry, which the first author compiled from May 31 to
June 2, 2013 by reviewing the 10,919 individual sex offender webpages that the
Louisiana State Police’s Public Safety Services had posted for each of the state’s par-
ishes (Louisiana State Police, Public Safety Services, 2013). The coinvestigators first
disaggregated the number of sex offenders by gender, then by the number of female
sex offenders with CANS convictions, and noted the racial background of the female
CANS registrant. The particularly high number of female sex offenders registered
solely as a result of a CANS conviction in Orleans Parish and neighboring Jefferson
Parish resulted in a detailed review of all 360 female sex offender registrants with
CANS convictions in these two parishes, disaggregating for gender, race, other crimi-
nal convictions listed, as well as whether the court had convicted the individual of an
aggravated offense. Quantitative analysis clearly demonstrated the overrepresentation,
in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, of African American women and, to the extent that
it is possible to do so without a clear statement of an individual’s gender identity, trans-
gender persons.
Dewey and St. Germain 217
Qualitative Findings
Sociolegal Exclusion
CANS-related practices in the criminal justice system actively functioned to deepen,
formalize, and legitimize the social exclusion of African American women and trans-
gender individuals. Our qualitative findings indicate that a set of discretionary crimi-
nal justice practices directly enabled four specific forms of CANS-related sociolegal
exclusion: gender-based violence and estrangement from housing, employment, and
family and community bonds.
Throughout the United States, discretionary process generally begins with a police
arrest report, which summarizes the events leading up to the arrest and numerous other
details, including dates, times, and locations involved. The arresting officer sends the
report to a prosecutor, whose job is to initiate and prosecute criminal cases, who then
decides what, if any, criminal charges to file. The prosecutor will decide whether the
case should be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor and follow appropriate procedure
to file with the trial court or grand jury, or to determine that the matter does not warrant
further attention. Speedy trial laws typically require prosecutors to make this decision
quickly.
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under U.S. law, government prosecut-
ing attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on vari-
ous matters, including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal
charges, deciding the nature of the charges, plea bargaining, and sentence recommen-
dation (Melilli, 1992); this is also the case in Louisiana (Dickerson Moore, 2000).
Prosecutorial decisions regarding whether to file charges and at what level may be
influenced by factors beyond the specific facts of the incident described in the police
report.
Some prosecution offices adopt policies on certain types of crimes, often in response
to community pressure (as is often the case with street-based sex work) and these poli-
cies may dictate the prosecutor’s approach in any given case. An office, for instance,
may decide to always file street-based prostitution arrests as misdemeanors. Prosecutors
may also be influenced by their own political ambitions, and in Louisiana district
attorneys are elected officials and can view their position as a stepping-stone to higher
office (State of Louisiana, 2013).
Public opinion or important support groups often impact a prosecutor’s decision
making; for instance, a prosecutor may file charges on every prostitution case, no mat-
ter how weak, to curry favor with local storeowners concerned about the high level of
visibility that generally accompanies this particular crime. One organization engaged
in legislative advocacy echoes this view in noting that
efforts to reform criminal justice policies are politically perilous—no office holder wants
to be labeled “soft on crime,” and measures to make crime policy . . . mayors, police
chiefs, legislators—even Presidents—love to take credit for safer streets and are loath to
tinker with a winning electoral formula. (Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, 2013)
218 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
Standard New Orleans criminal justice policies on CANS strongly reflect such con-
cerns about public perceptions on crime. Shortly after taking office, New Orleans
Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas publicly stated, “prostitution is a crime of addic-
tion and violence,” thereby explicitly linking transactional sexual exchanges to car-
jackings, robberies, and other violent crimes (Monteverde, 2011). Such a stance further
enabled discriminatory policing practices with respect to CANS by increasing the
amount of police attention focused on these activities.
Interviews conducted as part of the research corroborated this stance as an articula-
tion of a broader “tough on crime” policy. An attorney with years of pro bono experi-
ence representing sex worker clients offered Dewey a rather ominous view of why
NOPD favored CANS-related arrests over misdemeanor prostitution arrests:
They would instead arrest people for crimes against nature, which is a felony, which
made for a better arrest as far as the state was concerned. When Harry Connick was the
district attorney that was his standard policy, that if there was any suggestion of oral sex
at all in the transaction they would charge it as a crime against nature and not as
prostitution because the felony would stick . . . it used to be that essentially they would
send out “blow job patrols” and there were a couple of cops whose only job was to solicit
blow jobs, and the problem with vice cops is that they become crooked themselves, and
then take advantage of the people who they’re arresting and soliciting from, and it’s a
very, very dirty thing.
Likewise, a retired New Orleans criminal district court judge told Dewey that
because the law required an actual sex act to take place to prosecute an individual for
CANS, “you had law enforcement people who would in fact engage with these women
in these acts and arrest some and not others.” He attributed this to what he termed “a
hard-nosed notion in terms of prosecution” that adversely affected not only law
enforcement officers who engaged in such acts but also the criminal justice system
more broadly. As a Louisiana law enforcement officer told Dewey of his experiences
on patrol, “sometimes you feel like you’re just spinnin’ your wheels out there. Vice is
always the lowest on the totem pole and down here it’s all political because politicians
and other people are all tied up in drugs, prostitution.”
Such cynicism among criminal justice professionals underscores the complexities
involved in prosecuting CANS-related cases, including the reality that a prosecutor’s
decision-making processes may be influenced by his or her sense of what justice
requires. Prosecutors are supposed to both enforce the law and “do justice,” which
occasionally means that a prosecutor decides not to prosecute a case (or file less severe
charges) because the interests of justice require it, even if the facts of the case might
support a conviction. Conversely, a prosecutor might decide to increase his or her
department’s reputation with a “law and order” public by increasing the number of
felony convictions for political reasons and reap the financial benefits from a law
enforcement system that makes budget decisions based on crime and conviction rates.
Higher criminal conviction rates can mean more money, more staff, and greater politi-
cal influence for prosecutors and police. Hence manufacturing felony convictions
Dewey and St. Germain 219
against middle class marijuana users would produce political complication, but target-
ing marginalized and indigent African American women and transgender individuals
generally would not.
The primary responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, which can only be
achieved by the representation and presentation of the truth (National District Attorneys
Association, 2009, p. 11). For instance, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s (2013)
mission statement notes that it exists to “represent the interests of the State of Louisiana,
advocate for victims of crime, protect public safety, and uphold justice in an honest
and ethical manner.” Law is only as good as the people who enforce it, and police and
prosecutors become successful in their careers by enforcing the law rather than pro-
testing a discriminatory status quo. Internal systems of “self-policing” have evolved,
including internal affairs investigative departments for police and prosecutorial ethical
compliance, but these can fail in a systemic manner, as so clearly shown in the
Department of Justice investigation of the NOPD.
The discretionary powers conferred by this system may cause police officers and
other criminal justice professionals to rely on race or gender expression, resulting in
skewed policing practices systematically exercised to disadvantage New Orleanian
African American women and transgender individuals. This is not to imply that pros-
ecutors are by and large prejudiced, but as with police activity, prosecutorial judgment
is shaped by a set of self-perpetuating racial and gender assumptions that have dispro-
portionate impacts, even if their intent is to be race-neutral or gender-neutral.
Prosecutorial decision making, in tandem with police tactics in Louisiana, have con-
tributed to the criminalization of race and gender expression in four specific ways that
have had a devastating impact upon New Orleanian African American women and
transgender individuals.
Gender-Based Violence
Sex workers, transgender individuals, and queer community members all face consider-
able discrimination and stigma in the Southern United States as part of what American
Studies scholar Robert Goss (2009) terms a “cultural homophobia” supported by mass
media, jokes, and other pervasive social practices that directly enable or excuse vio-
lence (p. 274). Likewise, Performance Studies and African American Studies scholar E.
Patrick Johnson’s (2008) examination of oral histories collected among gay African
American men in the South led him to argue that despite the community resiliency and
creativity displayed by the men in his research, “the South is still a place where hate
flourishes and manifests itself in senseless violence” (p. 546). A review of hate crimes
statistics gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation led The Southern Poverty
Law Center to conclude that LGBTQ individuals “are far more likely than any other
minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime” (Potok,
2010). Likewise, women who engage in sex work experience far higher rates of victim-
ization than their non–sex worker peers (Salfati, James, & Ferguson, 2008), which may
lead some to infer that these acts of violence also constitute hate crimes.
220 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
The environment that directly enabled the criminal justice system to engage in
these approaches to policing African American women and transgender individuals is
informed by moral and cultural, as well as law and order, concerns. A retired New
Orleans criminal district court judge interviewed by the first author felt that such prac-
tices undermined individual civil rights and put the state in the business of legislating
morality. Policing those engaged in sexual practices deemed morally abhorrent by the
state, he explained to Dewey,
goes back to those religious notions in terms of when we really truly believed that there
was something morally wrong with that kind of behavior and as the bulwarks of morality
we had to in fact stop that behavior and the way to do that was put people in jail for it.
The CANS statute exemplified this approach.
Throughout the United States, street-based sex workers face higher rates of vio-
lence and homicide than sex workers in other venues, and especially in comparison
with non–sex workers (Dalla, Xia, & Kennedy, 2003; Romero-Daza, 2003; Salfati et
al., 2008). Transgender individuals have reported being the target of sexual and physi-
cal abuse by NOPD officers as a result of their gender expression (U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2011). As an an individual explained to Dewey with
reference to the members of a transgender advocacy group,
We’ve had members that were involved in sex work that have had police officers approach
them for sex and then threatened with arrest if they didn’t perform, so in terms of force
and coercion that’s certainly something that members have identified. We’ve started
doing a survey of young people and we’ve only surveyed so far 15 Black transwomen
under 30, but 15 out of 15 had been stopped by an officer and asked for sex or for a sexual
favor of some sort. And this is rampant: last year there was a police officer that was
actually charged because he approached an undercover officer for sex.
Social justice activists have argued that the almost complete discretionary powers
held by police officers and prosecutors in making such a potentially devastating deci-
sion about another person’s life results in both outright and more subtle forms of dis-
criminatory policing against African American women and transgender individuals.
As civil rights attorneys and activists Joey Mogul, Kay Whitlock, and Andrea J.
Ritchie, who served as cocounsel on a CANS-related federal court case, note, “norma-
tive sexualities and gender expressions, alone or in combination with markers of race
and class, have also informed the manner in which different instances of similar con-
duct are interpreted” (Mogul, Ritchie, & Whitlock, 2012, pp. xvii-xviii). The director
of a New Orleans LGBTQ rights and advocacy organization echoed this point in an
interview with Dewey, describing the New Orleans police practice of using gender
expression as probable cause for stopping an individual, particularly in areas of the
city with a reputation for street-based sex work:
So walking to the store, for example, you could be stopped. We had a young woman who was
stopped not too long ago and her bag was searched and the officer found cash that was not a
Dewey and St. Germain 221
large amount of cash, it was just cash that was not in a wallet, and said that “because you just
threw your cash in your purse without putting it in a wallet, it’s clear that you’re engaging in
sex work, prostituting.” We have had officers say, you know, “you’ve got more than two
condoms along with cash in your purse and, you know, this is sort of evidence enough.”
Likewise, the Department of Justice’s report on its investigation of the NOPD noted
that “African Americans, ethnic minorities, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender community reported harassment and disrespectful treatment, and
being unfairly targeted for stops, searches and arrests” (U.S. Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, 2011, p. ix). The report further observes that “transgender
women complained that NOPD officers improperly target and arrest them for prostitu-
tion, sometimes fabricating evidence of solicitation for compensation,” and specifi-
cally mentioned the sex offender component of CANS legislation (U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2011, p. x).
A cisgender female sex worker who had lived in New Orleans her entire life
explained to Dewey that forcing transgender sex workers to self-identify as “male” on
the sex offender registry also constituted a form of violence. She expressed surprise
that, once she became a resident of a bohemian New Orleans neighborhood known for
its sexual diversity, she began to receive the postcards disclosing some of her neigh-
bors’ sex offender status:
When I first moved here, I kept getting these postcards, with pictures of transwomen,
notifying me that they were sex offenders. And it took a long time before I understood
what this was all about—I kept thinking, “are there that many transwomen molesting
children?” Then I realized, they’re being forced to publicly identify as men who live as
women, and that in itself opens them up to all kinds of threats, even here.
The threats the speaker mentions can be overt, such as the risk of potential violence,
or more subtle, such as limited or lack of access to legal forms of work.
Employment
African American and transgender women, like all New Orleanians, can struggle to
make ends meet in an economy where, with a 7% statewide unemployment rate, jobs
are plentiful but largely confined to the tourism-generated service sector; indeed,
Orleans Parish has the highest unemployment rate in Louisiana (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2013). What economic growth does exist is restricted to the low-wage ser-
vice sector, which derives at least part of its tourism-related income from the city’s
reputation as a space for the libertine experience of physical pleasures in all forms
(Long, 2004; Schafer, 2009; Stantonis, 2006). As one sex workers’ rights activist
describes the experiences of many people of color “. . . you can party in New Orleans
all night long, but you can only party in New Orleans, and even that is limited based
on who and where you are in the city” (Piano, 2011, p. 213).
This spatial regulation of African American women and transgender individuals,
which the speaker glosses as “who and where you are” also applies to the ability to
222 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
obtain a service sector job in the city’s restaurant and entertainment-based economy.
This is part of a long-standing trend stemming from the restructuring of the oil indus-
try and the relocation of major employers such as Amoco and British Petroleum in the
late 1980s and early 1990s (Frailing & Harper, 2010). An estimated 65,000 people left
New Orleans subsequent to the job losses sustained by such massive changes to the oil
industry (Souther, 2007, p. 811). These negative economic trends, coupled with the
natural disasters caused by Hurricane Katrina and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, disproportionately negatively affected African Americans, who were already the
city’s most vulnerable economic group (Lyons, 2011).
Social justice activists and sex workers alike told the first author that restaurants
and other tourism-related entertainment venues hesitate to hire those who do not self-
present as cisgender. An activist aligned with the transgender community noted that
A lot of our transgender women have said that they don’t feel that they can get a job that
is like a typical kind of service job in New Orleans, because they’ve attempted to go and
been just turned away or told that they’re not hiring, which they’ve said feels based upon
their appearance and their gender expression.
Yet for individuals with CANS convictions that mandate sex offender registration,
the difficulties in obtaining even poorly paid service sector work can be nearly insur-
mountable. Deon Haywood, Executive Director of the group that spearheaded the
move to end mandatory sex offender registration for individuals with CANS convic-
tions, observed that
Some of these women will be turned down for jobs at Burger King and McDonald’s
because people think, “Oh, you’re a sex offender and we have too many children coming
in here.” Some will carry around their paperwork so they can explain why they have this
charge. It’s . . . our modern-day scarlet letter. (Piano, 2011, p. 209)
A sex worker interviewed by the first author echoed these concerns about the “scar-
let letter” of sex offender status, voicing her concerns that individuals who sometimes
supplemented a service industry job’s meager wages with income from sex work
would lose even that limited opportunity to earn money legally. She uses the example
of the French Quarter, New Orleans’ most heavily touristed area and consequently the
home of most service industry jobs:
Last year there were two women charged with it [CANS] in the French Quarter and the
judge banned them from the French Quarter after that. One of them had a legit job in the
French Quarter and wasn’t able to go back to work, and its gets you thinking about the
ways that someone’s movement is limited and people are forced into this cycle of criminal
justice involvement and poverty and et cetera et cetera when they’re limiting the way that
people can walk and be safe, particularly to their job.
The Department of Justice report on its NOPD investigation also highlighted this
issue in its observation that “for the already vulnerable transgender community, inclusion
Dewey and St. Germain 223
on the sex offender registry further stigmatizes and marginalizes them, complicating
efforts to secure jobs, housing, and obtain services at places like publicly-run emergency
shelters” (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2011, p. x).
Housing
Those convicted of CANS and forced to register as sex offenders can face stigma and
discrimination while seeking housing. It is a bitter irony that a city home to some of
the United States’ most unique historic architecture also has some of the grossest hous-
ing inequalities. As anthropologists Rachel Breunlin and Helen Regis (2006) note,
“since the beginning of the city’s history, poor and working-class black New Orleanians
have been forced to live in ecologically and economically marginal land” (p. 746). The
tourism-dominated economy relies at least in part on visitors’ desires to see the ornate
balconies and low-roofed Creole cottages in the French Quarter and Marigny neigh-
borhoods, resulting in urban planning and redevelopment policies that privilege a
small economically privileged and largely White percentage of the city’s population
(Souther, 2007).
Individuals convicted of CANS and forced to register as sex offenders face daunt-
ing odds in locating housing, particularly as a consequence of post-Katrina housing
redevelopment efforts that have further deprivileged already disadvantaged communi-
ties. Such redevelopment efforts included the destruction of four public housing com-
munities—a total of 5,000 homes—that had experienced little storm-related damage to
make way for higher cost housing (Finger, 2011). Rental costs have doubled or tripled
in some parts of New Orleans since Katrina (Quigley, 2005), as part of an economic
and spatial restructuring that clearly represents “commitments to the subtle replace-
ment of an ethics of public care with an ethics of private profit” (Adams, 2012, p. 190).
Access to affordable housing is even more complicated for African American
women and transgender individuals; indeed, many U.S. street-based sex workers are
already marginally housed or experiencing homelessness, a factor that leads to engage-
ment in transactional sexual exchange in the first place (Duff, Deering, Gibson,
Tyndall, & Shannon, 2011). As one transgender rights activist explained,
We’ve had people that have been stopped for being in a known prostitution area, which
is also an area where there is the lowest rent. For a lot of our young women who are
marginally housed or homeless or kind of pillar to post, a lot of them will stay in motels,
and the cheapest rent is along Tulane Avenue, which is also what police officers will call
“a known prostitution area.”
Individuals who have a criminal record of prostitution offenses struggle to find housing
due to background checks (Lazarus, Chettiar, Deering, Nabess, & Shannon, 2011); like-
wise so for all who bear the “contemporary scarlet letter” created by electronic criminal
records relatively accessible by almost anyone, including prospective landlords (Murphy,
Fuleihan, Richards, & Jones, 2011). Yet sex offenders face unique challenges in finding
housing due to legal prohibitions on their living within 1,000 feet of a school, child care
224 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
facility, public park, recreational facility, or library (Louisiana Revised Statute 14:91.2).
For instance, a staff member and former street-based sex worker at a shelter for women
experiencing homelessness expressed frustration that her facility, by law, had to turn away
women registered as sex offenders because of a CANS conviction. As she explained to
Dewey,
If a woman has crimes against nature [a CANS conviction resulting in sex offender
registration] we cannot accept her because we have kids on the second floor. And we know
it’s not that she had sex with a child, but that she got into the sex thing [sex work] cause of
homelessness, bein’ hungry, havin’ to take care of kids, tryin’ to find shelter, to pay for
drugs. Mainly survival. Some women look at it like that, it’s a job, they get paid, they go
out and do it. It’s a survival thing, they have to work, but people judge you all the same.
Family and community
All African American women and many transgender individuals convicted of CANS
and forced to register as sex offenders belong to communities that disproportionately
bore the social burdens of the Katrina disaster. Two out of three African American
homes flooded, as compared with one in four White or Latino/a homes, and one in
three Asian homes (Campanella, 2007). Uneven and sometimes discriminatory
rebuilding efforts have resulted in a situation which social work scholars characterize
as “rebuilding black poverty” due to the lack of efforts to address the structural racism
that enabled such massive destruction to take place (Hawkins & Maurer, 2012). This
structural racism directly informs the limited life choices that lead some African
American women and transgender individuals into sex work (and, in the case of CANS
convictions, onto the sex offender registry) in the first place.
Limited social safety nets, such as financial support, housing, and other community
bonds are limited by redevelopment efforts “based on who can afford it, not necessarily
who was most affected by the disaster based on flooding levels or social vulnerability”
(Finch, Emrich, & Cutter, 2010, pp. 199-200). African American women in Louisiana
earn the least of any U.S. group, with a median annual income of just US$19,400; like-
wise, only 27.2% of African American women have managerial or professional jobs in
comparison with 65% of White women. New Orleans college graduation rates among
women are similarly disparate, with just over 16% of African American and 50% of
White women finishing a university degree (Jones-Deweever & Hartmann, 2006). In
such circumstances, family and community resiliency comprise critical components of
everyday survival, particularly around the sharing of scarce resources. Sometimes, as
reported by one of the street-based sex workers in a focus group carried out by Dewey,
rejection by these social networks can have a devastating impact:
The hardest thing, I think, that we face is when you come out of jail, the women are
forced into the workfield and they have not worked. Or women who don’t have an
education, 10th grade level, then they quit. It’s hard with a high school diploma. You
know how hard it is without it? Then young women who become homeless and have
these four or five kids, you know, no family members to help them, or three or four
Dewey and St. Germain 225
fathers in the family, domestic violence is involved, and sometimes that’s enough to push
you into drugs. Tryin’ not to feel, tryin’ not to be responsible, because sometimes it can
be overwhelming.
Women Dewey spoke with who had been involved in sex work as a means to sup-
port a crack addiction also spoke of stigma that alienated them from families and com-
munities of which they had once been a part. In their view, addiction took priority over
these bonds:
Crack cocaine is very expensive and it’s a bad habit to have, and when you’re doin’ crack
you’re not working, you don’t care about nobody. You don’t got a job and you do need
money, and when the money that you did have run out that’s [sex work] about the only
thing that’s left, unless you gonna steal, you understand. You don’t want to admit it to
your peoples but sooner or later they find out and they gonna judge you. Now when you
add bein’ a sex offender to that mix, what you think is gonna happen?
Positioning women with CANS-related sex offender registration as permanent
community exiles as a consequence of their sexual behavior, this speaker underscores
the power of stigma to divide, or even sever, family and community bonds.
The formation of community bonds is also a critical survival strategy for African
American women and transgender individuals, who may form their own communities
in direct response to exclusionary homophobic cultural practices that some scholars
have found to be pervasive in the South (Barton, 2011; Howard, 2001; Sears, 2001;
Wills & Crawford, 1999). Yet, like cisgender sex workers of color, transgender indi-
viduals report that discriminatory policing, particularly of bars and other community
spaces where transgender persons congregate, disrupts or threatens their sense of
safety and well-being (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2011).
Quantitative Findings From Louisiana Parish Sex
Offender Registries
Analysis of sentencing discrepancies derived from all 64 Louisiana sex offender reg-
istries demonstrates that Orleans Parish disproportionately issued CANS convictions
to African American and transgender sex workers relative to the size of these popula-
tions. Our review of parish sex offender registries clearly indicates that Orleans Parish
systematically issued CANS convictions to African American women, such that 80%
of Louisiana’s female sex offender registrants reside in Orleans and neighboring
Jefferson Parish.5 African American women, who make up 30% of New Orlean’s pop-
ulation, comprise 80% of Louisiana’s total number of sex offenders registered as a
result of a CANS conviction.
A review of the sex offender registries for each of Louisiana’s 64 parishes clearly
underscores the highly localized nature of CANS prosecutions. Indeed, 43 of Louisiana
parishes, a full 67.18% of the state’s total number, have no sex offender registrants
with a CANS conviction.6 Six parishes, 9.37% of the total, had just one female sex
226 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
offender convicted of CANS,7 10 parishes, 15.62% of the total, had just two women
registered for this offense,8 and 2 other parishes had three and four.9 In some cases, the
sex offender registry entry for CANS-convicted women in parishes other than Orleans
and Jefferson indicated the conviction of the registrant in Orleans Parish, but because
sex offender registry entries did not consistently note place of conviction it has been
omitted as a variable in analysis presented here.
The total number of women in Louisiana parish sex offender registries was 465, a
full 230 (nearly 50%) of which must register solely as a result of a CANS conviction.
Of these women, 132, or 57.39%, registered in New Orleans. Jefferson Parish, which
surrounds Orleans Parish and encompasses many New Orleans suburbs, had 52 female
sex offender registrants (22.6%) whose only reason for registering is a CANS convic-
tion. Hence, 184 women, 80% of the total number registered as sex offenders solely
due to a CANS conviction, reside in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes and likely received
their CANS conviction in New Orleans. Eleven (23.91%) of the 46 women featured in
Table 1’s “All Other Parishes” column registered as sex offenders in East Baton Rouge
Parish due to their residence there.
Yet these statistics appear even more striking on further analysis. There were a total of
891 registered sex offenders in Orleans Parish, 270 of whom registered solely as a result
of a CANS convictions, and 144 (53.3%) of whom were women (see Table 1). 108 of
these women were African American (75%), and 36 (25%) were White. The 2010 U.S.
Census data indicate that 206,871, or 60.16%, of New Orleans total 343,829 residents
self-identified as African American, 32.98% as White,10 which seems to indicate that
African American women were overrepresented, and White women underrepresented in
CANS convictions (see Table 2 and 3). Curiously, the Orleans Parish sex offender registry
did not include any racial or ethnic categories other than “Black” or “White,” even when
registrants had names, phenotypes, or physical features clearly associated with particular
ethnic or racial groups. For instance, light-skinned women with identifiably Latina or
Asian names consistently had “white” next to the category marked “race” in the Orleans
Parish sex offender registry, while darker skinned women had “black” listed.
Orleans Parish’s 270 sex offender registrants with CANS convictions also com-
prised men and individuals with male legal names, a list of feminine aliases, and pho-
tographs displaying a cis-female11 self-presentation that may indicate transgender
identity. Sex offender registries, like many other government and law enforcement
databases, do not acknowledge transgender persons with a separate gender identity
category and instead classify individuals as either male or female based on other gov-
ernment identification or records. This practice is highly problematic for those inter-
ested in using data derived from the criminal justice system as a means to document
Table 1. Female Sex Offender Registrants Solely Because of a CANS Conviction, by Parish.
All other parishes
Orleans Jefferson
46 144 52
Note. CANS = Crime Against Nature by Solicitation.
Dewey and St. Germain 227
policing and sentencing practices with respect to transgender individuals. As with the
limited categories with respect to race, this reflects the rather narrow identity catego-
ries envisioned by at least some criminal justice professionals.
We identified 18 persons in the Orleans Parish sex offender registry with male legal
names who self-presented as cis-female, with highly feminized self-presentation
markers such as long, elaborately coiffed hairstyles (excluding braids or dreadlocks,
which were common for people of all genders), makeup, long, elaborate earrings, and,
in some instances, the use of one or more female aliases. Using this method, transgen-
der persons constitute 6.66% of those who must register as sex offenders solely due to
a CANS conviction, but it is possible that there were many more transgender persons
in the sex offender registry who did not self-present in this way. This sort of silencing
in criminal justice recordkeeping reflects broader, and very problematic, ways of
thinking about gender identities.
Not including the individuals with male legal names who self-presented as cis-
female (“MNCF” in Table 4), Orleans Parish had 108 registered male sex offenders
with a CANS conviction, comprising 37.7% of the total CANS registrants. Fifty-three
of these individuals, 49% of the total, registered solely because of a CANS conviction;
38 of these men were African American. The remaining 55 men, 50.92% of the total,
had convictions for violent sexual crimes in addition to the CANS charge.
Table 2. Female Sex Offender Registrants Solely Because of a CANS Conviction in Orleans
Parish, by Race.
Orleans
African American White
108 36
Note. CANS = Crime Against Nature by Solicitation.
Table 3. Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, Percentage of Population by Race and Female
Gender.
Orleans Jefferson
African American White African American White
60.4% 34.8% 27% 66.7%
Source. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22051.html.
Note. Female persons constitute 52% of the population in Orleans Parish and 51.4% of Jefferson Parish. In
Orleans Parish, 95.2% of the population self-identifies as African American or White; others self-identify
as Hispanic or Latino (5.3%), Asian (3%), two or more races (1.4%), American Indian or Alaska Native
(0.4%), or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.1%). In Jefferson Parish, 93.7% of the population
self-identifies as African American or White; others self-identify as Hispanic or Latino (13.1%), Asian
(4.1%), two or more races (1.5%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.7%), or Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander (0.1%).
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22051.html
228 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
Table 4. Orleans and Jefferson Parish Sex Offender Registrants Solely Because of a CANS
Conviction, by Gender and Race.
Orleans
Male Female MNCFa
African American 38 108 18
White 15 36 0
Note. CANS = Crime Against Nature by Solicitation.
aThis acronym refers to those with male legal name whose gender self-presentation was clearly cis-
female. Notably, such individuals only appeared in the Orleans Parish sex offender registry.
Forty-one men had dual sex crime and CANS convictions involving violent sex
crimes,12 making these cases 37.96% of the total for men with CANS convictions.
Eighteen men, 16.6% of the total, had multiple charges for violent sexual offenses in
addition to the CANS conviction, and 17 had committed these offenses against juve-
niles or children. Sixty-two men, 57.4% of the total, received convictions for commit-
ting aggravated crime against nature,13 a conviction received by only four women, just
2.7% of the total number women with CANS convictions; none of those with male
legal names who presented as cis-female received this conviction.
Disaggregating the quantitative data by race strikingly demonstrates differences in
sentencing practices for those with male legal names and a cis-female self-presenta-
tion. Every person with a male legal name who self-presented in their photograph as
cis-female is African American; 87 of all the male sex offender registrants with CANS
convictions are African American. When those with male legal names who did self-
present as cis-female are considered as part of the total number of African American
men, this figure rises to 105, or 83.33% of the 126 total individuals with male legal
names who had CANS convictions.
Similarly, disaggregating the quantitative data by the gender of registered sex
offenders solely with a CANS conviction produced the most striking results: 144
African American women, or 97.91% of all women sex offender registrants in Orleans
Parish, registered solely as a result of a CANS conviction. All the 18 individuals, or
100%, with male legal names who self-presented as cis-female appeared in the sex
offender registry only because of a CANS conviction. A total of 53, or 49% of the total,
male sex offenders registered as a result of a CANS conviction. We can reasonably
conclude from this data that women and individuals who may be transgender are grossly
overrepresented in the sex offender registry as a consequence of CANS convictions.
Conclusion: Implications for Criminal Justice and
Feminist Practice
Our findings suggest that feminist scholars and practitioners working within what soci-
ologist Elizabeth Bernstein (2010) has termed “carceral feminism,” which she describes
Dewey and St. Germain 229
as “a shared commitment to carceral paradigms of social, and in particular gender,
justice and to militarized humanitarianism as the pre-eminent mode of engagement by
the state” (p. 45) might view the CANS convictions and its resulting discriminatory
impact as a cautionary tale. Taking note of the numerous instances in which a simulta-
neous desire on the part of U.S. legislators, policy makers, and the public to take a law
and order or “tough on crime” approach made easy targets of sex workers, women of
color, poor women, and transgender individuals—just the groups that many feminists
seeks to champion. Such policies’ reliance on simplistic moral judgments fails to
account for the negative structural impacts caused by systematic discrimination against
members of particular sexual, racial, or class groups, thereby directly reducing the
rights of sex workers, particularly sex workers of color, to be present in public space.
Sex offender registration virtually guaranteed that CANS-convicted African
American and transgender individuals would stay homeless, or marginally housed,
and engaged in sex work due to the lack of other opportunities available to them for
the 15-year mandatory registration period. In New Orleans, law enforcement’s engage-
ment in racial and gender profiling of African American women and transgender indi-
viduals stemmed from an arbitrary set of criminal justice practices that enabled
unconstrained discretion in who police arrested and prosecutors charged. Law enforce-
ment used gender expression and race as probable cause for stopping a person on
suspicion of soliciting or intent to engage in prostitution and freed individual police
and prosecutors to use their own attitudes and beliefs to make decisions about arrests
and charging at the misdemeanor or felony level, thus policing morality instead of
enforcing the law.
These criminal justice practices resulted in a sociolegal regime that actively tar-
geted African American women and transgender individuals by formalizing their
exclusion and effectively denying them full citizenship. As such, the case of CANS
legislation and mandatory sex offender registry in New Orleans powerfully under-
scores the potentially life-altering consequences of using law as a catchall solution to
particular social issues and ignoring the unintended consequences of misguided
policy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. “Crime against nature by solicitation is the solicitation by a human being of another with
the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation” (Louisiana
Revised Statute 14§89.2).
230 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
2. “Parish” is synonymous with “county” elsewhere in the United States. Louisiana has 64
parishes, each of which is typically divided into wards that number between 5 and 10; as
with counties in the rest of the United States, parishes each have their own sex offender
registry. For more on the development of parish governance in Louisiana history, see
Scroggs (1913).
3. Throughout this article, we use “sex worker” to refer to a person who exchanges sex or
sexualized intimacy for money, drugs, or other tangible object of value. For the sake of
clarity in our discussion of legislation, the term prostitution will be used to refer to the
criminal offense committed during the illegal exchange of sex for money.
4. This act amended Louisiana Revised Statute 14§89.2 to equalize the Crime Against Nature
by Solicitation (CANS) statute with prostitution by no longer requiring an individual con-
victed of CANS two or more times to register as a sex offender unless the solicitation is
aimed at a minor. Those convicted two or more times of CANS, as with prostitution, may
be fined between US$250 and US$2,000, jailed for 2 or more years, or both (Anderson,
2011; Doe et al. v. Jindal et al., 2012).
5. The coauthors did not have access to New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) prostitu-
tion arrest data disaggregated by race, which would have been an ideal means by which
to examine whether African American women are equally overrepresented. We strongly
encourage future researchers to explore this avenue of inquiry should the NOPD make
these records public at some future point.
6. The following parishes had no sex offender registrants convicted solely of CANS: Acadia,
Allen, Assumption, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caldwell, Cameron, Catahoula,
Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant,
Iberia, Jackson, La Salle, Lincoln, Madison, Morehouse, Nachitoches, Ouachita, Point
Coupee, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. James, St. Landry, St. Mary, St.
Martin, St. Tammany, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Baton Rouge, West Carroll,
West Feliciana, Winn.
7. Jefferson Davis, Lafourche, St. Bernard, Terrebonne, Vermilion, Washington.
8. Ascension, Avoyelles, Caddo, Calcasieu, Iberville, Lafayette, Livingston, Plaquemines, St.
John the Baptist, Tangipahoe.
9. Rapides, St. Charles.
10. “2010 Demographic Profile: New Orleans” Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
popfinder/
11. Gender studies scholars Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook (2009, p. 440) define “cis-
gender” as “individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth,
their bodies, and their personal identity. Use of this term acknowledges that everyone has a
gender identity and that “male” and “female” do not constitute default “normal” categories
in opposition to, for instance, transgender.”
12. These convictions included sexual battery, forcible rape, aggravated rape, and simple rape.
La.Rev.Stat.§14:43.1 defines sexual battery as nonconsensual sexual touching of a person,
sexual touching of a person younger than 15 years of age by a person older than 17 years
of age, or sexual touching of person incapable of resisting due to mental incapacitation,
advanced age, or disability. La.Rev.Stat.14:42.1 defines forcible rape as nonconsensual
anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse when a victim is incapable of resisting due to force
or threats of physical violence or intoxication. La.Rev.Stat.§42 defines aggravated rape as
nonconsensual anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse with a victim 65 years or older or
younger than 13 years of age, who is unable to resist due to force, disability threats, use of
a weapon, or multiple offenders. La.Rev.Stat.§14:43 defines simple rape as nonconsensual
http://www.census.gov/popfinder/
http://www.census.gov/popfinder/
Dewey and St. Germain 231
anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse with a victim incapable of resisting due to an
intoxicating agent, unsoundness of mind, or belief that the offender is her husband.
13. La.Rev.Stat.§89.1 defines an aggravated crime against nature as a crime against nature
committed when a victim resists and is overcome by force, is prevented from resisting by
threats of bodily harm, use of a weapon, mental disability or intoxication, or when the vic-
tim is younger than 17 years of age and the offender is at least 3 years older than the victim.
References
Adams, V. (2012). The other road to serfdom: Recovery by the market and the affect economy
in New Orleans. Public Culture, 24, 185-216.
Anderson, E. (2011, June 28). Gov. Bobby Jindal signs bill to equalize penalties for soliciting
crime against nature with those of prostitution. The Times-Picayune.
Audrey Doe et al. v. Bobby Jindal et al., 851 F.Supp. 2d 995 (E.D. La. 2012)
Barnshaw, J., & Trainor, J. (2007). Race, class, and capital amidst the Hurricane Katrina dias-
pora. In D. Brunsma, D. Overfelt, & S. Picou (Eds.), The sociology of Katrina: Perspectives
on a modern catastrophe (pp. 91-106). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barton, B. (2011). 1CROSS + 3NAILS = 4GVN: Compulsory Christianity and homosexuality
in the Bible belt panopticon. Feminist Formations, 23, 70-93.
Bernstein, E. (2010). Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: The politics of sex,
rights, and freedom in contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns. Signs: Journal of Women
in Culture and Society, 36, 45-71.
BondGraham, D. (2007). The New Orleans that race built: Racism, disaster, and urban spa-
tial relationships. Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society, 9,
4-18.
Breunlin, R., & Regis, H. (2006). Putting the ninth ward on the map: Race, place, and transfor-
mation in desire, New Orleans. American Anthropologist, 108, 744-764.
Bullard, R., & Wright, B. (2007). Black New Orleans: Before and after Hurricane Katrina. In
R. Bullard (Ed.), The Black metropolis in the twenty-first century: Race, power, and the
politics of Places (pp. 173-198). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Local area unemployment statistics: Unemployment rates
for states. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Campanella, R. (2007). An ethnic geography of New Orleans. The Journal of American History,
94, 704-715.
Dalla, R., Xia, Y., & Kennedy, H. (2003). “You just give them what they want and pray they
don’t kill you”: Street-level sex workers’ reports of victimization, personal resources and
coping strategies. Violence Against Women, 9, 1367-1394.
Dickerson Moore, S. (2000). Questioning the autonomy of prosecutorial charging decisions:
Recognizing the need to exercise discretion-knowing there will be consequences for cross-
ing the line. Louisiana Law Review, 60, 370-404.
Duff, P., Deering, K., Gibson, K., Tyndall, M., & Shannon, K. (2011). Homelessness among a
cohort of women in street-based sex work: The need for safer environment interventions.
BioMed Central Public Health, 11, Article 643.
Dunlap, E., Johnson, B., & Morse, E. (2007). Illicit drug markets among New Orleans evacuees
soon after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Drug Issues, 37, 981-1006.
Emma Doe et al. v. James Caldwell et al., Section “F.” 2:13cv05090 (E.D. La. 2013).
Finch, C., Emrich, C., & Cutter, S. (2010). Disaster disparities and differential recovery in New
Orleans. Population and Environment, 31, 179-202.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
232 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
Finger, D. (2011). Public housing in New Orleans Post Katrina: The struggle for housing as a
human right. The Review of Black Political Economy, 38, 327-337.
Frailing, K., & Harper, D. (2007). Crime and hurricanes in New Orleans. In D. Brunsma, D.
Overfelt, & S. Picou (Eds.), The sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a modern catastro-
phe (pp. 51-68). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Frailing, K., & Harper, D. (2010). School kids and oil rigs: Two more pieces of the post-Katrina
puzzle in New Orleans. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 69, 717-735.
Goss, R. (2009). Silencing queers at the upstairs lounge: The stonewall of New Orleans.
Southern Communication Journal, 74, 269-277.
Hawkins, R., & Maurer, K. (2011). “You fix my community, you have fixed my life”: The
disruption and rebuilding of ontological security in New Orleans. Disasters, 35, 143-159.
Hawkins, R., & Maurer, K. (2012). “Waiting for the white man to fix things”: Rebuilding Black
poverty in New Orleans. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 39, 111-139.
Howard, J. (2001). Men like that: A southern queer history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Johnson, E. (2008). Sweet tea: Black gay men of the South. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Jones-Deweever, A., & Hartmann, H. (2006). Abandoned before the storms: The glaring disas-
ter of gender, race, and class disparities in the Gulf. In C. Hartman & G. Squires (Eds.),
There is no such thing as a natural disaster: Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina (pp. 85-
101). New York, NY: Routledge.
Landrieu, M. M. (2010). [Letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder]. Retrieved from http://
media.nola.com/crime_impact/other/LettertoAttyGenHolder.050510
Lazarus, L., Chettiar, J., Deering, K., Nabess, R., & Shannon, K. (2011). Risky health environ-
ments: Women sex workers’ struggles to find safe, secure and non-exploitative housing in
Canada’s poorest postal code. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1600-1607.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2013). Justice on trial: Recommendations.
Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/recommendations.
html
Long, A. (2004). The Great Southern Babylon: Sex, race, and respectability in New Orleans,
1865-1920. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Long, A. (2007). Poverty is the new prostitution: Race, poverty, and public housing in post-
Katrina New Orleans. The Journal of American History, 94, 795-803.
Louisiana Justice Institute. (2013). Victory! Sex workers removed from Louisiana sex offender
registry. Retrieved from http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com/2013/06/victory-sex-
workers-removed from.html
Louisiana Revised Statute 14:91.2. (2012). Unlawful presence of a sex offender. Retrieved from
http://www.lsp.org/socpr/registration.html
Louisiana Revised Statute 15§540. (1997). Registration of sex offenders, sexually vio-
lent predators, and child predators. Retrieved from http://www.legis.la.gov/lss/lss.
asp?doc=79159&;showback=Y
Louisiana Revised Statute 15§542. (2013). Registration of sex offenders and child predators.
Retrieved from http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=79161
Louisiana Revised Statute 15§544. (2012). Duration of registration and notification period.
Retrieved from http://www.lsp.org/socpr/registration.html#DURATION
Louisiana State Police, Public Safety Services. (2013). Search for sex offenders. Retrieved from
http://www.lsp.org/socpr/disclaimer.html
http://media.nola.com/crime_impact/other/LettertoAttyGenHolder.050510
http://media.nola.com/crime_impact/other/LettertoAttyGenHolder.050510
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/recommendations.html
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/recommendations.html
http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com/2013/06/victory-sex-workers-removed
http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com/2013/06/victory-sex-workers-removed
http://www.lsp.org/socpr/registration.html
http://www.legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=79159&;showback=Y
http://www.legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=79159&;showback=Y
http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=79161
http://www.lsp.org/socpr/registration.html#DURATION
http://www.lsp.org/socpr/disclaimer.html
http://louisianajusticeinstitute.blogspot.com/2013/06/victory-sexworkers-removedfrom.html
Dewey and St. Germain 233
Louisiana Statute 14§89.2. (2012). Crime against nature by solicitation. Retrieved from http://
legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=725245
Lyons, H. (2011). Responding to hard times in the “Big Easy”: Meeting the vocational needs of
low-income African American New Orleans residents. The Career Development Quarterly,
59, 290-301.
Melilli, K. (1992). Prosecutorial discretion in an adversary system. Brigham Young University
Law Review, 3, 669-704.
Mogul, J., Ritchie, A., & Whitlock, K. (2012). Queer (in)justice: The criminalization of LGBT
people in the United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Monteverde, D. (2011). New Orleans police arrest 51 people on drug, prostitution charges dur-
ing undercover stings. The Times-Picayune. Retrieved from http://www.nola.com/crime/
index.ssf/2011/06/new_orleans_police_arrest_51_p.html
Murphy, D., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S., & Jones, R. (2011). The electronic “Scarlet Letter”:
Criminal backgrounding and a perpetual spoiled identity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
50, 101-118.
National District Attorneys Association. (2009). National prosecution standards (3rd ed.).
Retrieved from http://www.ndaa.org/publications.html
Orleans Parish District Attorney. (2013). The D.A. Retrieved from http://orleansda.com/the-d-a/
Piano, D. (2011). Working the streets of post-Katrina New Orleans: An interview with Deon
Haywood, Executive Director, Women with a Vision, Inc. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 39,
201-218.
Quigley, B. (2005). New Orleans: Leaving the poor behind again! Counterpoise, 9(4), 5-6.
Romero-Daza, N. (2003). “Nobody gives a damn if I live or die”: Violence, drugs and street-
level prostitution in inner-city Hartford, Connecticut. Medical Anthropology, 22, 233-259.
Salfati, G., James, A., & Ferguson, L. (2008). Prostitute homicides: A descriptive study. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 505-543.
Schafer, J. (2009). Brothels, depravity, and abandoned women: Illegal sex in antebellum New
Orleans. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,”
transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23,
440-464.
Scroggs, W. (1913). Parish government in Louisiana. In Annals of the American academy of
political and social science (pp. 39-47).
Sears, J. (2001). Rebels, rubyfruit, and rhinestones: Queering space in the Stonewall South.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Souther, M. (2007). The Disneyfication of New Orleans. The Journal of American History, 94,
804-811.
Stantonis, A. (2006). Creating the Big Easy: New Orleans and the emergence of modern tour-
ism, 1918-1945. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
State of Louisiana. (2013). Judicial branch. Retrieved from http://louisiana.gov/Government/
Judicial_Branch/#districtattorneys
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012a). Home ownership rates by state, 1990–2010. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0993
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012b). State and county quickfacts: New Orleans. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov.qfd/states/22/2255000.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013a). State and county quickfacts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=725245
http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=725245
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/06/new_orleans_police_arrest_51_p.html
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/06/new_orleans_police_arrest_51_p.html
http://www.ndaa.org/publications.html
http://orleansda.com/the-d-a/
http://louisiana.gov/Government/Judicial_Branch/#districtattorneys
http://louisiana.gov/Government/Judicial_Branch/#districtattorneys
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0993
http://quickfacts.census.gov.qfd/states/22/2255000.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
234 Feminist Criminology 10(3)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013b). State and county quickfacts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/2255000.html
United States Congress. (2006). Public Law 109-248, 109th Congress. Retrieved from http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ248/pdf/PLAW-109publ248
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2011). Investigation of the New Orleans
Police Department. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://
www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/nopd_report
Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (1999). Attitudes toward homosexuality in Shreveport-Bossier City,
Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 97-116.
Author Biographies
Susan Dewey, cultural anthropologist, is an associate professor of Gender & Women’s Studies
at the University of Wyoming. Her work has appeared in numerous journals including
Anthropological Quarterly, American Ethnologist, and Sexuality Research & Social Policy. She
is the author or co-editor of seven books, including Neon Wasteland: On Love, Motherhood, &
Sex Work in a Rust Belt Town (University of California Press, 2011).
Tonia P. St. Germain has research affiliation with the Gender & Women’s Studies program at
the University of Wyoming and is an adjunct associate professor of Women’s and Gender
Studies at Oregon State University. She holds a JD from Antioch School of Law and is the for-
mer director of Gender & Women’s Studies at Eastern Oregon University. Her latest book is
Global Responses to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: International Law, Local Responses
(Stylus, 2012). She is an advisory editor for The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and
Sexuality Studies.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/2255000.html
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ248/pdf/PLAW-109publ248
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ248/pdf/PLAW-109publ248
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/nopd_report
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/nopd_report
The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking:
Ideology and Institutionalization
of a Moral Crusade
RONALD WEITZER
The issue of sex trafficking has become increasingly politicized in recent years due
to the efforts of an influential moral crusade. This article examines the social con-
struction of sex trafficking (and prostitution more generally) in the discourse of
leading activists and organizations within the crusade, and concludes that the
central claims are problematic, unsubstantiated, or demonstrably false. The
analysis documents the increasing endorsement and institutionalization of cru-
sade ideology in U.S. government policy and practice.
Keywords: prostitution, sex trafficking, moral panic, criminalization
A robust moral crusade against sex trafficking has appeared in the past
decade. This article examines the crusade’s construction of the problem by iden-
tifying its central claims, and tracing the institutionalization of these claims in
state policy in the United States.1 My analysis demonstrates that the crusade’s
core claims regarding both trafficking and prostitution are generally quite dubi-
ous, yet activists have met with remarkable success in getting their views and
demands incorporated in government policy, legislation, and law enforcement
practices.
447
I am grateful to Erich Goode, Ann Jordan, Barbara Stolz, and the editors of Politics & Society
for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
POLITICS & SOCIETY, Vol. 35 No. 3, September 2007 447-475
DOI: 10.1177/0032329207304319
© 2007 Sage Publications
448 POLITICS & SOCIETY
MORAL CRUSADES
In the social constructionist perspective, social conditions become “problems”
only as a result of claims-making by interested parties, claims that may or may not
reflect actual social arrangements. Claims about “putative conditions” are more
consequential than the conditions themselves.2 Moral crusades are one of the
forces responsible for transforming such conditions into “problems.” These move-
ments define a particular condition as an unqualified evil, and see their mission as
a righteous enterprise whose goals are both symbolic (attempting to redraw or bol-
ster normative boundaries and moral standards) and instrumental (providing relief
to victims, punishing evildoers).3 To achieve their aims, activists seek to generate
widespread public concern about a problem and lobby political elites to either
intensify punishment of offenders or criminalize acts that were previously legal.
Moral crusades advance claims about both the gravity and incidence of a par-
ticular problem. They typically rely on horror stories and “atrocity tales” about
victims in which the most shocking exemplars of victimization are described and
typified.4 Casting the problem in highly dramatic terms by recounting the plight
of highly traumatized victims is intended to alarm the public and policy makers
and justify draconian solutions. At the same time, inflated claims are made about
the magnitude of the problem. A key feature of many moral crusades is that the
imputed scale of a problem (e.g., the number of victims) far exceeds what is war-
ranted by the available evidence.5 Moreover, crusade leaders consider the problem
unambiguous: they are not inclined to acknowledge gray areas and are adamant
that a particular evil exists precisely as they depict it.6
A number of studies have examined the claims and activities of various moral
crusades and the larger issue of how social problems are constructed,7 but much
less attention has been devoted to the impact of crusade claims on public per-
ceptions of social problems or the dynamics of institutionalization in state poli-
cies. Here, I identify and evaluate the core claims of dominant forces in the
anti-trafficking campaign, and then trace the incorporation of these claims in
state policy in the United States. The article is based on an analysis of activists’
pronouncements, movement documents, publications of government agencies,
and relevant legislation.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Two decades ago, a coalition of the religious right and some radical feminists
launched a major campaign against pornography. These groups played a predom-
inant role in some municipal campaigns to ban pornography and, at the national
level, in the Reagan administration’s commission on pornography, headed by
Attorney General Edwin Meese.8 The commission’s recommendations relied
heavily on the testimony of leading anti-pornography activists, privileged their
RONALD WEITZER 449
claims regarding the various harms of pornography (e.g., causing violence against
women, moral decline), and dismissed counterevidence.9 The Justice Department
formally accepted and implemented the commission’s recommendations, includ-
ing the creation of a new obscenity unit within the agency.10 In the resulting crack-
down on pornography, the department launched an unprecedented number of
obscenity prosecutions, resulting in huge fines that bankrupted several distributors
and forced others to terminate sales in conservative areas of the country.11
A remarkably similar alliance of the religious right, abolitionist feminists, and
the U.S. government is occurring today. The inauguration of President George
W. Bush in 2001 significantly altered the “political opportunity structure” for anti-
prostitution forces,12 providing a degree of access and influence that had not
existed since the Reagan administration two decades earlier. On the right, cru-
sade members include Focus on the Family, National Association of Evangelicals,
Catholic Bishops Conference, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for
America, Salvation Army, International Justice Mission, Shared Hope International,
Religious Freedom Coalition, and numerous others. The premier abolitionist fem-
inist organization in the United States is the Coalition Against Trafficking in
Women (CATW). Others include Equality Now, the Protection Project, and
Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE).
Members of these conservative religious and feminist groups hold opposing
views on other social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, but they
largely agree on prostitution and pornography. The single-issue focus of most of
these feminist groups—targeting the sex industry exclusively—trumps all other
issues and facilitates their willingness to work with right-wing groups. The same
dynamic characterized radical feminist involvement in the anti-porn coalition of the
mid-1980s.13 The partners in this alliance clearly recognize the strategic advantages
of coalition work in enhancing the legitimacy of their campaign as a bipartisan
enterprise. The advantages of a united front are outlined by two prominent activists:
Feminists have been hampered in their response to this threat because there are divisions
within feminism about the nature of prostitution. . . . Feminists should stop demonizing
the conservative and faith-based groups that could be better allies on some issues than
the liberal left has been. . . . Saving lives and defending freedom are more important than
loyalty to an outdated and too-limited feminist sisterhood.14
Another leader describes the benefits of this alliance: “Having faith-based
groups come in with a fresh perspective and a biblical mandate has made a big dif-
ference” in that abolitionist feminists “would not be getting attention internation-
ally otherwise.”15 Regarding President Bush, activist Donna Hughes remarks,
“Mainstream feminists like to say he’s anti-woman, but by supporting the aboli-
tionist work against the global sex trade, he has done more for women and girls
than any other president I can think of. . . . Years from now, when the anti-Bush
hysteria has died away, I believe he will be recognized as a true advocate for
women’s freedom and human rights.”16
450 POLITICS & SOCIETY
“Abolitionist feminist” refers to those who argue that the sex industry should be
entirely eliminated because of its objectification and oppressive treatment of
women, considered to be inherent in sex for sale. In the next section, I critically
evaluate the claims made by activists in this camp regarding both sex trafficking and
prostitution more generally. Here, it is important to note that mainstream feminist
organizations have been far less active in this debate and have been overshadowed
by the abolitionists.17 The premier women’s rights organization, NOW, makes no
mention on its Web site of sex trafficking, prostitution, or pornography, though it did
pass a resolution endorsing the decriminalization of prostitution in 1973.18 Another
major mainstream association, the National Council of Women’s Organizations, is
also silent on these issues, though its Web site does provide a link on trafficking to a
member group, Vital Voices. Because the debate over sex work has been so divisive
in the past and members continue to disagree, it is not surprising that organizations
not directly involved with this issue would avoid it altogether.
The crusade’s claims have been challenged by other feminists and by other
groups. In academia, a number of prominent feminists have been involved in a
long-standing, heated debate with abolitionists over pornography and prostitu-
tion.19 Among the groups that stand opposed to the current anti-prostitution cam-
paign are the Network of Sex Work Projects (a coalition of forty international
groups), the Sex Workers Outreach Project, the Global Alliance Against Trafficking
in Women, and the Sex Workers Project in New York.20 These organizations con-
duct research on trafficking and/or provide assistance to individuals involved in sex
work, but they do not condemn sex work per se.21 Their primary concern is the
empowerment of workers and harm reduction via provision of condoms, counsel-
ing, and other support services. Because they reject abolitionism, they have been
increasingly marginalized and dismissed as the “pro-prostitution lobby” in the dis-
course of the preeminent anti-trafficking forces.22 These groups, like American sex
workers’ rights groups more generally, have virtually no access to state elites. 23 The
moral crusade under examination here has increasingly dominated the debate.
CORE CLAIMS
Moral crusades often make grand and unverifiable claims about the nature and
prevalence of a particular “social evil.” My analysis of the publications, Web sites,
and testimony of organizations and activists in this campaign identified a set of
core claims regarding prostitution in general and sex trafficking in particular.
Such claims are based on (1) an ideology that simply decrees that prostitution is
immoral, a threat to marriage and the family, or oppressive to women; and (2)
studies conducted by activists. The former are articles of faith that are difficult to
operationalize and evaluate, while the latter are more amenable to scrutiny. This
section of the article outlines and assesses the core claims regarding prostitution
and sex trafficking.
RONALD WEITZER 451
Claim 1: Prostitution is evil by definition. For abolitionist feminists, prostitu-
tion is inherently an institution of male domination and exploitation of women.24
CATW’s Web site proclaims, “All prostitution exploits women, regardless of
women’s consent. Prostitution affects all women, justifies the sale of any woman,
and reduces all women to sex.” It can never qualify as a conventional commercial
exchange like other service work nor can it ever be organized in a way that
advances workers’ interests. As a former activist and now government official,
Laura Lederer, insists: “This is not a legitimate form of labor. . . . It can never be
a legitimate way to make a living because it’s inherently harmful for men, women,
and children. . . . This whole commercial sex industry is a human-rights abuse.”25
The feminist wing of this crusade does not proffer religious arguments against
prostitution, although moral indignation is sometimes evident.26 Morality is cen-
tral, of course, for religious conservatives. Like pornography,27 they view prosti-
tution as sexual deviance, as a cause of moral decay, and as a threat to marriage
because it breaks the link between sex, love, and reproduction. As the founder of
Evangelicals for Social Action stated, the campaign against prostitution and sex
trafficking “certainly fits with an evangelical concern for sexual integrity. Sex is
to be reserved for a marriage relationship where there is a lifelong covenant
between a man and a woman.”28 And an article in Christianity Today, titled “Sex
Isn’t Work,” stated, “When sex becomes commerce, the moral fabric of our cul-
ture is deeply damaged.”29 A government crackdown on prostitution (and other
types of sex work, such as pornography and strip clubs) thus ratifies the religious
right’s views on sex and the family.
While some conservatives are forthright in depicting prostitution as a threat to
the family, to traditional sexual relations, and to society’s moral fiber,30 others
have modernized their critique by espousing abolitionist feminist arguments and
terminology that define prostitution as an institution of exploitation and abuse of
women. The leading right-wing activists have adopted their feminist allies’ fram-
ing of the problem and much of their language (“prostituted women,” “sexual
slavery,” “violence against women”), terms that are now staples of their dis-
course.31 An identical use of feminist constructs was evident during the anti-
pornography campaign of the 1980s, when the right argued that pornography was
not only sinful but also exploited and caused violence against women.32 The
latter, more modern charge is easier to sell to mainstream policy makers and the
wider public in America.
The claim that prostitution is intrinsically evil is an essentialist tenet that does
not lend itself to evaluation with empirical evidence, unlike most of the other
claims outlined below, but it is crucial to the debate because it is the very key-
stone for all other crusade claims regarding the sex industry and sex trafficking.
Claim 2: Violence is omnipresent in prostitution and sex trafficking. It is
not simply that violent incidents occur; instead, prostitution is a form of violence
452 POLITICS & SOCIETY
categorically and universally. CATW co-director Janice Raymond writes, “To
understand how violence is intrinsic to prostitution, it is necessary to understand
the sex of prostitution. The sexual service provided in prostitution is most often
violent, degrading, and abusive sexual acts.”33 Sex trafficking is similarly defined
as involving coercion of some kind, physical or otherwise. As discussed further
below, anti-prostitution activists have consistently tried to erase the distinction
between coercive trafficking and voluntary migration, and insist that victimization
is the hallmark of all trafficking and prostitution.
The claim that violence is pervasive in prostitution cannot be confirmed. Since
no study uses a random sample because the population of sex workers is unknown,
and all rely instead on convenience samples of persons researchers manage to
access, all figures on the incidence of violence are unreliable.34 Thus, the frequent
assertion that victimization is pervasive violates a fundamental scientific canon—
namely, that generalizations cannot be based on unrepresentative samples. One
example of this tendency is a report on sex trafficking authored by feminist aboli-
tionists Janice Raymond and Donna Hughes.35 Their report, funded by the Justice
Department, is based on interviews with only forty women, who were involved
with organizations committed to getting women out of prostitution. From this small
and skewed sample the authors draw numerous, sweeping conclusions about vic-
timization. The well-known dangers of generalizing from small, convenience
samples and from anecdotal stories is routinely ignored in these writings.36
Claim 3: Customers and traffickers are the personification of evil. As in other
moral crusades, the perpetrators are presented as “folk devils.”37 Customers are
labeled “sexual predators” that brutalize women, and traffickers are vilified as
predators, rapists, and kidnappers involved in organized crime and sexual slavery.
A leading coalition member, Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson
Institute, says of traffickers and clients, “We want to drive a stake through the heart
of these venal criminals. This is pure evil.”38
Research on customers cautions against sweeping characterizations and gen-
eralizations. Customers vary in their background characteristics, motivation, and
behavior, and they buy sex for different reasons.39 There is no doubt that some
customers act violently, that some seek out underage prostitutes, and that some
travel to other countries for this purpose. But it would be premature to assume
that these kinds of abuse are widespread given the lack of solid data addressing
this question, and some analysts make the counterargument that only a small
minority of clients mistreats prostitutes.40 The crusade’s claims about customers,
as well as traffickers, are caricatures.
Claim 4: Sex workers lack agency. The denial of agency is evident in the very
framing of the problem as one involving “prostituted women,” “trafficking,” and
“sexual slavery.” The central claim is that workers do not actively make choices to
enter or remain in prostitution, and there is no such thing as voluntary migration
RONALD WEITZER 453
for the purpose of sex work. The notion of consent is deemed irrelevant, and
activists have pressed governments to criminalize all such migration, whether con-
sensual or not: “Legislation must not allow traffickers to use the consent of the
victim as a defense against trafficking,” argue Raymond and Hughes.41 This cru-
sade rejects the very concept of benign migration for the purpose of sex work,
since prostitution is defined as inherently exploitative and oppressive. Instead, the
more nefarious term “sex trafficking” (borrowed from the equally insidious “drug
trafficking”) is applied to every instance of relocation to a destination where the
individual sells sex.
The issue of worker agency is central to the research literature on the sex indus-
try, and the evidence shows variation, rather than uniformity, in the degree to
which workers feel exploited versus empowered and in control of their working
conditions.42 Workers do not necessarily see themselves as victims lacking
agency. Instead of viewing themselves as “prostituted,” they may embrace more
neutral work identities, such as “working women” or “sex workers.”43 Some pros-
titutes make conscious decisions to enter the trade and do not feel that their work
is degrading or oppressive. Many independent call girls and employees of escort
agencies, massage parlors, and brothels fall into this category.44 These workers are
invisible in the discourse of the anti-prostitution crusade precisely because their
accounts clash with abolitionist goals.
Regarding sex trafficking, it is impossible to measure the ratio of agency to
victimization—i.e., voluntary versus involuntary migration. But several studies
suggest that a significant number of migrants have made conscious and informed
decisions to relocate. A study of Vietnamese migrants in Cambodia, who had been
assisted by intermediaries, reported that out of 100 women studied, only six had
been duped, and the rest knew prior to leaving Vietnam that they would work in a
brothel in Cambodia. Their motivations consisted of “economic incentives, desire
for an independent lifestyle, and dissatisfaction with rural life and agricultural
labor.” After raids on the brothels by “rescue” organizations, the women “usually
returned to their brothel as quickly as possible.”45 The researchers argue that crim-
inalizing the sex industry “forces [the workers] underground, making them more
difficult to reach with appropriate services and increasing the likelihood of
exploitation.” Similar findings have been reported in Europe, where the women
are “often aware of the sexual nature of the work. . . . Many migrants do know
what is ahead of them, do earn a large amount of money in a short time selling
sex, and do have control over their working conditions.”46 One investigation of traf-
ficking from Eastern Europe to Holland, based on interviews with seventy-two
women, found that few of the women were coercively trafficked, and that a “large
number” had previously worked as prostitutes:
For most of the women, economic motives were decisive. The opportunity to earn a con-
siderable amount of money in a short period of time was found to be irresistible. . . . In
most cases recruiting was done by friends, acquaintances, or even family members.47
454 POLITICS & SOCIETY
The facilitators made travel arrangements, obtained necessary documents, and
provided money to the women. In Australia “the majority of women know they
will be working in the sex industry and often decide to come to Australia in the
belief that they will be able to make a substantial amount of money. . . . Few of
the women would ever consider themselves sex slaves.”48
These are not isolated studies; others have shown that a proportion of migrants
sold sex prior to relocating or were well aware that they would be working in the
sex industry in their new home. One analyst concludes that, “The majority of
‘trafficking victims’ are aware that the jobs offered them are in the sex indus-
try.”49 Whether this is indeed true for the majority (or instead applies to a minor-
ity) of women who have relocated to another locale and end up selling sex, it is
clear that traffickers do not necessarily fit the “folk devil” stereotype popularized
by the anti-trafficking movement. Some facilitators are relatives, friends, or asso-
ciates who recruit workers and assist with migration, and these individuals have
a qualitatively different relationship with workers than do predators who use
force or deception to lure victims into the trade.
It would be mistaken to assume that coercion and deception are myths or that
facilitators are necessarily benign agents even when they employ no force or
fraud. Some women do not understand the terms of the contract or fully appreci-
ate the impact of debt bondage or how difficult it can be to pay off the debt. Some
facilitators alter the terms of the agreement after transit or renege on specific
promises. In this scenario, the woman’s initial consent is compromised by subse-
quent, unexpected job requirements. Other workers have little prior awareness of
the specific working conditions or risks involved in sex work in the new locale.
For those who sold sex in their home country, working conditions in the destina-
tion country may be far worse in terms of health, safety, accommodation, and the
sexual services required of them.50 Others enter the sex industry reluctantly, out of
an obligation to support their families or because of tacit pressure from relatives—
not uncommon in Southeast Asia. A study funded by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) found that many of the Vietnamese women
working in Cambodian brothels had been recruited and transported by their
mothers and aunts, not by professional traffickers.51 In short, the evidence indi-
cates that migration for sex work is a complex and varied process. There are
multiple migration trajectories and worker experiences, ranging from highly coer-
cive and exploitative to informed consent and intentionality on the part of the
migrant. Yet, the crusade presents only the worst cases and universalizes them, just
as anti-pornography activists have done for decades.52
Claim 5: Prostitution and sex trafficking are inextricably linked. Activists in
this crusade insist that prostitution must be targeted, because it is prostitution
more than anything else that is the root cause of trafficking. Opposing trafficking
without simultaneously fighting prostitution is seen as treating the symptom
instead of the disease.
RONALD WEITZER 455
The conflation of trafficking and prostitution is motivated by the crusade’s
ultimate goal of eliminating the entire sex trade, a goal that is frequently articu-
lated.53 Donna Hughes, for example, calls for “re-linking trafficking and prosti-
tution, and combating the commercial sex trade as a whole.”54 Not only does she
equate the two (“sex trafficking of women and children—what’s commonly
called prostitution”),55 but also claims that “most ‘sex workers’ are—or originally
started out as—trafficked women and girls.”56
The research literature does not support this claim. There is no evidence that
“most” or even the majority of prostitutes have been trafficked. Moreover, pros-
titution and trafficking differ substantively; the former is a type of work, and the
latter is a means of accessing a new market. Both empirically and conceptually,
it is inappropriate to fuse prostitution and trafficking.57
Claim 6: The magnitude of both prostitution and sex trafficking is high and
has greatly increased in recent years. The size of a social problem matters in attract-
ing media coverage, donor funding, and attention from policy makers. Moral cru-
sades therefore have an interest in inflating the magnitude of a problem, and their
figures are typically unverifiable and/or incredibly elastic (e.g., “hundreds of
thousands”).58 This is a staple of the anti-trafficking crusade. For instance, SAGE
director Norma Hotaling recently claimed that “there are thousands of trafficked
women in San Francisco”—a vague but seemingly high figure presented with no
documentation.59 The shock value of such claims is perhaps best reflected in the
frequent assertion that trafficking has reached an “epidemic” level. And when
figures are presented, they vary dramatically—ranging in recent years from a
high of 4 million trafficked persons annually to a low of 600,000. The crusade’s
checkered quantification of the problem (with vague, wide-ranging, or fluctuat-
ing numbers) is, as shown below, being recapitulated by the Bush administration.
In fact, there are no reliable statistics on the magnitude of trafficking, and the
figures can only be described as guesswork. Even ballpark estimates are dubious,
given the clandestine and stigmatized nature of the sex trade.
The mass media have uncritically reported these and other unverified numbers.
An editorial in the New York Times, for example, was quite emphatic: “Around the
world, about one million women and children are seduced into leaving their
homelands every year and forced into prostitution or menial work in other coun-
tries.”60 On the popular Oprah television talk show, a recent episode claimed that
“millions” of children are sold into prostitution each year, and that one-quarter of
all sex tourists in the world are American men.61 The term “millions” is overly
broad, and no survey of sex tourists has ever been conducted.
The high numbers have not gone unchallenged. The United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Bangkok office
suggests that most of the statistics being circulated are “false” or “spurious”:
“When it comes to statistics, trafficking of girls and women is one of several
456 POLITICS & SOCIETY
highly emotive issues which seem to overwhelm critical faculties.”62 Researchers
have criticized the national, regional, and international statistics proffered by
activists, organizations, and governments for their “lack of methodological trans-
parency” and source documentation,63 for being extrapolated from a few cases of
identified victims (persons who are unrepresentative of the victim population),64
and for the lack of a standard definition of “victims” as a basis for estimates of the
magnitude of the problem.65
The numbers issue was recently investigated by the U.S. General Accountability
Office (GAO). The GAO report was very critical of the prevailing figures, which
are replete with “methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical discrep-
ancies,” and it concluded that “country data are generally not available, reliable, or
comparable.”66 In short, the “U.S. government has not yet established an effective
mechanism for estimating the number of victims,” and the same is true for inter-
national nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) working in the trafficking area.67
It is also claimed that the sex industry is expanding at an unprecedented rate,
increasing the market for trafficked workers. The director of the evangelical
International Justice Mission, for example, refers to “the growing trafficking night-
mare,” and CATW proclaims that “local and global sex industries are systemati-
cally violating women’s rights on an ever-increasing scale.”68 Again, such claims
are problematic. Sex trafficking is “often described as mushrooming or being on
the rise globally, while in fact these assertions are based on very few cases.”69
It is conceivable that the number of sex-for-sale transactions has increased with
the growth of the Internet—which facilitates contacts between providers and
customers—but whether this has substantially increased the aggregate amount of
prostitution, as claimed, is impossible to estimate. Internationally, it is clear that
sex trafficking has increased in some parts of the world, especially from the for-
mer Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The breakup of the Soviet empire and
declining living standards for many of its inhabitants has made such migration
both much easier and more compelling than in the past.70 Given the underground
nature of this economy, estimates of both its current magnitude and changes over
time are highly dubious, which means that claims regarding a growing worldwide
epidemic cannot be confirmed.
Claim 7: Legalization would make the situation far worse than it is at present.
The crusade considers legal prostitution detrimental in two respects: practically
(by magnifying all the problems associated with prostitution, and by increasing
the amount of trafficking) and symbolically (by giving the state’s blessing to a
despicable institution and condoning men’s exploitation of women). Regarding
the symbolic dimension, it is claimed that, “When legal barriers disappear, so too
do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual merchandise.
Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and
boys that women are sexual commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun,”71
RONALD WEITZER 457
and also poses a grave threat to social order: “the corrosive effect on society as a
whole when prostitution is condoned through legalization or decriminalization.”72
Anti-prostitution forces often express concern about what they perceive as the
“normalization” of prostitution in various parts of the world. Normalization is
seen in the very premise behind state-regulated, legal prostitution. CATW’s
mission is broad: to “challenge acceptance of the sex industry, normalization of
prostitution as work, and to de-romanticize legalization initiatives in various coun-
tries.”73 Crusade claims about the dangers of legalization are thus part of the larger
objective of abolishing prostitution.
A second assertion is that legalization causes or serves as a magnet for
increased sex trafficking. The claim is based on the notion of least resistance:
legalization removes the constraints on a formerly illegal and circumscribed
enterprise and inevitably leads to its proliferation. For example, CATW’s
co-director declares that “legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are
one of the root causes of sex trafficking. . . . Anti-trafficking advocates and leg-
islators must address prostitution as a root cause of sex trafficking, and not be
silenced by those who insist that we must speak only about trafficking.”74 Right-
wing groups could not agree more. Linda Smith, director of Shared Hope
International, testified in Congress that the government should “consider coun-
tries with legalized or tolerated prostitution as having laws that are insufficient
efforts to eliminate trafficking. . . . Where there is a strong adult sex industry,
the commercial sexual exploitation of children and sex slavery increases.”75 And
Concerned Women for America claims that “legalizing prostitution does not
remedy the problem of sex trafficking but rather increases it.”76
The causal link between legal prostitution and trafficking has not been empir-
ically established. There is no evidence, for instance, that women are being
coercively trafficked into Nevada’s legal brothels. And the State Department has
published reports that appear to undercut this claim: In its 2005 Trafficking in
Persons Report, several nations where prostitution is legal (Australia, Germany,
Holland, New Zealand) were found to “fully comply with minimum standards
for the elimination of trafficking.”77 Moreover, the Report reveals that the Dutch
authorities report a “decrease in trafficking in the legal sector,” a finding con-
firmed by other analysts.78 Rather than being a magnet attracting migrants into a
country, it appears that legal prostitution may help reduce trafficking due to
enhanced government regulation and oversight of the legal sector. And the
obverse may also be true: “Traffickers take advantage of the illegality of com-
mercial sex work and migration, and are able to exert an undue amount of power
and control over [migrants]. . . . In such cases, it is the laws that prevent legal
commercial sex work and immigration that form the major obstacles.”79 As
Murray writes, “It is the prohibition of prostitution and restrictions on travel
which attract organized crime and create the possibilities for large profits, as well
as creating the prostitutes’ need for protection and assistance.”80
458 POLITICS & SOCIETY
Research indicates that, under the right conditions, legal prostitution can be
organized in a way that enhances workers’ safety and job satisfaction. One of the
advantages of Nevada’s legal brothels is protection from violence. These brothels
“offer the safest environment available for women to sell consensual sex acts for
money,” a recent study concludes.81 In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Justice
found that the “vast majority” of workers in Dutch brothels, clubs, and window
units report that they “often or always feel safe.”82 And a major evaluation of legal
brothels in Queensland, Australia, by a government oversight agency, concluded,
“There is no doubt that licensed brothels provide the safest working environment
for sex workers in Queensland. . . . Legal brothels now operating in Queensland
provide a sustainable model for a healthy, crime-free, and safe legal licensed
brothel industry.”83 In each case, safety measures (surveillance, alarm systems)
allow for rapid intervention in the event of trouble from an unruly
customer. None of this is to suggest that existing legal prostitution regimes are
problem-free, but the evidence on at least these three systems contrasts strikingly
with the image of legal sex work proffered by the anti-prostitution crusade.
In short, the core claims of this moral crusade are exaggerated, unverifiable,
or demonstrably false—depending on the claim in question. Common to all of
these claims are sweeping declarations that ignore counterevidence and give
prominence to anecdotal stories describing worst cases. Crusade claims are con-
tradicted by a large body of social science research.84 This research shows that
prostitution takes multiple forms and exists under varying conditions, which
translates into diverse experiences for workers—a complexity that undermines
sweeping generalizations.85 Yet this movement’s broad claims have been increas-
ingly institutionalized in official government policies.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CRUSADE CLAIMS
Some moral crusades fail to achieve any of their goals, while others succeed in
influencing public opinion, formal norms, and/or organizational practices. If the
social problem identified by activists is accepted by the authorities as a bona fide
problem, the crusade may gradually become institutionalized. Institutionalization
by the state may be limited or extensive—ranging from consultation with activists,
inclusion of leaders in the policy process, material support for crusade organiza-
tions, official endorsement of crusade ideology, resource mobilization, and the
creation of legislation and new agencies to address the problem.86 The institution-
alization of the anti-prostitution crusade follows this trajectory. Below, I document
consultation and inclusion of activists in policy making, official recognition and
endorsement of crusade ideology, officials’ independent articulation of this ideol-
ogy, and programmatic and legal changes in accordance with this ideology.
RONALD WEITZER 459
Types of Institutionalization
Institutionalization of a movement is inchoate when it begins to gain access
to the power elite in the form of consultation. Consultation takes place via con-
ferences, meetings, lobbying, congressional hearings, and in other venues.
Congressional hearings on sex trafficking are especially important. They typically
showcase victims who present dramatic, shocking testimony, and provide a forum
for activists to push for legal changes or greater enforcement. In the course of these
events, the problem is amplified and new dimensions identified. In the past five
years, these hearings have led to significant policy changes and new legislation.
Consultative access may be exclusive to certain groups. Since George W. Bush
took office in January 2001, the anti-prostitution movement’s access to policy
makers has steadily increased. The director of the State Department’s trafficking
office, John R. Miller, revealed that the federal government has been “working
closely with faith-based, community, and feminist organizations” to combat all
forms of prostitution.87 Miller credits these groups with keeping trafficking on
the front burner: “They’re consumed by this issue. I think it’s great. It helped get
the legislation passed, it helped spur me. I think it keeps the whole government
focused.”88 Anti-prostitution forces frequently network with government officials
during private meetings, at conferences, and at hearings—giving them unique
opportunities to shape the terms of the debate and subsequent policy changes.
Groups that do not share the crusade’s views have been denied access to these
venues and to policy makers more generally.89
Inclusion is a step beyond consultation; it involves ongoing collaboration of a
more formal nature. Many organizations within the anti-prostitution and anti-
trafficking movement are now official partners with U.S. government agencies.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, created a
Rescue and Restore Coalition, which formally aligns HHS with many of this cru-
sade’s organizations.90 An even stronger indicator of inclusion is the circulation of
actors between a movement and government agencies, with the resulting amalga-
mation of their ideological positions.91 Some former anti-prostitution activists are
now working in key government agencies. A stellar example is Laura Lederer.
A prominent anti-pornography activist in the 1980s and editor of the book Take
Back the Night, Lederer founded the anti-trafficking Protection Project in the
1990s. She was later hired as a senior advisor in the State Department’s traf-
ficking office. Lederer’s inclusion within the government is part of the reason
the State Department has adopted discourse and policies identical to those advo-
cated by the Protection Project.
Actors also move in the other direction. Some former government officials
have founded or work for anti-trafficking or kindred organizations after leaving
the government. One example is Linda Smith. A former Republican congress-
woman (1994-1998), she founded Shared Hope International in 1998 to rescue
460 POLITICS & SOCIETY
trafficked women around the world. Another example is Robert Flores, former
deputy chief of the Justice Department’s obscenity unit who later became Vice
President and Senior Counsel at the National Law Center for Children and
Families, an anti-pornography organization.92 Patrick Trueman served as chief of
the obscenity unit from 1988 to 1992, and was responsible for implementing the
government’s crackdown on pornography after the publication of the Meese
Commission’s report. Today, he is senior legal counsel for the Family Research
Council, and also trains law enforcement officers on human trafficking for the
HHS Rescue and Restore Campaign. Trueman recently testified before Congress,
urging a government crackdown on pornography.93
Institutionalization also manifests itself in government funding of movement
organizations. Groups that share the Bush administration’s perspective on the sex
industry have benefited materially in several ways. First, the government has allot-
ted considerable funds on anti-trafficking conferences throughout the world, which
occur frequently; one in Washington, DC, in February 2005 had a $1.8 million
price tag.94 Organizations critical of U.S. government trafficking policy have not
been invited to these events, which are restricted to groups and individuals within
the crusade coalition.95 Second, under the Bush administration’s Faith-Based
Initiative, a huge amount of federal grant money has been awarded to religious
organizations in the United States and abroad that are involved in promoting a con-
servative social agenda, including anti-abortion programs, abstinence education,
and church-run social services.96 Over the past five years, the U.S. Government
awarded more than $300 million to international and domestic NGOs involved in
fighting trafficking and prostitution. Among the organizations receiving funding
from the State Department, Justice Department, and HHS are prominent abolitionist
feminist organizations (CATW, Protection Project, and SAGE), faith-based orga-
nizations (Catholic Conference of Bishops, Salvation Army, International Justice
Mission, World Vision, and Shared Hope International) and their allies around the
world.97 Many of these groups receive funding for their activities in identifying and
rescuing victims, while others are funded to conduct research. For example,
Raymond and Hughes received $189,000 from the National Institute of Justice to
write a report on trafficking.98 Regarding the funded research conducted by some
of these individuals and groups, its quality has been questioned by the GAO, which
cited the State Department’s own Inspector General’s concern with “the credentials
of the organizations and findings of the research that the Trafficking Office
funded”; the Inspector General called for rigorous peer review and greater over-
sight of the funding process.99
The ultimate type of institutionalization involves concrete changes in govern-
ment discourse, policy, and law consistent with crusade interests and demands.
Some moral crusades are so successful that they see their ideology fully incorpo-
rated in government policy and vigorous efforts by state agencies to combat the
problem on their own. In other words, the movement’s central goals become a
project of the government.
RONALD WEITZER 461
During the final years of the Clinton administration, there was little accommo-
dation of crusade demands. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
(TVPA) was passed in late 2000, which inter alia created the Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons within the State Department. Anti-trafficking
activists were pleased with the new agency but quite dissatisfied with the statute’s
definitions and provisions regarding trafficking. TVPA distinguished “sex traf-
ficking” (which may be voluntarily entered into) from “severe trafficking” (which
involves “force, fraud, or coercion” or persons under age eighteen); its protections
and sanctions apply only to severe trafficking.100 The anti-prostitution crusade
fought, unsuccessfully, against this two-tiered approach, wanted sanctions applied
to all trafficking, and rejected the distinction between coercive trafficking and vol-
untary migration for sex work.101 The Clinton administration distinguished forced
and voluntary prostitution, did not link prostitution to trafficking, did not claim
that legal prostitution increases trafficking into a country, and resisted mandatory
sanctions against nations with poor records in combating trafficking.
Organizations in the emerging anti-prostitution crusade, who lobbied the Clinton
administration, were rebuffed on each of these issues.102
After the Bush administration took office in 2001, the crusade’s positions
began to receive a favorable hearing in the White House. The new administration
rejected the Clinton approach and replaced it with a model that is virtually iden-
tical to what was being advocated by the anti-prostitution crusade. In a remark-
ably short time span, the latter’s views were accepted, incorporated into official
policy, and implemented in agency practices.
Movement claims and the very language used by activists regarding prostitu-
tion in general and sex trafficking in particular, are abundantly evident in official
declarations and legislation during the Bush administration. This institutional-
ization of crusade ideology is apparent in (1) the public pronouncements of gov-
ernment officials; (2) the official positions of government agencies, including
Department of State, Department of Justice, USAID, and HHS; (3) the State
Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report; (4) the State Department’s
seminal document, The Link between Prostitution and Sex Trafficking; and (5) the
TVPA reauthorization acts of 2003 and 2005 (TVPA 2005 incorporated certain
elements of the End Demand for Sex Trafficking bill, including its provisions tar-
geting domestic traffickers and customers).103 Leading abolitionist feminist and
religious activists played a key role in drafting this legislation.104
The ideological convergence of the crusade and the state is striking. In 2002,
President Bush signed a presidential directive on trafficking that defines prosti-
tution as “inherently harmful and dehumanizing,”105 and in a speech at the United
Nations (UN) he referred to
hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to
the sex trade. . . . The victims of the sex trade see little of life before they see the very
462 POLITICS & SOCIETY
worst of life—an underground of brutality and lonely fear. . . . Those who patronize this
industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others.106
The president’s UN address was the direct result of lobbying by evangelical
leaders. Charles Colson (founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries) and Richard
Land (of the Southern Baptist Convention) had pressed the White House for
months to denounce the sex industry. Land stated, “We certainly encouraged the
White House to make it a prominent issue” and the UN address “was one place
we suggested it could be done.”107
The publications and Web sites of HHS, Department of State, and Department
of Justice cite or provide links to the writings of prominent crusade members
(e.g., Donna Hughes, Janice Raymond, Melissa Farley), which effectively privi-
leges their opinions. Such references can be found on the State Department’s
Web site, which makes proclamations identical to those of the anti-prostitution
movement: prostitution “is inherently harmful. Few activities are as brutal and
damaging to people as prostitution”; it “leaves women and children physically,
mentally, emotionally, and spiritually devastated”; legal prostitution “creates a
safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution”; and “prostitution
is not the oldest profession, but the oldest form of oppression.” Trafficking czar
John Miller characterizes prostitutes as “victims of bodies demeaned, of spirits
trampled, and souls destroyed.”108 In December 2006, he issued a directive urging
other U.S. agencies, contractors, and other governments to avoid using the term
“sex worker” because it wrongly implies that prostitution is work; agencies were
instructed to refer to them as “women used in prostitution” to underscore their vic-
timization.109 The directive reflects the longstanding struggle of anti-prostitution
forces to erase the notion of “sex work” from public discourse. In moral cru-
sades, the use of proper language is an important part of the struggle to redefine
a particular problem, and this crusade (and now the U.S. Government) has
devoted a great deal of effort to demonizing prostitution.
High Numbers and Horror Stories
Activists’ claims about the magnitude of sex trafficking have been given the
U.S. government’s stamp of approval, as it now officially holds that it is a huge
and growing epidemic worldwide. Although a report by a State Department ana-
lyst attached to the CIA acknowledged in 2000 that “no one U.S. or international
agency is compiling accurate statistics,” the report then claimed that “700,000 to
2 million women and children are trafficked globally each year.”110 In 2003, the
State Department’s maximum figure had grown to 4 million, but two years later it
inexplicably fell to 600,000-800,000 victims of all types of trafficking, of which
“hundreds of thousands” were said to be trafficked into prostitution.111 No expla-
nation has been given for the huge fluctuations from year to year in the official
RONALD WEITZER 463
figures. Similarly, it is frequently asserted by several agencies that 80 percent of
all trafficking victims are women and 50 percent children—figures that are, again,
unverifiable given the clandestine nature of the trade.
Severe sex trafficking is defined in the TVPA as the use of “force, fraud, or coer-
cion” to induce an adult to perform a commercial sex act, or inducing a person
under age eighteen to perform a commercial sex act regardless of whether force or
fraud is used. This definition does not apply to adults who willingly travel, with
some kind of assistance, in search of employment in the sex industry. However, the
figures presented by advocates and officials often lump the latter kind of migration
into the trafficking category, which inflates the number of victims, and some agen-
cies in the U.S. and abroad treat all sex workers as trafficked.112
Like the global numbers, domestic figures have changed drastically and inex-
plicably in a short period of time. In 2002 the State Department’s annual traffick-
ing report claimed that 45,000-50,000 persons are trafficked into the United States
annually, but just one year later the number fell to 18,000-20,000 (a 60 percent
drop), and the 2004 and 2005 reports cut the figures to 14,500-17,500 per year.113
Judging from their public statements, leading members of Congress and the Bush
administration have accepted these numbers uncritically, though some have ques-
tioned the figures. The Justice Department, for one, seems skeptical:
Most importantly, the government must address the incongruity between the estimated
number of victims trafficked into the United States—between 14,500 and 17,500
[annually]—and the number of victims found—only 611 in the last four years. . . . The
stark difference between the two figures means that U.S. government efforts are still
not enough. In addition, the estimate should be evaluated to assure that it is accurate
and reflects the number of actual victims.114
Moral crusades typically offer anecdotal horror stories in addition to inflated
numbers of victims to demonstrate the gravity of a targeted evil. This strategy is
abundantly evident in the discourse of anti-trafficking forces both outside and
inside the U.S. government. Typically, the testimonials of a few “rescued” vic-
tims are presented as evidence. Horror stories and photos of young victims are
prominently displayed in government publications and Web sites. Such depic-
tions dramatize human suffering and are designed to cause alarm and outrage,
and this strategy can be quite effective. For example, several members of
Congress—including the sponsors of trafficking legislation in the House and
Senate—have stated that they became interested in trafficking only after hear-
ing a particular victim’s testimony.115 The official discourse repeatedly invokes
“women and children” victims, arguably to equate women with children’s vul-
nerability and lack of agency and to stoke popular revulsion and support for dra-
conian measures. Claims about threatened children are a staple of many moral
crusades.116
464 POLITICS & SOCIETY
Domain Expansion
Over time, moral crusades often turn their sights on evils that were not orig-
inally targeted but come to be associated with the foundational problem.117 Such
domain expansion is evident here. This movement has targeted not just sex traf-
ficking, but all sectors of the sex industry. As one analyst points out, “Efforts to
curb prostitution in the name of rescuing sex slaves are deeply intertwined with
attempts by the Bush administration and its faith-based constituency to police
nonprocreative sex on a global level.”118
Activists successfully pressed the U.S. government to adopt a policy denying
funding to organizations that were not sufficiently committed to abolishing pros-
titution, or that dispensed condoms and other assistance to workers without trying
to rescue them. Today, to be eligible for U.S. funding, any foreign NGO working
on the trafficking front must declare its opposition to legal prostitution. The State
Department’s Web site is unequivocal: “No U.S. grant funds should be awarded to
foreign non-governmental organizations that support legal state-regulated prosti-
tution.” Similarly, the AIDS funding law of 2003 (known as the Global AIDS Act)
requires that any international organization working to curb AIDS must “have a
policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” if it wishes to receive
such funding. This applies to American groups insofar as they work with or sub-
contract work to international organizations. Organizations that do not take a posi-
tion on prostitution, as well as those that favor decriminalization or legalization,
are thus ineligible for AIDS funding from USAID or HHS. Similarly, the Justice
Department now requires anyone applying for funding to conduct research on
trafficking to certify that they do “not promote, support, or advocate the legaliza-
tion or practice of prostitution.”119 Failure to do so results in summary denial of
funding. The principle underlying these policy changes is the crusade’s claim that
prostitution is intrinsically harmful and, specifically, that legal prostitution “fuels”
trafficking, a notion now endorsed by the U.S. Government.
Because of the restriction, several NGOs have rejected government funding. In
May 2005, 171 American and foreign organizations signed a letter to President
Bush opposing the anti-prostitution pledge because they believe the policy inter-
feres with promising interventions that require building trust with sex workers,
and only heightens the stigma associated with sex work. Two lawsuits were filed
claiming that the pledge requirement violates the right to free speech, is unconsti-
tutionally vague (in mandating “opposing” prostitution), and improperly requires
grantees to adopt the Bush administration’s positions.120 In May 2006, federal
judges in New York and Washington ruled the government’s prostitution pledge
requirement an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech, but they were
later overruled on appeal.
Domain expansion is broader than prostitution, however. Activists have
pressed the government to criminalize “the commercial sex trade as a whole,”121
RONALD WEITZER 465
and they have met with some success thus far. The key legislation on sex traf-
ficking also refers to “commercial sexual activities,” defined as “any sex act on
account of which anything of value is given to, or received by, any person.”122
The stated objective of the 2005 End Demand for Sex Trafficking bill (House
of Representatives 2012 and Senate 937) was to “combat commercial sexual
activities” in general, because “commercial sexual activities have a devastating
impact on society. The sex trade has a dehumanizing effect on all involved.” Had
the End Demand bill passed in its entirety (parts of it were merged into TVPA
2005), it would have targeted a wide variety of sex acts, such as lap dancing in
strip clubs, legal brothel prostitution in Nevada, and pornography. The bill that
did pass, the TVPA 2005 reauthorization, contains a section on Combating
Domestic Trafficking in Persons that repeatedly refers to the need to investigate
and combat “trafficking in persons and demand for commercial sex acts in the
United States” (section 201[a]). This blurs the line between trafficking and com-
mercial sex. The statute authorizes $25 million per year for increased prosecu-
tion of those who “purchase commercial sex acts” (section 204[1b]), and funds
for “john schools” (section 204[1c]), which consist of a day-long series of lec-
tures designed to educate arrested customers about the harms of prostitution
(such schools currently exist in several cities).123
Donna Hughes’ State Department-funded report on trafficking includes sec-
tions on stripping and pornography.124 Her report claims that “the introduction of
lap dancing has almost eliminated the distinction between dancing and prostitu-
tion,” and also that women and girls are trafficked to perform at strip clubs (though
she found only six cases of this in the United States during 1998-2005).125 The
Nevada case is also intriguing. The original version of TVPA 2005 (section
201[a]) included funding for a study to examine “sex trafficking and unlawful
commercial sex acts in the United States [and] is intended to include data on com-
mercial sex acts that are not unlawful in those areas of the country where prosti-
tution and/or the purchase and sale of sex acts is legal, i.e., several counties in
Nevada.” The reference to Nevada does not appear in the final version of the
statute, but may reappear in future legislation.
Also under scrutiny is pornography. Most of the groups involved in the anti-
prostitution crusade are just as concerned about pornography, as is abundantly evi-
dent in their Web sites and public statements. For example, Anthony Verdugo,
director of the Christian Family Association in Miami, states, “Pornography is a
poison and it’s addictive. It’s not a victimless crime. Women are the victims.”126
Some activists link pornography to trafficking. Donna Hughes, for one, claims
that the producers of pornography “often rely on trafficked victims,” a dubious
charge made without any supporting evidence.127 And Patrick Trueman, former
chief of the Justice Department’s obscenity unit and now legal counsel for the
Family Research Council, testified before Congress that “pornography is closely
linked to an increase in prostitution, child prostitution, and human trafficking. . . .
466 POLITICS & SOCIETY
Pornography is a powerful factor in creating the demand for illicit sex.”128 This
causal relationship is utterly fictional, not supported by research.
The Justice Department recently launched a new effort against pornography
under the auspices of an expanded obscenity unit consisting of a team of prose-
cutors and FBI agents who work exclusively on obscenity cases.129 The crack-
down is the result of lobbying by both former Justice Department officials who
had previously served in its obscenity unit, as well as by conservative organiza-
tions, including the Family Research Council, Morality in Media, Concerned
Women for America, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and
Citizens for Community Values. Some leading officials from the Reagan years
have been reappointed to the department’s obscenity unit, including the new head
of the unit, Brent Ward, who, as U.S. Attorney in Utah during the Reagan admin-
istration, vigorously prosecuted distributors of video pornography, attempted to
impose greater controls on strip clubs, prosecuted a phone sex company, and
forced Utah’s two remaining adult theaters to close.130 Another major figure is
Bruce Taylor, who served in the Justice Department’s obscenity unit in the Reagan
years, was a lawyer for the nation’s premier anti-pornography group (Citizens for
Decency through Law, founded in 1956), and was president of an organization
fighting indecency on the Internet and pornography generally (the National Law
Center for Children and Families). He is now the obscenity unit’s senior legal
counsel.131 The appointments of Taylor and Ward have been applauded by right-
wing organizations that had been pressing the Bush administration to launch a
new war on pornography. Concerned Women for America, for instance, urged its
members to “call the Attorney General’s office . . . to express your appreciation
for Taylor’s appointment and the department’s prosecution efforts thus far.”132
The evidence presented above suggests that the dominant forces in the anti-
trafficking campaign and in the Bush administration are committed to a far-
reaching attack on commercial sex. Among the targets are prostitution, strip
clubs, and pornography—all of which are associated with sex trafficking accord-
ing to crusade leaders and government officials. A robust crackdown on prosti-
tution and pornography becomes more palatable to mainstream organizations
and moderate politicians if they can be linked to sex trafficking, that is, if it is
accepted that most or all sex workers have been coerced and trafficked. Such
domain expansion has been a gradual process: the initial, exclusive focus on traf-
ficking was subsequently broadened as activists began to insist that all sectors of
the commercial sex industry should be targeted for repression. Evidence of this
domain expansion can be found in the areas designated for increased criminal-
ization in the End Demand bill, the growing crackdown on domestic prostitution
provided for in the 2005 TVPA, the requirement that those seeking government
funding for their research or interventions regarding trafficking or AIDS sign an
anti-prostitution oath, and the Justice Department’s increasing prosecution of
producers and distributors of adult pornography under the obscenity laws.
RONALD WEITZER 467
CONCLUSION
The anti-prostitution/trafficking campaign examined in this article has made
considerable progress in transforming itself from a social movement into a pro-
ject of the U.S. government, becoming almost fully institutionalized in official
discourse, legislation, and enforcement practices under the Bush administration.
During this period, there has been a remarkable osmosis between crusade and
government ideology, claims-making, and policy preferences. This case illus-
trates a high degree of movement-state interpenetration.
All of the hallmarks of a moral crusade are evident—framing a condition as an
unqualified evil; creation of folk devils; zealotry among leaders who see their mis-
sion as a righteous enterprise; presentation of claims as universalistic truths; use of
horror stories as representative of actors’ experiences; promulgation of huge and
unverified numbers of victims; and attempts to redraw normative boundaries by
increased criminalization. Prostitution is depicted as immoral or intrinsically harm-
ful, and systems of legal prostitution as dens of iniquity and oppression. As is typ-
ical of moral crusades, activists (and now government officials) have presented
questionable statistics and anecdotal horror stories as evidence of a worldwide
epidemic of coerced prostitution. The crusade’s sweeping claims are contradicted
by academic research on the sex industry, including comprehensive reviews of the
scholarly literature.133
What is particularly striking is the degree to which current claims recapitulate
arguments made a century ago regarding “white slavery,” a problem that was
largely mythical.134 The anti-trafficking campaign has capitalized on “one of the
most powerful symbols in the pantheon of Western imagery, the innocent, young
girl dragged off against her will to distant lands to satisfy the insatiable sexual
cravings of wanton men.”135 It has been argued that “today’s stereotypical ‘traf-
ficking victim’ bears as little resemblance to women migrating for work in the
sex industry as did her historical counterpart, the ‘white slave.’”136
This does not mean that coercive sex trafficking is fictional. Force and decep-
tion are realities in the sex trade, and the perpetrators deserve stiff punishment.
But instead of focusing on unfree labor, the campaign has broadly targeted all
migration if sex is sold at the destination. What is largely missing from crusade
discourse is attention to the root causes of migration, such as poverty and barri-
ers to women’s employment in the Third World and Eastern Europe. Crusade
leaders occasionally mention structural factors, but this has been overshadowed
by the dominant moral discourse and by a focus on individuals and their imme-
diate circumstances.137
An alternative model would (1) pay more attention to the socioeconomic con-
ditions that promote sex work, (2) focus on unfree labor rather than prostitution
per se, (3) faithfully represent women’s varied experiences in prostitution, and (4)
identify concrete ways of enhancing workers’ health, safety, and control over
468 POLITICS & SOCIETY
working conditions.138 A full discussion of policy implications is beyond the scope
of this article, but any such discussion must take into account differences between
types of prostitution. In other words, policies should be sector-specific. Some
workers, concentrated in the upscale echelon (call girls, escorts), are not interested
in leaving the trade, and their biggest concern is being arrested.139 Other workers,
both internationally and domestically, whether trafficked or not, want to leave the
sex industry, yet resources to facilitate exit are woefully lacking. In the United
States, most cities provide virtually no government-funded support services
for sex workers.140 Desperately needed are resources for counseling, health care,
drug treatment, temporary housing, and job training. Regarding sex trafficking, as
noted above, interventions focused on persons who are unequivocally victims and
perpetrators of coercive trafficking (involving force and fraud) would be a supe-
rior strategy to the undifferentiated and often counterproductive practices of many
faith-based rescue organizations, whose practices are driven by this moral cru-
sade’s broad goal of abolishing the entire sex industry worldwide.
NOTES
1. The article examines developments in the United States, including American for-
eign policy, and does not examine the parallel debate on the international stage. See Jo
Doezema, “Now You See Her, Now You Don’t: Sex Workers at the UN Trafficking
Protocol Negotiations,” Social and Legal Studies 14 (2005): 61-89, and Barbara Sullivan,
“Trafficking in Women: Feminism and New International Law,” International Feminist
Journal of Politics 5 (2003): 67-91.
2. Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse, “Social Problems: A Re-Formulation,” Social
Problems 21 (1973): 146.
3. Howard Becker, Outsiders (New York: Free Press, 1963); Stanley Cohen, Folk
Devils and Moral Panics (New York: St. Martin’s, 1972); and Joseph Gusfield, Symbolic
Crusade (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1963).
4. Joel Best, Threatened Children (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
5. Cohen, Folk Devils; Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics: The
Social Construction of Deviance (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994).
6. Joel Best, Random Violence: How We Talk about New Crimes and New Victims
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 103-18.
7. For example, Darren Sherkat and Christopher Ellison, “The Cognitive Structure
of a Moral Crusade: Conservative Protestantism and Opposition to Pornography,” Social
Forces 75 (1997): 957-80; Louis Zurcher and R. George Kirkpatrick, Citizens for Decency:
Antipornography Campaigns as Status Defense (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976).
8. Meese Commission, Final Report of the Attorney General’s Commission on
Pornography (Nashville: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986).
9. Carole Vance, “The Meese Commission on the Road,” The Nation (August 2,
1986): 76-80; Gordon Hawkins and Franklin Zimring, Pornography in a Free Society
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Donald Downs, The New Politics of
Pornography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
10. U.S. Department of Justice, Beyond the Pornography Commission: The Federal
Response (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988).
RONALD WEITZER 469
11. Ted Gest, “The Drive to Make America Porn-Free,” U.S. News and World Report
(February 6, 1989): 26-27; Jim McGee, “U.S. Crusade against Pornography Tests the
Limits of Fairness,” Washington Post (January 11, 1993). Under Clinton, the Justice
Department greatly reduced prosecutions of adult obscenity cases and focused instead on
child pornography.
12. Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
13. Vance, “Meese Commission.”
14. Phyllis Chesler and Donna Hughes, “Feminism in the 21st Century,” Washington
Post (February 22, 2004).
15. Laura Lederer, quoted in Mindy Belz, “No Sale,” World Magazine (March 25, 2000).
16. Donna Hughes, quoted in Kathryn Lopez, “The New Abolitionist Movement:
Donna Hughes on Progress Fighting Sex Trafficking,” National Review (January 26, 2006).
17. Mainstream feminists have been involved in the debate at certain junctures. For
instance, during international negotiations over a UN treaty on sex trafficking in January
2000, Gloria Steinem and the presidents of the National Organization for Women and
Planned Parenthood sent a letter to President Clinton protesting the administration’s
refusal to define all types of prostitution as “sexual exploitation” and insistence that only
forced prostitution be so designated. See Barbara Stolz, “Educating Policymakers and
Setting the Criminal Justice Policymaking Agenda: Interest Groups and the ‘Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Act of 2000,’” Criminal Justice 5 (2005): 418.
18. Resolution 141, passed at annual NOW conference, 1973. The resolution called for
the decriminalization of prostitution on the grounds that law enforcement was gender-
biased, and that criminalization punished poor women who face limited job opportunities.
19. See, for example, Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex: Notes for an Abolitionist Theory of
the Politics of Sexuality,” in C. Vance, ed., Pleasure and Danger (Boston: Routledge,
1984); Rubin, “Misguided, Dangerous, and Wrong: An Analysis of Antipornography
Politics,” in A. Assiter and A. Carol, eds., Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures (London: Pluto,
1993); Nadine Strossen, Defending Pornography (New York: Anchor, 1995).
20. Melissa Ditmore, “Trafficking in Lives: How Ideology Shapes Policy,” in
K. Kempadoo, ed., Trafficking and Prostitution Reconsidered: New Perspectives on
Migration, Sex Work, and Human Rights (Boulder: Paradigm, 2005).
21. Gretchen Soderlund, “Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against
Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition,” NWSA Journal 17 (2005): 64-87.
22. Elisabeth Bumiller, “Evangelicals Sway White House on Human Rights Issues
Abroad,” New York Times (October 26, 2003); Nina Shapiro, “The New Abolitionists,”
Seattle Weekly (August 25, 2004); Laura Blumenfeld, “In a Shift, Anti-Prostitution Effort
Targets Pimps and Johns,” Washington Post (December 15, 2005).
23. Ronald Weitzer, “Prostitutes’ Rights in the United States: The Failure of a
Movement,” Sociological Quarterly 32 (1991): 23-41.
24. Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women (New York: Putnam, 1981)
and Life and Death (New York: Free Press, 1997); Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism
Unmodified (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987).
25. Lederer, quoted in Bob Jones, “Trafficking Cops,” World Magazine (June 15, 2002).
26. CATW founder Kathleen Barry’s book (Female Sexual Slavery, Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1979, 227, 230) advocates a view of sex quite similar to that of the
religious right:
We are really going back to the values women have always attached to sexuality, values
that have been robbed from us, distorted and destroyed as we have been colonized
470 POLITICS & SOCIETY
through both sexual violence and so-called sexual liberation. They are the values and
needs that connect sex with warmth, affection, love, caring. . . . Sexual values and the
positive, constructive experience of sex must be based in intimacy. . . . Sexual intimacy
precludes the proposition that sex is the right of anyone and asserts instead that it must
be earned through trust and sharing. It follows then that sex cannot be purchased, legally
acquired, or seized by force.
Although such traditional sexual values are rarely articulated by abolitionist feminists
today, it is noteworthy that Kathleen Barry founded CATW, and that her book is the sem-
inal text in the abolitionist literature.
27. Sherkat and Ellison, “The Cognitive Structure of a Moral Crusade.”
28. Ron Sider, quoted in Shapiro, “New Abolitionists.”
29. Timothy Morgan, “Sex Isn’t Work,” Christianity Today (December 29, 2006).
30. Glona Cowan, Cheryl Chase, and Geraldine Stahly, “Feminist and Fundamentalist
Attitudes toward Pornography Control,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (1989): 97-112.
31. Examples can be found in evangelical magazines such as The World and Christianity
Today, the Web sites of organizations on the right such as the Salvation Army and Concerned
Women for America, and in many other places. Conservative icons William Bennett and
Charles Colson, for example, argue that “prostitution and pornography inevitably exploits
women, whether they consent to it or not.” William Bennett and Charles Colson, “The
Clintons Shrug at Sex Trafficking,” Wall Street Journal (January 10, 2000).
32. Vance, “Meese Commission.”
33. Janice Raymond, “Prostitution on Demand: Legalizing the Buyers as Sexual
Consumers,” Violence Against Women 10 (2004): 1175.
34. Ronald Weitzer, “Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution,” Violence
Against Women 11 (2005): 934-49.
35. Janice Raymond and Donna Hughes, Sex Trafficking of Women in the United
States. Coalition against Trafficking in Women (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2001).
36. Weitzer, “Flawed Theory.”
37. Cohen, Folk Devils; Goode and Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics.
38. Horowitz, quoted in Blumenfeld, “In a Shift,” A16.
39. Ronald Weitzer, “New Directions in Research on Prostitution,” Crime, Law, and
Social Change 43 (2005): 211-35.
40. Martin Monto, “Why Men Seek out Prostitutes,” in R. Weitzer, ed., Sex for Sale:
Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry (New York: Routledge, 2000), and “Female
Prostitution, Customers, and Violence,” Violence Against Women 10 (2004): 160-68.
41. Raymond and Hughes, Sex Trafficking, 25.
42. Weitzer, “Flawed Theory”; Weitzer, “New Directions”; Ine Vanwesenbeeck,
“Another Decade of Social Scientific Work on Prostitution,” Annual Review of Sex Research
12 (2001): 242-89.
43. For example, almost all of the 294 prostitutes interviewed in a Miami study pre-
ferred to be called working women or sex workers. Steven Kurtz, Hilary Surratt, James
Inciardi, and Marion Kiley, “Sex Work and Date Violence,” Violence Against Women 10
(2004): 357-85.
44. Weitzer, “Flawed Theory”; Wendy Chapkis, “Power and Control in the Commercial
Sex Trade,” in R. Weitzer, ed., Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry
(New York: Routledge, 2000).
RONALD WEITZER 471
45. Joanna Busza, Sarah Castle, and Aisse Diarra, “Trafficking and Health,” British
Medical Journal 328 (June 5, 2004): 1369-71; see also the identical findings in Thomas
Steinfatt, Measuring the Number of Trafficked Women and Children in Cambodia:
A Direct Observation Field Study (Washington, DC: USAID, 2003), 23-24.
46. Laura Agustin, “Migrants in the Mistress’s House: Other Voices in the Trafficking
Debate,” Social Politics 12 (2005): 98, 101.
47. Judith Vocks and Jan Nijboer, “The Promised Land: A Study of Trafficking in
Women from Central and Eastern Europe to the Netherlands,” European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research 8 (2000): 383, 384.
48. Linda Meaker, “A Social Response to Transnational Prostitution in Queensland,
Australia,” in S. Thorbek and B. Pattanaik, eds., Transnational Prostitution (London: Zed,
2002), 61, 63.
49. Jo Doezema, “Loose Women or Lost Women? The Re-emergence of the Myth of
‘White Slavery’ in Contemporary Discourses of ‘Trafficking in Women’,” Gender Issues
18 (2000): 24.
50. Busza, Castle, and Diarra, “Trafficking and Health.”
51. Steinfatt, Measuring the Number, 24.
52. Rubin, “Thinking Sex,” 301.
53. Melissa Farley, “Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart: Prostitution Harms Women
Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” Violence Against Women 10 (2004): 1087-125;
Dorchen Leidholdt, “Prostitution and Trafficking in Women: An Intimate Relationship,”
Journal of Trauma Practice 2 (2004): 167-83; Raymond, “Prostitution on Demand.”
54. Donna Hughes, “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: No Way to End Sex Trafficking,”
National Review Online (October 9, 2002), 2.
55. Donna Hughes, quoted in University of Rhode Island Press Release, “Expert on
Sex Trafficking Contributes to Passage of Historic New Law” (January 11, 2006).
56. Donna Hughes, “Accommodation or Abolition?” National Review Online (May 1,
2003), 1.
57. Kamala Kempadoo, ed., Trafficking and Prostitution Reconsidered: New
Perspectives on Migration, Sex Work, and Human Rights (Boulder: Paradigm, 2005).
58. Goode and Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics, 36-44.
59. Hotaling, quoted in Meredith May, “Sex Trafficking: San Francisco is a Major
Center for International Crime Networks that Smuggle and Enslave,” San Francisco
Chronicle (October 6, 2006).
60. Editorial, “Putting the Sex Trade on Notice,” New York Times (January 9, 2004).
61. Oprah, “Child Sex Slaves in America,” American Broadcasting Company
(November 2, 2005).
62. See http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/trafficking. UNESCO’s Trafficking
Statistics Project is an ongoing project attempting to assess the scale of the problem.
63. Liz Kelly, “You Can Find Anything You Want: A Critical Reflection on Research on
Trafficking in Persons within and into Europe,” International Migration 43 (2005): 237.
64. Guri Tyldum and Anette Brunovskis, “Describing the Unobserved: Methodological
Challenges in Empirical Studies on Human Trafficking,” International Migration 43
(2005): 17-34.
65. Elzbieta Gozdziak and Elizabeth Collett, “Research on Human Trafficking in
North America: A Review of the Literature,” International Migration 43 (2005): 99-128.
66. General Accountability Office, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and
Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Anti-trafficking Efforts Abroad (Washington, DC:
GAO, 2006), 2, 10.
472 POLITICS & SOCIETY
67. GAO, Human Trafficking, 3, 14.
68. Gary Haugen, International Justice Mission, Testimony before Congressional
Human Rights Caucus, U.S. House of Representatives (June 6, 2002); CATW: http://www
.catwinternational.org.
69. Gozdziak and Collett, “Research on Human Trafficking,” 110.
70. Louise Shelley, “The Trade in People in and from the Former Soviet Union,”
Crime, Law, and Social Change 40 (2003): 231-49.
71. Janice Raymond, “Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal
Response to the Demand for Prostitution,” Journal of Trauma Practice 2 (2003): 322.
72. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Coalition Report (Amherst: CATW, 2004).
73. http://www.catwinternational.org.
74. Raymond, “Ten Reasons,” 317, 329.
75. Linda Smith, Testimony before Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives, Hearing on the State Department’s 2002 Trafficking in Persons Report
(June 19, 2002), 66.
76. http://www.cwfa.org.
77. U. S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2005 (Washington, DC:
Department of State, 2005). In Congressional testimony in October 2003, CATW’s
co-director called on the State Department to remove the Netherlands and Germany from
the top, best-practice tier because they have legal prostitution (Coalition Against Traffick-
ing in Women, Coalition Report (Amherst: CATW, 2003).
78. Transcrime, Study on National Legislation on Prostitution and the Trafficking in
Women and Children. Report to the European Parliament, 2005, 121. There has also been
an overall decrease in prostitution establishments (brothels, window units) since legal-
ization in 2000, arguably because of stricter regulation. See Rode Draad [Red Thread],
Rechten van Prostituees [Rights of Prostitutes], report funded by the Dutch Ministry of
Social Affairs (Amsterdam: Rode Draad, 2006).
79. Kamala Kempadoo, “Introduction: Globalizing Sex Workers’ Rights,” in K. Kempadoo
and J. Doezema, eds., Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition (New York:
Routledge, 1998), 17.
80. Alison Murray, “Debt Bondage and Trafficking,” in K. Kempadoo and J. Doezema,
eds., Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition (New York: Routledge
1998), 60.
81. Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck, “Violence and Legalized Brothel
Prostitution in Nevada,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (2005): 289.
82. A. L. Dalder, Lifting the Ban on Brothels (The Hague: Ministry of Justice, 2004), 30.
83. Crime and Misconduct Commission, Regulating Prostitution: An Evaluation of
the Prostitution Act 1999, Queensland (Brisbane, Australia: Crime and Misconduct
Commission, 2004), 75, 89.
84. Similarly, the Meese Commission’s 1986 report on pornography displayed what two
experts called a “schizophrenic dissociation between the research findings and their inter-
pretation by the commission.” Hawkins and Zimring, Pornography in a Free Society, 99.
85. Ann Ferguson, “Sex War: The Debate between Radical and Libertarian Feminists,”
Signs 10 (1989): 106-12; Annette Jolin, “On the Backs of Working Prostitutes: Feminist
Theory and Prostitution Policy,” Crime and Delinquency 40 (1994): 69-83; Julia O’Connell
Davidson, “Will the Real Sex Slave Please Stand Up?” Feminist Review 83 (2006): 4-22;
Vanwesenbeeck, “Another Decade,” Weitzer, “Flawed Theory,” Weitzer, “New Directions.”
86. William Gamson, The Strategy of Social Protest (Homewood, IL: Dorsey, 1975);
Best, Random Violence; Goode and Ben-Yehuda, Moral Panics, 224-29.
RONALD WEITZER 473
87. John Miller, “A Modern Slave Trade,” New York Post (May 22, 2005).
88. Miller, quoted in Bumiller, “Evangelicals Sway White House.”
89. Ditmore, “Trafficking in Lives”; Shapiro, “New Abolitionists”; Penelope
Saunders, “Traffic Violations,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (2005): 343-60.
90. The following are some of the formal “coalition members” in the Rescue and
Restore Coalition: CATW, Protection Project, Evangelicals for Social Action, Family
Research Council, SAGE, Sex Industry Survivors, Break the Chain Campaign, Religious
Freedom Coalition, Focus on the Family, American Conservative Union, Culture of Life
Foundation, Christian Medical Association, Concerned Women for America, Restoration
Ministries International, and many other Christian organizations. See Attorney General,
Report to Congress on U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal
Year 2004 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2005), Appendix 2.
91. Mayer Zald, “Ideologically Structured Action: An Enlarged Agenda for Social
Movement Research,” Mobilization 5 (2000): 1-16.
92. J. Robert Flores, “Blind to the Law,” Family Voice (November 2000), magazine
of Concerned Women for America.
93. Patrick Trueman, Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Property Rights, United States Senate. Hearing on Obscenity Prosecution
(March 16, 2005).
94. Shapiro, “New Abolitionists.”
95. Ditmore, “Trafficking in Lives.”
96. Thomas Edsall, “Grants Flow to Bush Allies on Social Issues,” Washington Post
(March 22, 2006); Esther Kaplan, With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the
Christian Right (New York: New Press, 2005), 214-18.
97. To cite just a few examples, in FY 2003 and FY 2004, CATW received $482,000,
SAGE $200,000, the Protection Project $492,000, Donna Hughes $158,000, the Catholic
Bishops Conference $600,000, Shared Hope International $500,000, World Vision
$500,000, and the International Rescue Committee $2,666,000. See Attorney General,
Report to Congress on U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal
Year 2003 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2004); Attorney General, Report, 2004.
98. Raymond and Hughes, Sex Trafficking of Women; Coalition Against Trafficking
in Women, Coalition Report (Amherst: CATW, 2001), 7.
99. GAO, Human Trafficking, 25.
100. The TVPA created a new federal crime of “severe trafficking” in persons, which
could result in a prison term of twenty years.
101. Dorothy Stetson, “The Invisible Issue: Prostitution and Trafficking of Women
and Girls in the United States,” in J. Outshoorn, ed., The Politics of Prostitution (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
102. Stetson, “Invisible Issue.” Similarly, at the international level in the mid-1990s,
CATW and its allies were not particularly successful in gaining acceptance of their claims.
At the 1995 Beijing Women’s conference, for instance, CATW’s proposals were success-
fully opposed by other feminist and sex worker’s rights groups. CATW was somewhat
more successful in influencing the 2000 United Nations’ Protocol on Trafficking, which
reflected a compromise between abolitionist feminists and sex work feminists (Sullivan,
“Trafficking in Women”).
103. The 2003 TVPA reauthorization contained new provisions for combating sex
tourism by American citizens abroad, and new eligibility restrictions on organizations
receiving government funding.
104. John Miller identified Donna Hughes, Laura Lederer, Michael Horowitz (of the
Hudson Institute), Linda Smith (former Republican congresswoman), and Gary Haugen
474 POLITICS & SOCIETY
(president of the International Justice Mission) as involved in drafting the TVPA. See John
Miller, Testimony at Congressional Hearing on Trafficking in Women and Children in East
Asia and Beyond. Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.S. Senate (April 9, 2003). In the Congressional Record, Rep. Chris Smith
noted the contributions to the drafting of the TYPA of Horowitz, Lederer, Haugen, Charles
Colson, Gloria Steinem, the Protection Project, Family Research Council, Equality Now,
and the National Association of Evangelicals, while Senator Sam Brownback acknowl-
edged the help of Haugen, Lederer, Steinem, Horowitz, William Bennett, the Southern
Baptist Convention, Equality Now, and the National Association of Evangelicals (Stolz,
“Educating Policymakers”).
105. George W. Bush, “Combating Trafficking in Persons,” National Security
Presidential Directive, no. 22 (December 16, 2002).
106. George W. Bush, “President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly,”
White House Press Release (September 23, 2003).
107. Richard Land, quoted in Bumiller, “Evangelicals Sway White House.”
108. Miller, “Testimony.”
109. Miller, quoted in P. Parameswaran, “Sex Worker Tag Giving Wrong Impression,”
Agence France Presse (December 16, 2006).
110. Amy O’Neill Richard, International Trafficking of Women to the United States
(Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2000), 3.
111. U.S. Department of State, “The Link between Prostitution and Sex Trafficking,”
(Washington, DC: Department of State, 2004).
112. After the Cambodian Ministry of Planning’s Human Development Report, 2000,
reported that there were 80,000-100,000 sex workers in Cambodia, this figure was converted
into the number of trafficked “sex slaves” by the Child Rights Foundation of Cambodia, and
then by other NGOs and the media. Even the Cambodian government’s estimate of the num-
ber of sex workers seems a gross exaggeration. In a report for USAID based on fieldwork
in Cambodia, it was estimated that there were 18,256 sex workers in 2003, most of whom
were neither underage nor trafficked. Steinfatt, Measuring the Number, 11.
113. The figures on the American situation contrast sharply with estimates of sex traf-
ficking into Britain, where the range was reported to be between 142 and 1,420 annually.
The authors of this report caution that “it is not currently possible with any level of accu-
racy” to estimate the number of women trafficked within Europe. See Liz Kelly and Linda
Regan, Stopping Traffic: Exploring the Extent of, and Responses to, Trafficking in Women
for Sexual Exploitation in the UK. Police Research Series paper 125 (London: Home Office,
2000), 22, 8. In 2003, police and immigration officers in London found 295 immigration
offenders during their routine visits to massage parlors and saunas, only five of whom were
identified as victims of trafficking (O’Connell Davidson, “Will the Real Sex Slave”).
114. U.S. Department of Justice, Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal
Year 2004 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2005), 4. Between FY 2001 and FY
2004, the Justice Department prosecuted 131 persons for sex trafficking offenses, and
obtained ninety-nine convictions. Though relatively low for a four-year period, the figures
were almost five times higher than during the previous four years, a period prior to the
TVPA. See Attorney General, Report, 2004, 20.
115. Blumenfeld, “In a Shift.”
116. Best, Threatened Children.
117. Becker, Outsiders.
118. Soderlund, “Running from the Rescuers,” 79.
119. National Institute of Justice, Solicitation: Trafficking in Human Beings Research
and Comprehensive Literature Review (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 2007), 4.
RONALD WEITZER 475
120. William Fisher, “USAID Sued Over Anti-Prostitution Policy,” Inter-Press Service
News Agency (August 23, 2005).
121. Hughes, “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” 2.
122. TVPA 2000, Section 103[3]; TVPA 2005, Section 207[3].
123. The first john school was created in San Francisco in 1995 and was designed by
Norma Hotaling of SAGE in association with city officials.
124. Hughes received $108,478 from the State Department to write this report
(Attorney General, Report, 2004).
125. Donna Hughes, “The Demand for Victims of Sex Trafficking.” Unpublished
report (University of Rhode Island, 2005), 22, 26.
126. Anthony Verdugo, quoted in Julie Kay, “U.S. Attorney’s Porn Fight Gets Bad
Reviews,” Daily Business Review (August 30, 2005).
127. Hughes, “The Demand for Victims,” 26.
128. Trueman, “Testimony.”
129. U.S. Department of Justice, “Obscenity Prosecution Task Force Established to
Investigate, Prosecute Purveyors of Obscene Materials.” Press Release (Washington, DC:
Department of Justice, May 5, 2005); Richard Schmitt, “U.S. Cracking Down on Porn,”
Deseret News (February 15, 2004).
130. Robert Gehrke, “Nation’s Porn Prosecutor Fronts War against Obscenity,” Salt
Lake Tribune (February 26, 2007).
131. Schmitt, “U.S. Cracking Down on Porn.”
132. Jan LaRue, “Porn Industry Moans for Good Reason,” Concerned Women for
America, http://www.cwfa.org (February 24, 2004).
133. Weitzer, “New Directions”; Vanwesenbeeck, “Another Decade.”
134. Doezema, “Loose Women or Lost Women.”
135. William McDonald, “Traffic Counts, Symbols, and Agendas: A Critique of the
Campaign Against Trafficking of Human Beings,” International Review of Victimology
11 (2004): 158.
136. Doezema, “Loose Women or Lost Women,” 24.
137. This tendency was also pronounced 150 years ago in the American moral reform
campaign: “Most important, images of fallen women in popular literature and moral
reform journals channeled the debate on prostitution away from adverse social and eco-
nomic structures toward cruel seducers and evil agents. . . . [Reformers] could not com-
prehend the idea that prostitution could be a rational choice for women faced with a field
of limited opportunities and options in the labor and marriage markets.” Barbara Hobson,
Uneasy Virtue: The Politics of Prostitution and the American Reform Tradition (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1990), 75, 76.
138. Sullivan, “Trafficking in Women.”
139. Weitzer, “New Directions.”
140. Ronald Weitzer, “Prostitution Control in America: Rethinking Public Policy,”
Crime, Law, and Social Change 32 (1999): 83-102.
Ronald Weitzer (weitzer@gwu.edu) is professor of sociology at George
Washington University. He is currently conducting research on legal prostitution
systems in Australia and the Netherlands, and is editor of Sex for Sale:
Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry (Routledge, 2000). He has also
published extensively on police relations with ethnic and racial minorities, includ-
ing his recent coauthored book, Race and Policing in America: Conflict and
Reform (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize false
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
/AGaramond-BoldScaps
/AGaramond-Italic
/AGaramond-Regular
/AGaramond-RomanScaps
/AGaramond-Semibold
/AGaramond-SemiboldItalic
/AGar-Special
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-It
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super
/AlbertusMT
/AlbertusMT-Italic
/AlbertusMT-Light
/Aldine401BT-BoldA
/Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA
/Aldine401BT-ItalicA
/Aldine401BT-RomanA
/Aldine721BT-Bold
/Aldine721BT-BoldItalic
/Aldine721BT-Italic
/Aldine721BT-Light
/Aldine721BT-LightItalic
/Aldine721BT-Roman
/AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular
/AmericanaBT-Bold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBoldCondensed
/AmericanaBT-Italic
/AmericanaBT-Roman
/Anna
/AntiqueOlive-Bold
/AntiqueOlive-Compact
/AntiqueOlive-Italic
/AntiqueOlive-Roman
/Arkona-Medium
/Arkona-Regular
/AshleyScriptMT
/AssemblyLightSSK
/AvantGarde-Bold
/AvantGarde-BoldObl
/AvantGarde-Book
/AvantGarde-BookOblique
/AvantGarde-CondBold
/AvantGarde-CondBook
/AvantGarde-CondDemi
/AvantGarde-CondMedium
/AvantGarde-Demi
/AvantGarde-DemiOblique
/AvantGarde-ExtraLight
/AvantGarde-ExtraLightObl
/AvantGarde-Medium
/AvantGarde-MediumObl
/BakerSignetBT-Roman
/BaskervilleBE-Italic
/BaskervilleBE-Medium
/BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic
/BaskervilleBE-Regular
/Baskerville-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleBT-Italic
/BaskervilleBT-Roman
/BaskervilleMT
/BaskervilleMT-Bold
/BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleMT-Italic
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBold
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold
/BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman
/Baskerville-Normal-Italic
/BauerBodoni-Black
/BauerBodoni-BlackCond
/BauerBodoni-BlackItalic
/BauerBodoni-Bold
/BauerBodoni-BoldCond
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalic
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-BoldOsF
/BauerBodoni-Italic
/BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-Roman
/BauerBodoni-RomanSC
/BauhausITCbyBT-Bold
/BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy
/BauhausITCbyBT-Light
/BauhausITCbyBT-Medium
/Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT
/BellGothicBT-Bold
/BellGothicBT-Roman
/Bembo
/Bembo-Bold
/Bembo-BoldExpert
/Bembo-BoldItalic
/Bembo-BoldItalicExpert
/Bembo-Expert
/Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic
/Bembo-Italic
/Bembo-ItalicExpert
/Bembo-Semibold
/Bembo-SemiboldItalic
/Berling-Bold
/Berling-BoldItalic
/Berling-Italic
/Berling-Roman
/BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular
/BernhardFashionBT-Regular
/BernhardModernBT-Bold
/BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic
/BernhardModernBT-Italic
/BernhardModernBT-Roman
/BickhamScriptMM
/BickhamScriptMM-AltI
/BickhamScriptMM-AltII
/BickhamScriptMM-Beg
/BickhamScriptMM-End
/BickhamScriptMM-Lig
/BickhamScriptMM-Or
/BickhamScriptMM-SwCaps
/Bodoni
/Bodoni-Bold
/Bodoni-BoldItalic
/Bodoni-Italic
/Bodoni-Poster
/Bodoni-PosterCompressed
/Bookman-Demi
/Bookman-DemiItalic
/Bookman-Light
/Bookman-LightItalic
/Boton-Italic
/Boton-Medium
/Boton-MediumItalic
/Boton-Regular
/Boulevard
/CaflischScript-Bold
/CaflischScript-Regular
/Caliban
/Carta
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Caslon540BT-Italic
/Caslon540BT-Roman
/CaslonBT-Bold
/CaslonBT-BoldItalic
/CaslonOpenFace
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt
/CastleT-Bold
/CastleT-Book
/Caxton-Bold
/Caxton-BoldItalic
/Caxton-Book
/Caxton-BookItalic
/Caxton-Light
/Century-Bold
/Century-BoldItalic
/Century-Book
/Century-BookItalic
/Century-Light
/Century-LightItalic
/CenturyOldStyle-Bold
/CenturyOldStyle-Italic
/CenturyOldStyle-Regular
/Century-Ultra
/Century-UltraItalic
/ChaparralMM
/ChaparralMM-Ep
/ChaparralMM-It
/ChaparralMM-ItEp
/ChaparralMM-ItSC
/ChaparralMM-Or
/ChaparralMM-SC
/CharterBT-Black
/CharterBT-BlackItalic
/CharterBT-Bold
/CharterBT-BoldItalic
/CharterBT-Italic
/CharterBT-Roman
/CheltenhamBT-Bold
/CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic
/CheltenhamBT-Italic
/CheltenhamBT-Roman
/Christiana-Bold
/Christiana-BoldItalic
/Christiana-Italic
/Christiana-Medium
/Christiana-MediumItalic
/Christiana-Regular
/Christiana-RegularExpert
/Christiana-RegularSC
/Clarendon
/Clarendon-Bold
/Clarendon-Light
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold
/ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman
/CMB10
/CMBSY10
/CMBSY5
/CMBSY6
/CMBSY7
/CMBSY8
/CMBSY9
/CMBX10
/CMBX12
/CMBX5
/CMBX6
/CMBX7
/CMBX8
/CMBX9
/CMBXSL10
/CMBXTI10
/CMCSC10
/CMCSC8
/CMSS10
/CMSS12
/CMSS17
/CMSS8
/CMSS9
/CMSSBX10
/CMSSDC10
/CMSSI10
/CMSSI12
/CMSSI17
/CMSSI8
/CMSSI9
/CMSSQ8
/CMSSQI8
/CMSY10
/CMSY5
/CMTEX9
/ComicSansMS
/ComicSansMS-Bold
/ConcordeNova-Italic
/ConcordeNova-ItalicExp
/ConcordeNova-ItalicOsF
/ConcordeNova-Medium
/ConcordeNova-MediumExp
/ConcordeNova-MediumSC
/ConcordeNova-Regular
/ConcordeNova-RegularExp
/ConcordeNova-RegularSC
/ConduitITC-Bold
/ConduitITC-BoldItalic
/ConduitITC-Light
/ConduitITC-LightItalic
/ConduitITC-Medium
/ConduitITC-MediumItalic
/CooperBlack
/CooperBlack-Italic
/CooperBT-Bold
/CooperBT-BoldItalic
/CooperBT-Light
/CooperBT-LightItalic
/CopperplateGothicBT-Bold
/CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond
/CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy
/CopperplateGothicBT-Roman
/CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond
/Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC
/Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC
/Coronet-Regular
/Courier
/Courier-Bold
/Courier-BoldOblique
/Courier-Oblique
/Critter
/CS-Special-font
/Delta-Bold
/Delta-BoldItalic
/Delta-Book
/Delta-BookItalic
/Delta-Light
/Delta-LightItalic
/Delta-Medium
/Delta-MediumItalic
/DextorD
/DextorOutD
/DINEngschrift
/DINEngschrift-Alternate
/DINMittelschrift
/DINMittelschrift-Alternate
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light
/Dom-CasItalic
/DomCasual
/DomCasual-Bold
/Dom-CasualBT
/Ehrhard-Italic
/Ehrhard-Regular
/EhrhardSemi-Italic
/EhrhardtMT
/EhrhardtMT-Italic
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBold
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic
/EhrharSemi
/ElectraLH-Bold
/ElectraLH-BoldCursive
/ElectraLH-Cursive
/ElectraLH-Regular
/ElGreco
/EnglischeSchT-Bold
/EnglischeSchT-Regu
/ErasContour
/ErasITCbyBT-Bold
/ErasITCbyBT-Book
/ErasITCbyBT-Demi
/ErasITCbyBT-Light
/ErasITCbyBT-Medium
/ErasITCbyBT-Ultra
/Euclid
/Euclid-Bold
/Euclid-BoldItalic
/EuclidExtra
/EuclidExtra-Bold
/EuclidFraktur
/EuclidFraktur-Bold
/Euclid-Italic
/EuclidMathOne
/EuclidMathOne-Bold
/EuclidMathTwo
/EuclidMathTwo-Bold
/EuclidSymbol
/EuclidSymbol-Bold
/EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic
/EuclidSymbol-Italic
/EuroMono-Bold
/EuroMono-BoldItalic
/EuroMono-Italic
/EuroMono-Regular
/EuropeanPi-Four
/EuropeanPi-One
/EuropeanPi-Three
/EuropeanPi-Two
/EuroSans-Bold
/EuroSans-BoldItalic
/EuroSans-Italic
/EuroSansITC-Black
/EuroSansITC-BlackItalic
/EuroSansITC-Bold
/EuroSansITC-BoldItalic
/EuroSansITC-Book
/EuroSansITC-BookItalic
/EuroSansITC-Medium
/EuroSansITC-MediumItalic
/EuroSans-Regular
/EuroSerif-Bold
/EuroSerif-BoldItalic
/EuroSerif-Italic
/EuroSerif-Regular
/Eurostile
/Eurostile-Bold
/Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo
/Eurostile-ExtendedTwo
/ExPonto-Regular
/FairfieldLH-Bold
/FairfieldLH-BoldItalic
/FairfieldLH-BoldSC
/FairfieldLH-CaptionBold
/FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy
/FairfieldLH-CaptionLight
/FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium
/FairfieldLH-Heavy
/FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic
/FairfieldLH-HeavySC
/FairfieldLH-Light
/FairfieldLH-LightItalic
/FairfieldLH-LightSC
/FairfieldLH-Medium
/FairfieldLH-MediumItalic
/FairfieldLH-MediumSC
/FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF
/Fences
/Fenice-Bold
/Fenice-BoldOblique
/Fenice-Light
/Fenice-LightOblique
/Fenice-Regular
/Fenice-RegularOblique
/Fenice-Ultra
/Fenice-UltraOblique
/FlashD-Ligh
/Flood
/FontanaNDEeOsF
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold
/FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Light
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold
/FormalScript421BT-Regular
/Formata-Bold
/Formata-MediumCondensed
/ForteMT
/FrakturBT-Regular
/FranklinGothic-Book
/FranklinGothic-BookItal
/FranklinGothic-BookOblique
/FranklinGothic-Condensed
/FranklinGothic-Demi
/FranklinGothic-DemiItal
/FranklinGothic-DemiOblique
/FranklinGothic-Heavy
/FranklinGothic-HeavyItal
/FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique
/FranklinGothic-Medium
/FranklinGothic-MediumItal
/FranklinGothic-Roman
/FreestyleScript
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman
/Frutiger-Black
/Frutiger-BlackCn
/Frutiger-BlackItalic
/Frutiger-Bold
/Frutiger-BoldCn
/Frutiger-BoldItalic
/Frutiger-Cn
/Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn
/Frutiger-Italic
/Frutiger-Light
/Frutiger-LightCn
/Frutiger-LightItalic
/Frutiger-Roman
/Frutiger-UltraBlack
/Futura
/FuturaBlackBT-Regular
/Futura-Bold
/Futura-BoldOblique
/Futura-Book
/Futura-BookOblique
/FuturaBT-Bold
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensed
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/FuturaBT-BoldItalic
/FuturaBT-Book
/FuturaBT-BookItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlack
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic
/FuturaBT-Heavy
/FuturaBT-HeavyItalic
/FuturaBT-Light
/FuturaBT-LightCondensed
/FuturaBT-LightItalic
/FuturaBT-Medium
/FuturaBT-MediumCondensed
/FuturaBT-MediumItalic
/Futura-CondensedLight
/Futura-CondensedLightOblique
/Futura-ExtraBold
/Futura-ExtraBoldOblique
/Futura-Heavy
/Futura-HeavyOblique
/Futura-Light
/Futura-LightOblique
/Futura-Oblique
/Futura-Thin
/Galliard-Black
/Galliard-BlackItalic
/Galliard-Bold
/Galliard-BoldItalic
/Galliard-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Bold
/GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Roman
/Galliard-Roman
/Galliard-Ultra
/Galliard-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Antiqua
/Garamond-BoldCondensed
/Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic
/Garamond-BookCondensed
/Garamond-BookCondensedItalic
/Garamond-Halbfett
/GaramondITCbyBT-Bold
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Book
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Light
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Kursiv
/Garamond-KursivHalbfett
/Garamond-LightCondensed
/Garamond-LightCondensedItalic
/GaramondThree
/GaramondThree-Bold
/GaramondThree-BoldItalic
/GaramondThree-Italic
/GarthGraphic
/GarthGraphic-Black
/GarthGraphic-Bold
/GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed
/GarthGraphic-BoldItalic
/GarthGraphic-Condensed
/GarthGraphic-ExtraBold
/GarthGraphic-Italic
/Geometric231BT-HeavyC
/GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA
/Giddyup
/Giddyup-Thangs
/GillSans
/GillSans-Bold
/GillSans-BoldCondensed
/GillSans-BoldItalic
/GillSans-Condensed
/GillSans-ExtraBold
/GillSans-Italic
/GillSans-Light
/GillSans-LightItalic
/GillSans-UltraBold
/Gill-Special
/Giovanni-Bold
/Giovanni-BoldItalic
/Giovanni-Book
/Giovanni-BookItalic
/Goudy
/Goudy-Bold
/Goudy-BoldItalic
/Goudy-BoldItalicOsF
/Goudy-BoldOsF
/Goudy-ExtraBold
/Goudy-Heavyface
/Goudy-HeavyfaceItalic
/Goudy-Italic
/Goudy-ItalicOsF
/GoudyModernMT
/GoudyModernMT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman
/GoudySans-Black
/GoudySans-BlackItalic
/GoudySans-Bold
/GoudySans-BoldItalic
/GoudySans-Book
/GoudySans-BookItalic
/GoudySans-Medium
/GoudySans-MediumItalic
/Goudy-SC
/GoudyTextMT
/GoudyTextMT-Alternate
/GoudyTextMT-Dfr
/GoudyTextMT-LombardicCapitals
/Helvetica
/Helvetica-Black
/Helvetica-BlackOblique
/Helvetica-Black-SemiBold
/Helvetica-Bold
/Helvetica-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Compressed
/Helvetica-Condensed
/Helvetica-Condensed-Black
/Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Bold
/Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Light
/Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique
/Helvetica-ExtraCompressed
/Helvetica-Light
/Helvetica-LightOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow
/Helvetica-Narrow-Bold
/Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique
/HelveticaNeue-Black
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackExt
/HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Bold
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCond
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExt
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Condensed
/HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-Extended
/HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl
/HelveticaNeue-Heavy
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Italic
/HelveticaNeue-Light
/HelveticaNeue-LightCond
/HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightExt
/HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Medium
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCond
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Roman
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCond
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLight
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal
/Helvetica-Oblique
/HelvLight
/Humanist521BT-Bold
/Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed
/Humanist521BT-BoldItalic
/Humanist521BT-ExtraBold
/Humanist521BT-Italic
/Humanist521BT-Light
/Humanist521BT-LightItalic
/Humanist521BT-Roman
/Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed
/Humanist521BT-UltraBold
/Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed
/Humanist777BT-BlackB
/Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB
/Humanist777BT-BoldB
/Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB
/Humanist777BT-ItalicB
/Humanist777BT-LightB
/Humanist777BT-LightItalicB
/Humanist777BT-RomanB
/Imago-Book
/Imago-BookItalic
/Imago-ExtraBold
/Imago-ExtraBoldItalic
/Imago-Medium
/Imago-MediumItalic
/IPAExtras
/IPAHighLow
/IPAKiel
/IPAKielSeven
/IPAsans
/JansonText-Bold
/JansonText-BoldItalic
/JansonText-Italic
/JansonText-Roman
/JansonText-RomanSC
/JoannaMT
/JoannaMT-Bold
/JoannaMT-BoldItalic
/JoannaMT-Italic
/KeplMM-Or2
/KisBT-Italic
/KisBT-Roman
/KlangMT
/Lapidary333BT-Black
/Lapidary333BT-Bold
/Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic
/Lapidary333BT-Italic
/Lapidary333BT-Roman
/LASY10
/LASY5
/LASY6
/LASY7
/LASY8
/LASY9
/LASYB10
/LCIRCLE10
/LCIRCLEW10
/LCMSS8
/LCMSSB8
/LCMSSI8
/LDecorationPi-One
/LDecorationPi-Two
/LegacySans-Bold
/LegacySans-BoldItalic
/LegacySans-Book
/LegacySans-BookItalic
/LegacySans-Medium
/LegacySans-MediumItalic
/LegacySans-Ultra
/LegacySerif-Bold
/LegacySerif-BoldItalic
/LegacySerif-Book
/LegacySerif-BookItalic
/LegacySerif-Medium
/LegacySerif-MediumItalic
/LegacySerif-Ultra
/LetterGothic
/LetterGothic-Bold
/LetterGothic-BoldSlanted
/LetterGothic-Slanted
/LINE10
/LINEW10
/Lithos-Black
/Lithos-Regular
/LOGO10
/LOGO8
/LOGO9
/LOGOBF10
/LOGOSL10
/LOMD-Normal
/LubalinGraph-Book
/LubalinGraph-BookOblique
/LubalinGraph-Demi
/LubalinGraph-DemiOblique
/LucidaHandwritingItalic
/LucidaMath-Symbol
/LydianBT-Bold
/LydianBT-BoldItalic
/LydianBT-Italic
/LydianBT-Roman
/LydianCursiveBT-Regular
/Marigold
/MathematicalPi-Five
/MathematicalPi-Four
/MathematicalPi-One
/MathematicalPi-Six
/MathematicalPi-Three
/MathematicalPi-Two
/Melior
/Melior-Bold
/Melior-BoldItalic
/Melior-Italic
/Memphis-Bold
/Memphis-BoldItalic
/Memphis-ExtraBold
/Memphis-Light
/Memphis-LightItalic
/Memphis-Medium
/Memphis-MediumItalic
/MercuriusCT-Black
/MercuriusCT-BlackItalic
/MercuriusCT-Light
/MercuriusCT-LightItalic
/MercuriusCT-Medium
/MercuriusCT-MediumItalic
/MercuriusMT-BoldScript
/Meridien-Medium
/Meridien-MediumItalic
/Meridien-Roman
/MexicanBorders
/Minion-Black
/Minion-Bold
/Minion-BoldCondensed
/Minion-BoldCondensedItalic
/Minion-BoldItalic
/Minion-Condensed
/Minion-CondensedItalic
/Minion-DisplayItalic
/Minion-DisplayRegular
/Minion-Italic
/Minion-Ornaments
/Minion-Regular
/Minion-Semibold
/Minion-SemiboldItalic
/MonaLisa-Recut
/MonolineScriptMT
/MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesAllSmallCaps
/MrsEavesBold
/MrsEavesFractions
/MrsEavesItalic
/MrsEavesPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesRoman
/MrsEavesRomanLining
/MrsEavesSmallCaps
/MSAM10
/MSAM10A
/MSAM5
/MSAM6
/MSAM7
/MSAM8
/MSAM9
/MSBM10
/MSBM10A
/MSBM5
/MSBM6
/MSBM7
/MSBM8
/MSBM9
/MTEX
/MTEXB
/MTEXH
/MT-Extra
/MTGU
/MTGUB
/MTMI
/MTMIB
/MTMIH
/MTMS
/MTMSB
/MTMUB
/MTMUH
/MTSY
/MTSYB
/MTSYH
/MTSYN
/Myriad-Bold
/Myriad-BoldItalic
/Myriad-Italic
/Myriad-Roman
/Myriad-Tilt
/NeuzeitS-Book
/NeuzeitS-BookHeavy
/NewBaskerville-Bold
/NewBaskerville-BoldItalic
/NewBaskerville-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman
/NewBaskerville-Roman
/NewBerolinaMT
/NewCaledonia
/NewCaledonia-Black
/NewCaledonia-BlackItalic
/NewCaledonia-Bold
/NewCaledonia-BoldItalic
/NewCaledonia-Italic
/NewCaledonia-SemiBold
/NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Bold
/NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Italic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Roman
/NewsGothicBT-Bold
/NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic
/NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Demi
/NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic
/NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Italic
/NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Light
/NewsGothicBT-LightItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Roman
/NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed
/New-Symbol
/Nueva-BoldExtended
/Nueva-Roman
/NuptialScript
/OceanSansMM
/OceanSansMM-It
/OfficinaSans-Bold
/OfficinaSans-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSans-Book
/OfficinaSans-BookItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Bold
/OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Book
/OfficinaSerif-BookItalic
/Optima
/Optima-Bold
/Optima-BoldItalic
/Optima-ExtraBlack
/Optima-ExtraBlackItalic
/Optima-Italic
/OttaIA
/Otta-wa
/Ottawa-BoldA
/OttawaPSMT
/Oxford
/PalaceScriptMT
/PalaceScriptMT-SemiBold
/Palatino-Bold
/Palatino-BoldItalic
/Palatino-Italic
/Palatino-Roman
/Perpetua
/Perpetua-Bold
/Perpetua-BoldItalic
/Perpetua-Italic
/PhotinaMT
/PhotinaMT-Bold
/PhotinaMT-BoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-Italic
/PhotinaMT-SemiBold
/PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-UltraBold
/PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic
/Plantin
/Plantin-Bold
/Plantin-BoldItalic
/Plantin-Italic
/Plantin-Light
/Plantin-LightItalic
/Plantin-Semibold
/Plantin-SemiboldItalic
/Poetica-ChanceryI
/PopplLaudatio-Italic
/PopplLaudatio-Medium
/PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic
/PopplLaudatio-Regular
/ProseAntique-Bold
/ProseAntique-Normal
/QuaySansEF-Black
/QuaySansEF-BlackItalic
/QuaySansEF-Book
/QuaySansEF-BookItalic
/QuaySansEF-Medium
/QuaySansEF-MediumItalic
/Quorum-Black
/Quorum-Bold
/Quorum-Book
/Quorum-Light
/Quorum-Medium
/Revival565BT-Bold
/Revival565BT-BoldItalic
/Revival565BT-Italic
/Revival565BT-Roman
/Ribbon131BT-Bold
/Ribbon131BT-Regular
/RMTMI
/Rockwell
/Rockwell-Bold
/Rockwell-BoldCondensed
/Rockwell-BoldItalic
/Rockwell-Condensed
/Rockwell-ExtraBold
/Rockwell-Italic
/Rockwell-Light
/Rockwell-LightItalic
/RussellSquare
/RussellSquare-Oblique
/RuzickaFreehandLH-Bold
/RuzickaFreehandLH-BoldSC
/RuzickaFreehandLH-Roman
/RuzickaFreehandLH-RomanSC
/Sabon-Bold
/Sabon-BoldItalic
/Sabon-Italic
/Sabon-Roman
/Sanvito-Light
/SanvitoMM
/Sanvito-Roman
/ScotchRomanMT
/ScotchRomanMT-Italic
/Semitica
/Semitica-Italic
/SerifGothic
/SerifGothic-Bold
/SignaCondColumn-Light
/SignaCond-Light
/SignaCond-LightExpert
/SIVAMATH
/Siva-Special
/SMS-SPELA
/Souvenir-Demi
/Souvenir-DemiItalic
/SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi
/SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic
/SouvenirITCbyBT-Light
/SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic
/Souvenir-Light
/Souvenir-LightItalic
/SpecialAA
/Special-Gali
/SpringLP
/SpringLP-Light
/Sp-Sym
/SpumoniLP
/StempelGaramond-Bold
/StempelGaramond-BoldItalic
/StempelGaramond-Italic
/StempelGaramond-Roman
/StoneSans
/StoneSans-Bold
/StoneSans-BoldItalic
/StoneSans-Italic
/StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate
/StoneSans-PhoneticIPA
/StoneSans-Semibold
/StoneSans-SemiboldItalic
/StoneSerif
/StoneSerif-Italic
/StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate
/StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA
/StoneSerif-Semibold
/StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic
/Swiss721BT-Black
/Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed
/Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-BlackExtended
/Swiss721BT-BlackItalic
/Swiss721BT-BlackOutline
/Swiss721BT-BlackRounded
/Swiss721BT-Bold
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline
/Swiss721BT-BoldExtended
/Swiss721BT-BoldItalic
/Swiss721BT-BoldOutline
/Swiss721BT-BoldRounded
/Swiss721BT-Heavy
/Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic
/Swiss721BT-Italic
/Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed
/Swiss721BT-Light
/Swiss721BT-LightCondensed
/Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-LightExtended
/Swiss721BT-LightItalic
/Swiss721BT-Medium
/Swiss721BT-MediumItalic
/Swiss721BT-Roman
/Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed
/Swiss721BT-RomanExtended
/Swiss721BT-Thin
/Swiss721BT-ThinItalic
/Symbol
/Tekton
/Times-Bold
/Times-BoldA
/Times-BoldItalic
/Times-BoldOblique
/Times-Italic
/Times-NewRoman
/Times-NewRomanBold
/TimesNewRomanMT-BoldCond
/TimesNewRomanMT-Cond
/TimesNewRomanMT-CondItalic
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPSMT
/Times-Oblique
/Times-PhoneticAlternate
/Times-PhoneticIPA
/Times-Roman
/Times-Sc
/Times-SCB
/Times-special
/TradeGothic
/TradeGothic-Bold
/TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty
/TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl
/TradeGothic-BoldOblique
/TradeGothic-BoldTwo
/TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique
/TradeGothic-CondEighteen
/TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl
/TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended
/TradeGothicLH-Extended
/TradeGothic-Light
/TradeGothic-LightOblique
/TradeGothic-Oblique
/Trajan-Bold
/Trajan-Regular
/Univers
/Universal-NewswithCommPi
/Univers-Black
/Univers-BlackExt
/Univers-BlackExtObl
/Univers-BlackOblique
/Univers-Bold
/Univers-BoldExt
/Univers-BoldExtObl
/Univers-BoldItalic
/Univers-BoldOblique
/Univers-Condensed
/Univers-CondensedBold
/Univers-CondensedBoldOblique
/Univers-CondensedOblique
/Univers-Extended
/Univers-ExtendedObl
/Univers-ExtraBlack
/Univers-ExtraBlackExt
/Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl
/Univers-ExtraBlackObl
/Univers-Italic
/Univers-Light
/Univers-LightOblique
/Univers-LightUltraCondensed
/Univers-Oblique
/Univers-ThinUltraCondensed
/Univers-UltraCondensed
/Utopia-Regular
/VAGRounded-Black
/VAGRounded-Bold
/VAGRounded-Light
/VAGRounded-Thin
/Viva-BoldExtraExtended
/Viva-Regular
/Weidemann-Black
/Weidemann-BlackItalic
/Weidemann-Bold
/Weidemann-BoldItalic
/Weidemann-Book
/Weidemann-BookItalic
/Weidemann-Medium
/Weidemann-MediumItalic
/WindsorBT-Elongated
/WindsorBT-Light
/WindsorBT-LightCondensed
/WindsorBT-Roman
/Wingdings-Regular
/WNCYB10
/WNCYI10
/WNCYR10
/WNCYSC10
/WNCYSS10
/WoodtypeOrnaments-One
/WoodtypeOrnaments-Two
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal
/ZapfChancery-MediumItalic
/ZapfDingbats
/ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold
/ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold
/ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi
/ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra
/ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic
/ZiptyDo
/ZurichBT-Black
/ZurichBT-BlackExtended
/ZurichBT-BlackItalic
/ZurichBT-Bold
/ZurichBT-BoldCondensed
/ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/ZurichBT-BoldExtended
/ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-BoldItalic
/ZurichBT-ExtraBlack
/ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-Italic
/ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed
/ZurichBT-Light
/ZurichBT-LightCondensed
/ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic
/ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-LightItalic
/ZurichBT-Roman
/ZurichBT-RomanCondensed
/ZurichBT-RomanExtended
/ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 300
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description <<
/FRA
/JPN
/DEU
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice
SEXfor
SALE
P R O S T I T U T I O N ,
P O R N O G R A P H Y ,
A N D T H E
S E X I N D U S T R Y
Second Edition
E D I T E D B Y
R O N A L D W E I T Z E R
First published by
Routledge 2000
This edition published 20
10
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 1001
6
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 busines
s
© 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 200
9
306.74–dc22 200900599
4
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)
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.
ISBN 0-203-87280-0 Master e-book ISBN
Sex work involves the exchange of sexual services, performances, or products
for material compensation. It includes activities of direct physical contac
t
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 T H E S E X I N D U S T R Y
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
C
H A
P T E
R
1
SEX WORK:
PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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.1
2
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 “main-
streaming” 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 T I 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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.2
7
■ 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 con-
servative, “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
RONALD WEITZER
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 evi-
dence, 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 alter-
native 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 organiza-
6
RONALD WEITZER
tional conditions. The chapters in Sex for Sale provide additional evidence in
support of the polymorphous paradigm.
T Y P E S O F S E X W O R K
A brief discussion of different types of sex work will illustrate the poly-
morphous approach.
Prostitution
Prostitutes vary tremendously in their reasons for entry, risk of violence,
freedom to refuse clients and particular sex acts, dependence on and exploita-
tion 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
TA
B
L
E
1
.1
C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
IS
T
IC
S
O
F
T
Y
P
E
S
O
F
P
R
O
S
T
IT
U
T
I
O
N
B
U
SI
N
ES
S
PR
IC
ES
EX
PL
O
IT
AT
IO
N
R
IS
K
O
F
PU
B
LI
C
IM
PA
CT
O
N
LO
CA
TI
O
N
CH
AR
G
ED
BY
T
H
IR
D
VI
O
LE
N
T
VI
SI
B
IL
IT
Y
CO
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
PA
RT
IE
S
VI
CT
IM
IZ
AT
IO
N
C
A
L
L
G
IR
L
In
d
ep
en
d
en
t
op
er
at
or
;
H
ig
h
L
ow
t
o
n
on
e
L
ow
N
on
e
N
on
e
p
ri
va
te
p
re
m
is
es
/h
ot
el
s
E
S
C
O
R
T
E
sc
or
t
ag
en
cy
;
H
ig
h
M
od
er
at
e
L
ow
t
o
V
er
y
lo
w
N
on
e
p
ri
va
te
p
re
m
is
es
/h
ot
el
s
m
od
er
at
e
B
R
O
T
H
E
L
W
O
R
K
E
R
B
ro
th
el
M
od
er
at
e
M
od
er
at
e
V
er
y
lo
w
L
ow
N
on
e,
i
f
d
is
cr
ee
t
M
A
S
S
A
G
E
P
A
R
L
O
R
M
as
sa
g
e
p
ar
lo
r
M
od
er
at
e
M
od
er
at
e
V
er
y
lo
w
L
ow
L
it
tl
e,
i
f
d
is
cr
ee
t
W
O
R
K
E
R
B
A
R
O
R
C
A
S
IN
O
B
ar
/c
as
in
o
co
n
ta
ct
;
L
ow
t
o
L
ow
t
o
L
ow
t
o
M
od
er
at
e
E
q
u
iv
al
en
t
to
W
O
R
K
E
R
se
x
el
se
w
h
er
e
m
od
er
at
e
m
od
er
at
e
m
od
er
at
e
im
p
ac
t
of
b
ar
/
ca
si
n
o
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
A
L
K
E
R
St
re
et
c
on
ta
ct
;
se
x
in
c
ar
s,
L
ow
H
ig
h
V
er
y
h
ig
h
H
ig
h
A
d
ve
rs
e
al
le
ys
,
p
ar
k
s,
e
tc
.
N
ot
e:
T
ab
le
r
ef
er
s
to
f
em
al
e
w
or
k
er
s.
T
h
e
b
ro
th
el
a
n
d
m
as
sa
g
e
p
ar
lo
r
w
or
k
er
s
d
ep
ic
te
d
h
er
e
d
o
n
ot
i
n
cl
u
d
e
t
h
os
e
w
h
o
h
av
e
b
ee
n
t
ra
ff
ic
k
ed
a
g
ai
n
st
t
h
ei
r
w
il
l
or
ot
h
er
w
is
e
fo
rc
ed
i
n
to
p
ro
st
it
u
ti
on
,
w
h
os
e
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
s
d
if
fe
r
fr
om
t
h
os
e
w
h
o
h
av
e
en
te
re
d
t
h
is
w
or
k
c
on
se
n
su
al
ly
.
E
xp
lo
it
at
io
n
b
y
th
ir
d
p
ar
ti
es
m
ea
n
s
th
ir
d
p
ar
ty
r
ec
ei
p
t
of
a
t
le
as
t
so
m
e
of
t
h
e
p
ro
fi
ts
.
R
is
k
o
f
vi
ol
en
t
vi
ct
im
iz
at
io
n
r
ef
er
s
h
er
e
to
v
ic
ti
m
iz
at
io
n
o
f
p
ro
st
it
u
te
,
n
ot
o
f
cu
st
om
er
.
Im
p
ac
t
on
c
om
m
u
n
it
y
re
fe
rs
t
o
ef
fe
ct
s
on
t
h
e
su
rr
ou
n
d
in
g
n
ei
g
h
b
or
h
oo
d
’s
q
u
al
it
y
of
l
if
e.
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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’ immi-
gration 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 non-
sexual 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 main-
tain healthy self-images.”51 Although call girls generally express greater
job satisfaction than do those employed by third parties (brothels, massage
11
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 struc-
tural factors, including education, income, control over working conditions,
relations with third parties, and client base. Income is a major source of self-
esteem 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 con-
trol 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 socia-
bility 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 audi-
ence 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 African-
American 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 real-
world 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
and fear that men might compare them unfavorably to porn models,76 whereas
other women find pornography to be educational, entertaining, or stimulat-
ing.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
RONALD WEITZER
and female workers but it also sheds additional light on the work experiences
of independent escorts. Similarly, little is known about gay male pornog-
raphy.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 L I C I E S A N D C O N F L I C T S
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 pornog-
raphy; 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 dehuman-
ized 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
RONALD WEITZER
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
once.”98 Meanwhile, several federal courts denounced the multidistrict prose-
cution 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 stigmat-
izing 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 enforce-
ment 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 mea-
sure 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
RONALD WEITZER
23
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
TA B L E 1 . 2 A T T I T U D E S T O W A R D L E G A L I Z A T I O N O F P R O S T I T U T I O N
U N I T E D S T A T E S A G R E E ( % )
Legalize prostitution (1991)1
40
Legalize prostitution (1996)2
26
Decriminalize prostitution, Berkeley, CA (2004)3
36
Decriminalize prostitution, San Francisco, CA (2008)4
42
Prostitution does not hurt Nevada’s tourism industry (1988)5 71
Retain legal brothels, Nevada (2002)6 52
O T H E R N A T I O N S F A V O R L E G A L I Z A T I O N ( % )
Britain (1998)7 61
Britain (2006)8 65
Canada (1998)9 71
Czech Republic (1999)10 70
France (1995)11 68
Israel (2005)12 65
Netherlands (1997)13 73
New Zealand (2003)14 51
Portugal (2001)15 54
Western Australia (2000)16 71
Western Australia (2006)17 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)
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 prostitu-
tion 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 unintimi-
dating 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 criminal-
ization? 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 prostitu-
tion 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 fre-
26
RONALD WEITZER
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 under-
cover 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 five-
year 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.1
27
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 announce-
ment 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.”1
30
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 con-
ducted 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 rehabi-
litative, 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 permit-
ting 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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 trans-
portation 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
RONALD WEITZER
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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, pornog-
raphy, 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 pornog-
raphy 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 policy-
makers 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 L U 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
RONALD WEITZER
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 O T E 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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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
RONALD WEITZER
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
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
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
with a customer in which they had developed strong feelings for him.”
Steinfatt, Working at the Bar, p. 251.
50. Charlotte Woodward, Jane Fischer, Jake Najman, and Michael Dunne,
Selling Sex in Queensland, Brisbane, Australia: Prostitution Licensing
Authority, 2004.
51. Lucas, “The Work of Sex Work,” p. 541.
52. Woodward, et al., Selling Sex in Queensland, p. 39.
36
RONALD WEITZER
53. Quoted in Mark Waite, “Prostitutes Dispute Trummell Charges,”
Pahrump Valley Times, October 5, 2007.
54. See the studies cited in Weitzer, “Sociology of Sex Work.”
55. Prince, A Psychological Study of Prostitutes, p. 454.
56. John Decker, Prostitution: Regulation and Control, Littleton, CO:
Rothman, 1979, pp. 166, 174.
57. Upscale work is featured in the CNBC documentary, “Dirty Money: The
Business of High-End Prostitution,” which first aired in November
2008 (CNBC Television network). See also Adam Goldman, “Scandal
Gives Peek Inside Call-Girl Ring,” Associated Press, March 12, 2008.
58. Bernstein, Temporarily Yours, p. 100.
59. Vanwesenbeeck, “Another Decade of Social Scientific Work on
Prostitution.”
60. See the literature reviews by Katherine Frank, “Thinking Critically about
Strip Club Research,” Sexualities 10 (2007): 501–517, and Mindy Bradley,
“Stripping in the New Millennium,” Sociology Compass 2 (2008): 503–518.
61. Mindy Bradley and Jeffrey Ulmer, “Social Worlds of Stripping,”
Sociological Quarterly 50 (2009): 29–60.
62. Bernadette Barton, “Dancing on the Mobius Strip: Challenging the Sex
War Paradigm,” Gender and Society 16 (2002): 585–602.
63. Katherine Frank, G-Strings and Sympathy: Strip Club Regulars and Male
Desire, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.
64. Tina Deshotels and Craig Forsyth, “Strategic Flirting and the Emotional Tab
of Exotic Dancing,” Deviant Behavior 27 (2006): 223–241, at pp. 231–232.
65. William Thompson and Jackie Harred, “Topless Dancers: Managing
Stigma in a Deviant Occupation,” Deviant Behavior 13 (1992): 291–311;
Marilyn Salutin, “Stripper Morality,” Transaction 8 (1971): 12–22.
66. Beth Montemurro, “Strippers and Screamers,” Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 30 (2001): 275–304; David Peterson and Paula Dressel,
“Equal Time for Women: Notes on the Male Strip Show,” Urban Life 11
(1982): 185–208.
67. Beth Montemurro, Colleen Bloom, and Kelly Madell, “Ladies Night
Out: A Typology of Women Patrons of a Male Strip Club,” Deviant
Behavior 24 (2003): 333–352.
68. Thompson and Harred, “Topless Dancers”; William Thompson, Jackie
Harred, and Barbara Burks, “Managing the Stigma of Topless Dancing:
A Decade Later,” Deviant Behavior 24 (2003): 551–570.
69. Joseph DeMarco, “Power and Control in Gay Strip Clubs,” Journal of
Homosexuality 53 (2007): 111–127.
70. Frank, “Thinking Critically”; DeMarco, “Power and Control.”
37
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
71. Robert Bauserman, “Sexual Aggression and Pornography: A Review of
Correlational Research,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 18 (1996):
405–427; Edward Donnerstein, Daniel Linz, and Steven Penrod, The
Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy Implications, New
York: Free Press, 1987.
72. Bauserman, “Sexual Aggression and Pornography”; see also Berl
Kutchinsky, “Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? Evidence from
Crime Data in Four Countries where Pornography is Easily Available,”
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 14 (1991): 47–64; Milton
Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama, “Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crime in
Japan,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22 (1999): 1–22.
73. Joseph Scott and Steven Cuvelier, “Sexual Violence in Playboy Magazine:
A Longitudinal Content Analysis,” Journal of Sex Research 25 (1987):
534–539; Ted Palys, “Testing the Common Wisdom: The Social
Content of Video Pornography,” Canadian Psychology 27 (1986): 22–35;
Joseph Scott and Steven Cuvelier, “Violence and Sexual Violence in
Pornography,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993): 357–371.
74. Palys, “Testing the Common Wisdom.”
75. Bauserman, “Sexual Aggression and Pornography,” p. 424.
76. Petra Boynton, “‘Is That Supposed to be Sexy?’ Women Discuss Women
in Top Shelf Magazines,” Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology 9 (1999): 91–105.
77. See the studies reviewed by Feona Attwood, “What Do People Do with
Porn?” Sexuality and Culture 9 (2005): 65–86.
78. Glona Cowan, Cheryl Chase, and Geraldine Stahly, “Feminist and
Fundamentalist Attitudes toward Pornography Control,” Psychology of
Women Quarterly 13 (1989): 97–112.
79. David Loftus, Watching Sex: How Men Really Respond to Pornography, New
York: Thunder Mouth Press, 2002, p. xii. Most of the men in the sample
were contacted via the Internet and thus may be unrepresentative of the
larger population, but the findings are consistent with some other
inquiries, e.g., Marty Klein, “Pornography: What Men See When They
Watch,” in Peter Lehman, ed., Pornography: Film and Culture, New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2006.
80. Loftus, Watching Sex, p. 249.
81. Loftus, Watching Sex, p. 137–147.
82. Jan Browne and Victor Minichiello, “Research Directions in Male Sex
Work,” Journal of Homosexuality 31 (1996): 29–56; Donald West, Male
Prostitution. Binghamton, NY: Haworth; 1993; Peter Aggleton, ed., Men
Who Sell Sex, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999.
38
RONALD WEITZER
83. Exceptions are David Duncan, “Trends in Gay Pornographic
Magazines,” Social Science Research 73 (1989): 95–98, and Carl Stychin,
“Exploring the Limits: Feminism and the Legal Regulation of Gay Male
Pornography,” Vermont Law Review 16 (1992): 857–900.
84. An exception is Amy Flowers, The Fantasy Factory: An Insider’s View of the
Phone Sex Industry, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.
85. Eddie Adams, “Indiana Group Targets Adult Businesses,” Adult Video
News Media Network, November 16, 2007.
86. Bryant Paul, Daniel Linz, and Bradley Shafer, “Government Regulation
of Adult Businesses through Zoning and Anti-Nudity Ordinances:
Debunking the Legal Myth of Negative Secondary Effects,” Community
Law and Policy 6 (2001): 355–391.
87. Daniel Linz, “An Examination of the Assumption that Adult Businesses
are Associated with Crime in Surrounding Areas,” Law and Society Review
38 (2004): 69–104. See also Daniel Linz, Bryant Paul, and Mike Yao,
“Peep Show Establishments, Police Activity, Public Place, and Time: A
Study of Secondary Effects in San Diego, California,” Journal of Sex
Research 43 (2006): 182–193.
88. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
89. Paul Brest and Ann Vandenberg, “Politics, Feminism, and the
Constitution: The Anti-Pornography Movement in Minneapolis,”
Stanford Law Review 39 (1987): 607–661.
90. Lisa Duggan, Nan Hunter, and Carole Vance, “False Promises: Feminist
Anti-Pornography Legislation,” New York Law School Law Review 38
(1993): 133–163.
91. Brest and Vandenberg, “Politics, Feminism, and the Constitution.”
92. Carole Vance, “The Meese Commission on the Road,” The Nation
(August 2, 1986): 65, 76–82; Larry Baron, “Immoral, Inviolate, or
Inconclusive?” Society (July–August, 1987): 6–12.
93. Daniel Linz, Edward Donnerstein, and Steven Penrod, “The Findings
and Recommendations of the Attorney General’s Commission on
Pornography,” American Psychologist 42 (1987): 946–953.
94. U.S. Department of Justice, Beyond the Pornography Commission: The
Federal Response, Washington, DC: GPO, 1988.
95. U.S. Department of Justice, Beyond the Pornography Commission, p. 31.
96. Jim McGee and Brian Duffy, Main Justice, New York: Simon & Schuster,
1996, pp. 282, 293.
97. Ted Gest, “The Drive to Make America Porn-Free,” U.S. News and World
Report, February 6, 1989; Jim McGee, “U.S. Crusade Against Pornography
Tests the Limits of Fairness,” Washington Post, January 11, 1993.
39
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
98. PBS interview with Bruce Taylor, Transcript, Frontline/Public
Broadcasting Service, 2001.
99. My interview with official in Child Exploitation and Obscenity Unit,
February 24, 1999.
100. Richard Schmidt, “U.S. Cracking Down on Porn,” Deseret News,
February 15, 2004; Barton Gellman, “Recruits Sought for Porn Squad,”
Washington Post, September 20, 2005; U.S. Department of Justice,
“Obscenity Prosecution Task Force Established to Investigate, Prosecute
Purveyors of Obscene Materials,” Press Release. Washington, DC:
Department of Justice, May 5, 2005.
101. Laura Sullivan, “Justice Department Sets Sights on Mainstream Porn,”
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 11, 2004.
102. Dept. of Justice, “Obscenity Prosecution.”
103. Robert Gehrke, “Nation’s Porn Prosecutor Fronts War against
Obscenity,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 26, 2007.
104. Schmidt, “U.S. Cracking Down on Porn.”
105. PBS interview with Taylor.
106. PBS interview with Taylor.
107. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, annual.
108. Merit Audits and Surveys, Merit report, October 15–20, 1983, N =
1200; Louis Harris poll, January 11–February 11, 1990, N = 2254.
109. “The Task Force therefore recommends that the City stop enforcing and
prosecuting prostitution crimes.” San Francisco Task Force on Prostitu-
tion, Final Report, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 1996, p. 6.
110. See Ronald Weitzer, “Why Prostitution Initiative Misses: Measure Q in
Berkeley Fails on Three Counts,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 26,
2004, p. E3.
111. Prostitution Task Force, Workable Solutions to the Problem of Street
Prostitution in Buffalo, New York, Buffalo, October 1999.
112. “Poll: French Want Brothels Legalized,” Boston Globe, January 22, 1995.
113. Ipsos/MORI Poll, June 11–12, 2008, N = 1012, aged 16 and over.
114. October 1997 poll, cited in Chrisje Brants, “The Fine Art of Regulated
Tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam,” Journal of Law and Society 25
(1998): 621–635.
115. Edgar Danter, “Green Light at Last for Dutch Red Light Districts,”
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, February 6, 1999, N = 2600.
116. Ministry of Justice, Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the
Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, Wellington, New Zealand:
Ministry of Justice, 2008.
40
RONALD WEITZER
117. Bernard Cohen, Deviant Street Networks: Prostitution in New York City,
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980.
118. The policy is described in more detail in Ronald Weitzer, “Prostitution
Control in America: Rethinking Public Policy,” Crime, Law, and Social
Change 32 (1999): 83–102. My discussion of indoor prostitution is
restricted to workers who entered the trade voluntarily, and does not
pertain to those who have been coerced or deceived into selling sex. Law
enforcement directed at the protection of such victims is obviously
laudable.
119. On Britain, see Catherine Benson and Roger Matthews, “Police and
Prostitution: Vice Squads in Britain,” in Ronald Weitzer, ed., Sex for
Sale, New York: Routledge, 2000.
120. See, for instance, the six-page investigative report on the policing of
massage parlors in Louisville, Kentucky: Jim Adams and Jason Riley,
“Louisville Takes Aim at Parlor Prostitution,” The Courier-Journal, July
11, 2004. A study of 16 cities in the mid-1980s by Julie Pearl found
that in three of them (Baltimore, Memphis, Milwaukee) indoor
prostitution accounted for between one-quarter and one-third of their
prostitution arrests and half of the arrests in Cleveland. Pearl data cited
in Weitzer, “Prostitution Control in America,” p. 90.
121. Jessica Logan, “Internet Replacing Streetwalking for Inland
Prostitution,” The Press-Enterprise (Riverside), January 1, 2008.
122. Sara Green, “Prostitution Sting Leads to 104 Arrests,” Seattle Times,
November 16, 2006.
123. Quoted in Mike Brunker, “Prostitution Thrives on the Net,” ZD Net
News, June 7, 1999.
124. In some other places, vice officers are allowed to undress prior to making
an arrest. See Robert Crowe, “Officers Disrobe to Uncover Crime: HPD
Changed its Policy to Crack Down on Spas Fronting for Prostitution,”
Houston Chronicle, January 24, 2005. And in some other places, vice cops
are allowed to receive some sexual contact. Louisville, Kentucky is one
example: see Jason Riley and Jim Adams, “Officers Have Sexual Contact
with Suspects,” and Jason Riley, “Undercover Methods Draw Ridicule,
Praise,” The Courier-Journal, July 11, 2004. In half of the massage parlor
arrests, officers’ reports mentioned that they had received fondling or
oral sex from a worker. Similar practices have occurred in Phoenix and
some other cities, but these are exceptional.
125. Ian Demsky, “Police Defend Prostitution Tactic: DA Says Encounters
Using Informants Unnecessary,” The Tennessean, February 2, 2005.
126. San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 1990.
41
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
127. Montgomery Blair Sibley, interviewed by Katherine Frank, Spread
magazine, Fall 2008, pp. 24–25.
128. Vice sergeant interviewed by Julie Pearl, May 1985; transcript cited in
Weitzer, “Prostitution Control in America.”
129. In many American cities and counties, parlors exist that are populated
by one ethnic group exclusively. Many of these are Korean, Chinese, or
Mexican in composition, and some cater exclusively to clients from the
same ethnic background.
130. San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on Non-Victim Crime in San
Francisco, Part 2: Sexual Conduct, Gambling, Pornography, Mayor’s Office,
1971, p. 44.
131. Helen Reynolds, The Economics of Prostitution, Springfield: Charles
Thomas, 1986, p. 194.
132. Michael Rekart, “Sex Work Harm Reduction,” The Lancet (December
17, 2006): 2123–2134; Linda Cusick, “Widening the Harm Reduction
Agenda: From Drug Use to Sex Work,” International Journal of Drug
Policy 17 (2006): 3–11.
133. San Francisco Committee, Report on Non-Victim Crime, p. 38.
134. Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, Pornography and
Prostitution in Canada, Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1985, p. 515.
135. Federal/Provincial Territorial Working Group on Prostitution, Report
and Recommendations in Respect of Legislation, Policy, and Practices Concerning
Prostitution-Related Activities, Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1998, p.
35.
136. Reynolds, Economics of Prostitution, p. 192.
137. Marianne Hester and Nicole Westmarland, Tackling Street Prostitution:
Towards an Holistic Approach, Home Office Research Study 279, London:
Home Office, 2004; Jane Pitcher, “Support Services for Women
Working in the Sex Industry,” in Rosie Campbell and Maggie O’Neill,
eds., Sex Work Now, Portland: Willan, 2006; Clarissa Penfold, Gillian
Hunter, Rosie Campbell, and Leela Barham, “Tackling Client Violence
in Female Street Prostitution: Inter-Agency Working between Outreach
Agencies and the Police,” Policing and Society 14 (2004): 365–379.
138. The Safe Harbor for Exploited Children Act, 2008, New York State.
139. Adele Weiner, “Understanding the Social Needs of Streetwalking
Prostitutes,” Social Work 41 (1996): 97–105.
140. Atlanta Task Force on Prostitution, Findings and Recommendations,
Mayor’s Office, Atlanta, GA, 1986; San Francisco Committee, Report on
Non-Victim Crime.
141. Special Committee, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada.
42
RONALD WEITZER
142. Federal/Provincial Territorial Working Group, Report and Recommendations,
p. 71; Home Office, A Coordinated Prostitution Strategy, London: Home
Office, 2006. In England, it is already legal for a person to sell sex in
her/his own home, and the Home Office recommended that it be legal for
three people to work in the same residence.
143. Amanda Milkovits, “Legislators’ Attempts to Quell Prostitution Stall,”
Providence Journal, May 28, 2005; Denise Dowling, “Last Call for Sin,”
Rhode Island Monthly, June 2007.
144. See Ronald Weitzer, “Legalizing Prostitution: Morality Politics in
Western Australia,” British Journal of Criminology 49 (2009): 88–105.
145. Hawaii State Legislature, House of Representatives, HB 982,
“Prostitution,” 2007, §3 and §6. The companion bill in the Senate was
SB 706.
146. Herkes, quoted in Mark Niesse, “Prostitution Bill Gains Support,” The
Star Bulletin, February 13, 2007. The bill had 13 co-sponsors in the
House, 1 in the Senate.
147. Thomas Hargrove, “Men Make Up One-Third of Prostitution Arrests,”
Scripps Howard News Service, February 17, 2005.
148. Hargrove, “Men Make Up.”
149. Art Hubacher, “Every Picture Tells a Story: Is Kansas City’s ‘John TV’
Constitutional?” Kansas Law Review 46 (1998): 551–591.
150. “Curbing Prostitution on Demand Side,” New York Times, April 20,
1992: B8.
151. Newsweek poll, January 26–27, 1995, N = 753.
152. Jordan Schrader, “To Reduce Prostitution, Cities Try Shaming Clients,”
USA Today, August 29, 2008.
153. Miyoko Ohtake, “A School for Johns,” Newsweek, July 24, 2008.
154. On trends in the United States, see Chapter 14, and Ronald Weitzer,
“The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking,” Politics and Society 35
(2007): 447–475. On Western Australia, see Weitzer, “Legalizing
Prostitution.”
43
SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
- BOOK COVER
- TITLE
- COPYRIGHT
- CONTENTS
- LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
- PREFACE
- CHAPTER 1 SEX WORK: PARADIGMS AND POLICIES
- 1 PORNOGRAPHY
- 2 STRIPPING AND TELEPHONE SEX
- 3 PROSTITUTION
- 4 TRENDS
- CONTRIBUTORS
- INDEX
CHAPTER 2 MOTIVATIONS FOR PURSUING A CAREER IN PORNOGRAPHY
CHAPTER 3 GAY MALE PORNOGRAPHY SINCE STONEWALL
CHAPTER 4 WOMEN-MADE PORNOGRAPHY
CHAPTER 5 GENDER AND SPACE IN STRIP CLUBS
CHAPTER 6 COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE SEX: FANTASY AND REALITY
CHAPTER 7 THE ECOLOGY OF STREET PROSTITUTION
CHAPTER 8 CALL GIRLS AND STREET PROSTITUTES: SELLING SEX AND INTIMACY
CHAPTER 9 MALE AND FEMALE ESCORTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 10 PROSTITUTES’ CUSTOMERS: MOTIVES AND MISCONCEPTIONS
CHAPTER 11 NEVADA’S LEGAL BROTHELS
CHAPTER 12 REMAKING THE SEX INDUSTRY: THE ADULT EXPO AS A MICROCOSM
CHAPTER 13 SEX TOURISM AND SEX WORKERS’ ASPIRATIONS
CHAPTER 14 SEX TRAFFICKING: FACTS AND FICTIONS
by
Emma Schaefer-Whittall – (She/Her/Hers) Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 1:31 PM
“Sex Work: Paradigms and Policies” and “The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade” by Weitzer illustrate the complex distinction behind sex work and sex trafficking and their misapplication to fit a moral, evangelical agenda. In “Sex Work: Paradigms and Policies”, Weitzer defines the empowerment and oppression paradigm as one-dimensional, essentialist reductions to fit sex work as either exploiting or freeing. Weitzer went further on Bernstein’s idea of “bounded authenticity” by noting the difference between street and indoor workers. He denotes the counseling and befriending of clients as a subject of indoor workers and goes as far as describing their encounters as often including “…a semblance of romance, dating, friendship, or companionship—what has become known as a ‘girlfriend experience’” (Weitzer 2010: 11). I found the psychological adaptation that call girls developed described by Weitzer as a “sensitivity to detecting potential danger in the caller’s attitudes, manners, tone of voice, or nature of the conversation” an essential survival technique indicative of the mental strain and strategy inherent in sex work (Weitzer 2010: 11). Lastly, 59% of the British public deemed prostitution a perfectly reason choice a woman should be free to make. However, 74% considered it unacceptable for a female family member. This possessive paradox reestablishes sex work as always crime-ridden, drug-associated, and not a worthy occupation to think of your daughter, wife, aunt, cousin, etc. to be involved in. So what women do 59% of the public believe should be sex workers?
In “The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade”, Weitzer conveys to the reader the broad-scale discrepancies of number of trafficked women used by moral crusaders as a result of the “clandestine and stigmatized nature of the sex trade” (Weitzer 2007: 455). In addition, moral crusaders and abolitionist feminists reject the distinction between coercive trafficking and voluntary migration for sex work further proving this “ballpark estimate” used to scare the public, lobbyists, and NGOs into persecuting indoor agencies and street prostitutes. Finally, I was shocked to learn that funding for NGOs involved in AIDS relief and legitimate sex trafficking is only given if the organization “explicitly opposes prostitution and sex trafficking” (Weitzer 2007: 464). As Weitzer puts, the model fabricated by these policy changes is the abolitionist claim that prostitution endorsed by legislature encourages illegal sex trafficking.