Sex In The Public Square - economics - Comments

Exactly

Amber Rhea — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:18:19 -0800

Great point, Stacey. I think it's too simplistic to assume that only one factor (legality) is what determines whether or not people enter the sex indsutry.

Stacey: Yep. There are

RenegadeEvolution — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:56:05 -0800

Stacey: Yep. There are reasons people even in legal aspects of the business don't tell people what they do for a living.

Lots of great comments here...

Stacey Swimme — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:31:32 -0800

Especially in the discussion of the hidden costs of sex work.

I wanted to address this idea that if sex work were decriminalized/destigmatized that more women would do it. Sure maybe more women would drop in and out of it....

But i don't think that women resist going pro because of the law. i think it's much more complicated than that and the weight of "what will my boyfriend/parents/professors/employers think?" is heavier than fear of getting arrested.

Not to mention the "Sex with older, hairy sweaty men? Ewww!!!" factor...

Just speculation based on the pro's and non-pro's that I know...

Chris: You bring up really

RenegadeEvolution — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:58:19 -0800

Chris: You bring up really valid issues here. It's true, getting things like health insurance or credit lines can be more or less impossible, even for those in the legal aspects of sex work, and yes, going to doctors can be embarassing. Legalization would go a long way to change this I think. Were sex work truly to be seen as a legit job, it would be my hope that sex workers would be seen as legit workers with access to the same things other workers are able to get....like credit cards and home loans.

Why I think (net) profits would probably rise rather than fall

figleaf — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:37:44 -0800

I think there are probably three big changes legalization would bring that would affect profitability. I mention a couple of ways I think legalization would mitigate stigmatization but, based especially on my examples of licensed massage practitioners and the gambling industry, destigmatization shouldn't *reduce* profits for individual practitioners.

I. I think the biggest difference legalization would make would be a simple lowering of the total cost of doing business, especially at the marginal/street/subsistence end where prostitutes face significant career costs in terms of "protection" that must be provided to pimps and predatory cops, and assault, robbery, rape and murder at the hands of those individuals (non-customers and customers) who view them as easy targets ("what's she gonna do, call the cops?") or "fair game." (Serial killer Gary Ridgeway repeatedly alluded to his victim's status as prostitutes as reason enough to prey on them.)

Legalization would unquestionably put a lot more power in street/subsistence prostitute's hands, allowing them to rely on more robust peer-network security, to call and work proactively with police without fear of arrest or demands for "favors," and even provide obvious stuff like being able to work in well-lit, well-patrolled venues instead of the marginal, unpatrolled areas they're forced to use now. So. Even if nothing else changed, and even if legalization increased competition by lowering the currently substantial barriers to entry, the reduced costs of doing business would at least offset, and for some might increase profitability.

(Note: Studies repeatedly show that subsistence prostitutes are only 15-20% of the total pool of prostitutes but they also bear the brunt of crimes, control, and abuse committed against sex workers. So whether legalization reduced stigma or increased profitability isn't as relevant in a way as the just-plain-bulk quality of work improvements it would provide.)

II. I think the second biggest change legalization would bring is expanding the pool of both potential sex workers and of potential sex-worker customers. Two non-sex-work models for this would be the gambling/casino industry where legalization lowered the barriers to entry, increased the number of competitors by at least an order of magnitude, but then also increased the number of participants by at least the same magnitude and perhaps more. (Note: Depending on how prostitution was legalized in the U.S. the casino/hospitality industry might become a similarly dominant player in terms of promoting and providing prostitution services, for similar reasons.)

The other non-sex-work model, one that might be more familiar to small-business/single-operator sex workers, would be licensed massage therapy. If you live on the coasts or in certain large metropolitan areas licensed massage therapists are probably familiar, non-controversial, and well attended. (In many states, California and Washington being two, health insurers have been obliged by regulators to cover massage.) In other parts of the country, however, massage therapy is very controversial due, in part, to the emergence in the 1970s of "executive massage 'parlours'" that were fronts for prostitution -- a confusion that exists in a lot of lay person's minds to this day. In those areas actual massage therapist body-workers face tremendous barriers to acceptance both by regulating authorities and by potential customers who, even if they personally recognize the benefits still face enormous pressure from family and peers. Nevertheless, over time as acceptance grows the number of service seekers generally outstrips the number of service providers, such that legalization (yes in some areas non-physical therapy massage was as illegal as prostitution) does not lower profitability. (I couldn't find a link just now but years ago I ran across a master’s thesis on the subject of attitudes towards massage therapists. It was by a Midwest LMT who got a masters in social work using local attitudes towards massage therapy as his thesis project.)

So at least based on those two non-sexwork legalization/destigmatization models you'd probably profits have tended to go up.

III. The third biggest change I think legalization would bring is normalization of sex-work. The gambling industry or, earlier, the alcoholic beverage industry, serve as good models for this kind of normalization. When gambling was illegal, and when alcohol was illegal, both participants and providers tended to be those most driven to participate that they were willing to risk not only law enforcement activities but high levels of hazard, lower standards of quality, a tendency to engage in collateral forms of lawbreaking, and a much, much lower degree of transparency in order to get what they wanted. When those industries were legalized or re-legalized (ok, *where* they were legalized since they're not legal everywhere) the more, um, adrenal styles of participation and management have been replaced with somewhat more staid but procedural styles with the result that, say, the Bally corporation with its SEIU-represented employees and credit-card-balance-limited gambling debts is far, far, far more profitable both location-by-location and overall than comparable underground enterprises previously operated by organized crime and attended by those willing to risk the wrath of loan sharks and debt enforcers.

In other words, whereas older "wildcat" gamblers might lament the "good old days," by almost every measure gamblers and drinkers, and their *law abiding* suppliers, are better off. Legalization of prostitution would almost certainly produce the same benefits, from the development more efficient, less euphemistic, and *far* less costly-to-provider booking services, to the ability to form business associations, to the ability to establish, publish, enforce, to lobby for civic adoption of business standards, and by access to all the other ways legitimate small and large businesses are able to operate. The barriers to profit wouldn't just drop and the ability to do business wouldn't just become less risky. Instead I'm pretty sure one would see net profit grow in terms of absolute business efficiency, reduction of stigma, and an increase in "respectability."

That last part is pretty important to me as I have previously, um, announced severe problems with the level of respect provided to sex workers when they and their services are regarded as not only illegal but illegitimate, subordinate, inhuman, and therefore "fair game." Just as legalization has led to increased "respectability" for the quantitatively and qualitatively different style of gambling and alcohol service provider, so has legalization led to increased respect and responsibility on the part of service *consumers.*

Conclusion: Based on an outright lower cost of doing business legalization would provide, plus increases in social acceptance and business efficiency I'm pretty sure that even if legalization increased the potential pool of competing providers, overall (net) profitability probably wouldn't suffer and, in the aggregate anyway, might see marginal increases.

Apologies!

Elizabeth — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:29:19 -0800

Stacey, I am so sorry that this post got lost in the forums list for so many days. Thank you for your patience and a big thank you to Chris for figuring out how to solve the problem and get the post to show up in the forum topics list! I hope that it will now get the attention that it deserves!

Great point

Amber Rhea — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:25:52 -0800

"It seems like this thread focuses on short-term finances, like "Would the price for a lapdance/blowjob/massage go up or down?" And even if getting rid of the stigma or the criminalization would cause the profitability of individual acts and transactions, what about long-term economic health?"

Great point, Chris. I was *trying* to implicitly include this kind of thing in my original question, but it appears I wasn't clear enough. So thanks for bringing that up! It is important to look at the big picture.

The Hidden Costs of Sex Work?

Chris — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:54:25 -0800

One thing that I don't see as being addressed either in the original question or in the follow-up answers is that illegality and stigmatization creates its own expenses. It seems like this thread focuses on short-term finances, like "Would the price for a lapdance/blowjob/massage go up or down?" And even if getting rid of the stigma or the criminalization would cause the profitability of individual acts and transactions, what about long-term economic health? Would someone's chances of getting a home or business loan, for example, be improved by putting "call girl" down as their current occupation? I think not. And that stuff has a long history, especially if you've gotten busted at any time. The international travel opportunities for people who have been convicted of prostitution, as are certain mainstream jobs. Even bloggers I know who merely post openly about their sex lives have to be very careful about their identities because their straight jobs would suddenly disintegrate were it known what they were putting on the internet.

I think that health issues also create expenses; for instance, not only do most sex workers (legal or not) not have health insurance from their job, but communication with their doctors is often difficult, both because the stigma might make talking about health risks and how to cope with them awkward, but because even if the patient feels comfortable being forthright with her or his doctor, the doctor may not be properly educated in what the realities of sex work are. Hence, the need for separate health-care orgs like AIM or the St. James Infirmary, of which there are far too few.

And finally, of course, there's the fact that if you're a whore or a stripper or a porn star, you're a "legitimate target" for violence, since you were just asking for it, weren't you? And that's something that sex workers pay for with their pocketbooks as well as their bodies.

back to labor issues and stigmatization

antonia — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:33:30 -0800

I got very interested in the discussion on the impact of legalization or decriminalization on stigmatization, self-image/self-identification and labor rights in sex work.

In 2007, a study was published on the impact of the decriminalization of prostitution in Germany (commissioned by the state, administered by an independent research institute). A summary is also available in English:

http://www.auswirkungen-prostitutionsgesetz.de/Brosch%FCre_ProstG_englisch.pdf

(the interesting part starts at page 14, btw)

I don't want to cite all findings in detail here but just a quick summary in reference to the issues mentioned above:

- it seems labor conditions have improved somewhat

- all sex workers are now eligible for social security benefits (as statutory health insurance, pension plans, unemployment etc) and most take advantage of it

- there is no mentioning of changes in prices/salaries due to the new law

- it seems the immoral, stigmatized status of prostitution has remained so far (see pp. 27 and 33) -- even if I question how these variables were measured in the study somewhat

The study makes no mentioning of an initiative by ver.di (the largest service industry union in Germany) to represent sex workers. So far, there hasn't been much organizing around this, partly due to the fact that most prostitutes still work independently or without a formal work contract from their employer. See:

http://besondere-dienste.hamburg.verdi.de/arbeitsplatz_prostitution/download/data/studie_englisch.pdf

(see page 12 for union activities)

Netherlands not necessarily a good example

figleaf — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:06 -0800

Hi Lux,

A lot of anti-prostitution types cite problems in the Netherlands as "proof" that legalization is unviable. The issue there, evidently, isn't that prostitution is legal or that sex workers are unionized but that only Dutch citizens are allowed to practice legally. The upshot is that there's an extensive (and to some degree voluntarily and involuntarily trafficked) network of undocumented sex workers who, because of their undocumented status, face effectively the same legal barriers faced by subsistance/street sex workers in the U.S: no rights, no recourse, often forced to compromise on issues of personal safety, doubly scorned for being illegals, and facing deportation (as opposed to incarceration here.)

At any rate, I've been told by people familiar with issues over there that the effective two-tier legal/illegal system dramatically complicates the picture.

Fair enough, kerwynk...

Anthony_K — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:44:45 -0800

And again, I apologize to you publically for getting out of line with my original statement...it is possible to argue ideas without attacking the individuals personally.

Anthony

on the matter of church lady outfits ;)

kerwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:38:58 -0800

Hi Anthony,

I think you misunderstand me, and perhaps I misunderstand you. In mentioning church lady outfits, I was merely trying a humorous rebuttal to your criticism (which you apologized later for - thank you). I actually quite like church lady outfits and have done political drag in such costume on several occasions. In any case, it is so difficult to measure tone and such in blogs, and these things are all too easy to misread, but my hope was to inject humor into the disagreement as I thought you had clearly crossed a line by attacking me personally. Sorry it didn't work.

Unfortunately, I have a number of things I need to attend to for the next day and a half or so, but I'll respond to the substance of what you say as I can (and, in general, I am quite glad to be having the substantive discussion, even if it's not entirely a smooth ride). I'm more than happy to drop everything else.

All best,

Not to extend this little rumble too far, kw...

Anthony_K — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:26:13 -0800

...because there are other issues we need to get to, but I believe you are missing the point of my argument entirely.

You say that the attempt to impose looser restrictions of sexual contact on San Francisco strip clubs was merely an attempt by management to bust the union and impose a standard that "the majority" of dancers openly opposed, and that they had the right as "the majority" to retain the more restricted standard even if "a minority" of the dancers did not oppose such loosening of the standard. Is this really about taking away "the collective rights" of workers who organize to retain the old standards...or is this more about mere moral opposition to loosening those standards out of fear of losing their livelihoods, and using the collective barginning process as a wedge for their personal moral objections to loosening the rules of contact??

How is that any different from, say, a majority of parishioners at a local Catholic church getting together as a "majority" to oppose the ordination of a priest at their church because they don't like the priest's more open stance on abortion rights or homosexuality?? Sure, they have that right as members of that church to do so, but, is their stance of maintaining a conservative (if not, arguably, reactionary) position justified merely because it represents a "majority" view??

Yes, a union does need to represent the collective needs of its members, and it certainly must defend its members' interests. And yes, indeed, those dancers, if they were worried about being priced out of their livelihoods by dancers who were willing to "go further", had every right to use their collective bargining power to protect and defend their jobs. My dissent is NOT about that at all...and please, try not to put words to that extent in my mouth.

My dissent to your argument is simply this, though: when you talk about how "individual sexual freedoms" should be trumped by the collective will of the "majority" and that the "sexual freedom" of individual dancers who choose to "go further" should be constrained by those in the majority who don't want to go that far, how am I to react other than to say that you are condoning restricting the sexual choices of people??? You may mock my response all you want for all the "perverse pleasure" you get, but I think that it is a legitimate argument to say that you really do think that it is right to regulate what dancers can and should do....and that any attempt to loosen the rules is simply a plot by management to break the unions. That is pretty dangerously close to the antiporn "liberal elitist" argument, in my personal view; and I stand by my original statements on that regard.

Also, as to the threat of "underbidding"....considering that most of the laws these days concerning performer/client contact are far more biased toward restricting rather than enabling such contact (backed up by the real threat of criminal action and police busts to close down strip clubs that attempt to circumvent such laws (see the Erotic Eleven case in Las Vegas 10 years ago involving Nina Hartley and a few other porn performers who were busted for having live lesbian sex on stage); I'd strongly insist that if there is any dominant bias in the culture, it's NOT toward more open sexual expression; but the very opposite direction....toward greater restirctions, if not outright criminalization of even private sexual contact. If San Francisco is like any other jursdiction I know of (though, to its credit, it is a tad more liberal than most), the prospect of loosening up sexual contact between client and worker certainly has its benefits to management (more money for them and those workers willing to do such behavior); but it also carries with it much risk...particularly, the wrath of the media and the State, which would, since they are still controlled for the most part by conservative, sex-negative forces who care less about dancers' rights and their economic livelihoods, see such openings as an invitation to the same old "licentiousness" and call upon the full power of the authorities to crack down on such "illicit" and "filthy" behavior. Even the bars in SF have had their share of police raids, neighborhood association protests against "strip joints" in their communities, and media panics about criime and sloth and "declining property values" and "cheap sex" and HIV-AIDS scares....it is hardly likely that those forces would take too kindly to attempts to loosen traditional sexual mores.

Indeed, I'd say that if any group would be given the benefit of the doubt by the media and the dominant forces, it would be exactly those dancers whom you so kindly praise for their "collective activism" in resisting the call of their management to, as they would probably put it, "further degrade themselves". People who would never concern themselves about the rights of workers in more traditional professions to organize themselves to improve their workplace conditions would be falling over themselves to defend these workers...merely because of the angle of "we're just attempting to defend our livelihoods against the (male) establishment's attempts to make us into further 'sex objects'". In short, the very aspect of the sexual restictiveness of the campaign would give strong institutional strength to those "collective rights" of the "majority"; while constraining those in the "minority" as supposed tools of management....or merely "sluts with no shame and no limits of decency".

Again, I do NOT mean to undercut the rights of those in a collective to make decisions on majority consensus, and I do recognize the many ways how divisiveness is exploited by those in power to play divide-and-conquer games. But on this particular case, the context of our fundamentally anti-sex culture does matter, and defending an individual's sexual choices -- even if it does affect the choices of others -- remains as important a principle as defending the collective. Indeed, a collective group that does not respect individual sexual diversity and free choice and merely imposes the traditional sexual choices is an invitation for disaster. No one should be forced into doing something they feel uncomfortable doing...but neither should those who do want to sexually experiment on their own be isolated and derided and chased out of their groups merely out of the personal concerns of "the majority". Respect must be mutual to mean anything at all.

I've heard and respected your thoughts, kenwynk. Please try to respect mine. It's not about putting a "church lady's outfit" on you; it's just about a difference of opinion. With that said, I will move on.

Anthony

Anti-capitalist collective self-organization (a.k.a. anarchism!)

kerwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:11:06 -0800

In fact, there already are a number of instances in which sex workers collectively organize themselves in order to promote their ability to work. I've seen this happening on the street in a number of ways, whether to prevent individuals from underselling a generally agreed upon base fee, or even to simply prevent sex workers from robbing from their clients as it would serve to chase clients away. In order to be effective, these collective mechanisms generally require that information about transgressions be at least somewhat accessible, and that some sort of disciplinary measure be available. In one scene I saw among male street-based workers in San Francisco some years ago, a very fast rumor mill (one that included information from some clients) facilitated informal monitoring while threats of violence and actual violence served as the ultimate sanctions. Not pretty, but the community order was maintained. At the strip club I mentioned in my earlier posts, the monitoring system among dancers largely broke down when management introduced private booths - no longer could workers simply look and see that no sex was being exchanged, and instead confrontations in the dressing room based on rumors became very heated. Clearly, there's a lot wrong with these types of informal mechanisms - not only are they brutal, but they are often ineffective and support hierarchies within the group - but I believe it is these sorts of nascent forms of collective self-organization that we must look toward and develop further if we wish to move forward. Not that all scenes require something like this - independent contractors working online have no equivalent other than friendship circles, activist groups, and forums like this one - but such collective mechanisms are understandable developments when one person's behavior immediately impacts another's. Perhaps one way to move forward is to think about the forms of organization that already "naturally" exist within various sex work scenes and think about ways to build upon those already existing models?

Just to add a final point, I am all in favor of unionization and collective organization (obviously), but I do not think that we should underestimate the difficulty of such organizing and slip into the idea that decriminalization will make a big difference in bringing it about. Decriminalization would help, to be sure, but I fear it would only make a small difference. The failure of sex workers to organize much in Holland subsequent to legalization should act as a caution, and scenes filled with migrant workers or street-based workers present their own challenges. Nevertheless, there are successful models out there (my personal fav is Washington DC's Different Avenues - yea rah!). I think, though, that we need a concrete discussion about the possibilities for collective self-organization - otherwise I fear we will once again find reasons to praise decriminalization without genuinely engaging with the limitations of this agenda.

to the fundament! ;)

kerwynk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:08:02 -0800

Well, I deliberately wrote in a somewhat provocative manner, and I suppose I should not be surprised to find that my posting provoked! Elizabeth indeed understands my argument precisely. Not that I can blame Anthony for not entirely seeing my point, as when I look back at my posting, I realize I did not explain the full circumstance.

Indeed, as Elizabeth surmised, the fact that some workers were willing to do "more" severely disrupted the ability of others to do "less," and that was precisely what was at stake in the mismatched struggle that ensued between the majority of dancers and a minority that had management on its side (management et al won). The rumor (perhaps correct, perhaps not) at the club was that management actually brought in a couple of women who were willing to do various types of sex into the strip club, having recruited them from an Asian massage parlor. Apparently the small number of people who were willing to do sex literally had lines of men waiting for them, while those who attempted to continue with lap dances found their client base much diminished. Dancers generally either made a decision to do "more" or they left the club. A few who did not want to do sex, yet felt they could not get work at other clubs and needed the cash remained behind and felt very pressured by the situation. Meanwhile, those who were willing to do the sex made money hand over fist, particularly at first when few others were competing against them. Over time, as I mentioned, the situation stabilized around a new norm that included sex, and now that this has happened, it certainly would not make make much sense to try to change things. In the early moments, however, I think it was perfectly legitimate for the dancers to attempt to exercise control over their working conditions (just as an earlier generation had mobilized against lap dancing), and the danger that I saw from the sex ad magazine was that they would unthinkingly use the banner of "sexual freedom" to take away the collective right of the workers to decide upon their working conditions; the position of the magazine (The Spectator) recognized only individual "freedoms" to the detriment of the majority and in willful ignorance of the fact that what individuals chose to do had a great impact upon others, even making it next to impossible to continue working at the institution. As this process happened at 11 of San Francisco's 17 strip clubs, only a small number of clubs remained where dancers could work and not do sex (and these remaining clubs had to be internally policed in order to make sure that no individual dancers were "underbidding" everyone else by doing "more").

Even if others do not agree with my line of reasoning on these points, I hope my comments clarify things sufficiently so that I might no longer be accused of "constraining sexual expression" or such. I admit, however, that being compared to a member of the religious right and to an anti-porn feminist does engender a certain amount of perverse pleasure. Now where is my church lady outfit?