Would sex work be so profitable if it weren't stigmatized or criminalized?
This is a question that's been bouncing around in my mind for a few days:
"Would sex work be so profitable if it weren't stigmatized or criminalized?"
Example:
Sex work is often an attractive option for single mothers, because they can earn more money and (sometimes) work fewer hours than they would at a retail or other service industry job, thereby allowing them greater economic stability and more time with their children. But to what extent is this attributable to the stigmatized – and, with prostitution specifically, criminalized – nature of sex work?
I think that if sex work were decriminalized and de-stigmatized, it would still offer attractive, competitive pay, for the same reasons that other professions that require specialized skills or training come with higher compensation – e.g., lawyers, doctors, etc. (No jokes about lawyers being stigmatized!) I do not think that if prostitution were decriminalized, for example, tons of women would suddenly flock to the profession; that argument holds about as much water as the argument that making emergency contraception available over the counter will encourage promiscuity.
However, I am curious to hear what others think about this question.
I absolutely think it would
Earnings would come down, for sure...
I agree with what's been said. Less stigma=more workers=increased labor competition=lowered earnings. This process can be seen with what has happened in strip clubs around the country since the 1980s. I know in San Francisco in particular, many more people found it acceptable to work in clubs, and this greatly facilitated the introduction of not only stage fees but also lap dances and eventually outright prostitution in the strip clubs (whatever one thinks of lap dances and paid sex in the clubs - and I think it's a complex issue - at the time these changes amounted to a management-imposed "factory speed-up" for the workers there).
The money for sex work might still make it an attractive option for many people - I agree that not everyone would rush to become a sex worker, and that it would still pay more than many other forms of service or professionalized labor - but how could the end of stigma and of criminalization not make it a more attractive option and thereby lower the earnings?
Hmm
"(whatever one thinks of lap dances and paid sex in the clubs - and I think it's a complex issue - at the time these changes amounted to a management-imposed "factory speed-up" for the workers there)."
Kerywnk, do you think this could be attributable TO the stigma, rather than to a decline of the stigma?
(and I know at a certain point arguing hypotheticals gets annoying and pointless; but I find this interesting)
More and less
I do see your point, and it's a complex issue, to be sure.
There is a way in which "sex" - as constructed within our society - is understood to be more personal and involving as it moves from "1st base" to "2nd" and so on. As a result, lap dancing and various sorts of sex would involve "more" than "mere" nudity and dancing on the stage. Whether or not everyone experiences the acts in this manner is another question, however, and many people might very well find lap dancing or various forms of sex easier to do than pole dancing (which looks quite challenging to me!). Similarly, hand-jobs are understood to be "less" than oral sex, which is then "less" than intercourse. Understood in these terms, which is the way many (but not all) people understand them, the introduction of lap dancing and later prostitution constituted a "factory speed up" - and they were resisted by many dancers for exactly this reason despite the fact that one could actually earn more money by doing "more" (at least at first, until the prices came down).
So, perhaps by simplistically calling it a "factory speed-up" I was indeed reinforcing a "less versus more" perspective. Worse yet, this perspective ultimately might play into the notion that prostitution involves selling "everything" (including one's soul), so there are some real dangers here.
All that granted, lots of dancers were very upset with the changes, and I grew frustrated with comments that appeared in a sex advertising magazine to the effect that: "What's the big deal? Prostitution with willing sex workers in private booths - shouldn't that be a right?" Yes, I'd agree it ought to be a right, but I'm more concerned with the rights of workers in the particular clubs, and put those above the rights of clients or even the rights of a minority who wished to do "more" than an overwhelming majority. These were management-imposed changes, and most (though not all) workers at the time opposed them. Over time, most of these workers left, so those that remained were generally OK with what was going on (eventually lap dancing became quite normalized, as did the sex, and indeed there was more money to be earned), but I think the most useful frame for thinking about these issues is through a labor lens (i.e. what do the majority of workers want), rather than through a "sexual rights" perspective. Yes, people should have rights to do all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean that doing a particular behavior in a particular environment should automatically be OK. To state things simplistically, labor rights should trump sexual rights in such cases (just another way in which linking the struggle for sex worker rights to a narrow conception of "sexual freedom" has its limitations).
Here is where I fundamentally disagree with you, kerwynk
From what I am hearing from your comment, you believe that if the majority of an organized strip club are opposed to, as you say, "going further" sexually, their beliefs should prevail over those who have no problem with "going further". Even if "going further" can be done safely and even if the majority of clients (who remember, are the ones that actually allow for all of the workers' existence to begin with) would have no problem with "going further"??? I would say to that that if the majority of dancers really felt that way, then they could simply insist explictly to their clients that they would not "go further" and that if their clients wanted that kind of behavior, then they were free to go to those who freely offered such. But to criticize and basically outcast those willing and wishing to "go further" as the "minority" deviating from the "majority"?? That's not only quite reactionary in my personal view; it's actually the exact opposite of "sex positive". Indeed, it is the heart of sex negativism to impose arbitrary sexual restrictions on dancers merely because they happen to be a numerical "minority".
And to justify this in the name of "labor rights" as if labor was only responsive to the needs of the "majority" or that personal choice should be reduced down to what "the majority" imposes on the rest: I'm sorry, Kerwynk, but I find that hardly either progressive or an expression of "labor rights" trumping "sexual rights". Frankly, I find it to be quite the opposite: "sexual rights" of individual choice hardly means a "narrow reduction" of worker's conditions, but it enhances the labor rights of all by offering diverse practices and choices, and by easing the pressure of having those not wanting to go so far to do so.
Now, these changes might have been imposed by management as a way to make more money for themselves, and those who didn't like the new rules had every right to challenge them by whatever means. But what if the opposite had been true, and the workers were the ones who wanted to "go further", but were blocked by the fear of management that such would bring in the authorities, which would threaten their profits?? Would the "sexual rights" of the workers be trumped by the labor rights" then??
And this statement of yours practically horrifies me:
Ahhhh...are you sure you're in the right venue, Kerwynk?? I thought that this was a forum for expanding sexual expression, not constraining or prejudging it.
The only conditions whether an act or behavior should be judged as "OK" or not should be the degree of mutual consent and respect, and the degree to which the worker is adequatedly and fully conpensated for his/her efforts. That type of statement you just said belongs with the Religious Right or the antiporn feminists, not in a forum seeking a broadening of sexual expression.
Sorry for dropping a stinkbomb here, Elizabeth and all, but I just can't keep silent when I hear stuff like this.
Anthony
I read the labor speed-up analogy differently
Anthony, I assure you that you and Kerwink are both in precisely the right place. I started this forum because I knew that those of us on "this side" need spaces where we can talk safely enough that our differences can emerge and we can discuss them. That doesn't have a chance of happening when we're all banded together in defending our basic premise against the prohibitionists.
What you and Kerwink seem to disagree about, I think, is actually not a question of sex-negativity or moralism, but a question of how to balance collective interests against individual freedoms, and that is an issue that organized labor faces in all the places where it operates. For that matter, it's a question we all face in our everyday lives (e.g, should I uy the SUV or not?).
I read Kerwink's labor speed-up analogy not as a suggestion that some kinds of activities were right or wrong in themselves, but that as a labor situation the expanding expectations of workers without negotiation presents serious problems for many. Of course the workers in most strip clubs don't have a union, and so they don't have collective bargaining...
But to remove the sex from the situation for a minute to make the point (maybe): I teach at a college where we do have a union and we do have collective bargaining. Our teaching load is 15 contact hours a semester. Some faculty do a lot of part time teaching in addition to that load in order to supplement their income. When enough of them do that extra work during the ordinary work day (instead of, say, on the weekend or at night) it makes it harder for the union to argue that the regular contractual contact-hour load should remain at 15 credits. What one group of workers finds useful, and what they do willingly, really can put other workers at a disadvantage.
To take it back to the strip club, if I chose to work in a strip club precisely because there was no sexual contact being sold, and then the expectations of customers began to change because workers could essentially do whatever they wanted, and a group of workers felt absolutely fine with selling sexual contact, and I started seeing a dramatic reduction in my earnings, and had to look for other work or give in to the pressure of the customers, I would be put at a great disadvantage.
I don't think that discussing that dilemma and its impact on workers is a matter of making moral decisions or evidence of sex-negativity/sex-positivity, but simply a matter of talking labor strategy: how do workers manage to balance individual interests with collective interests?
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
to the fundament! ;)
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?
Not to extend this little rumble too far, kw...
...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
on the matter of church lady outfits ;)
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,
k
Fair enough, kerwynk...
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
Decriminalizing would make organzing possible...
Labor unions in the sex industry could help raise wages, especially in places like strip clubs, but also among street workers or escorts. In a utopic world I can even imagine professional associations. (Hmm, would that be utopic or not?)
Yet in the currently-legal sectors of the sex industry labor organizing has been slow to gain ground. This is largely because the major national unions are not reaching out to them, but it is also because, despite the portrayal in Live Nude Girls Unite! (which I love, by the way, but which dealt with a very unique situation) strip club workers are not rushing to organize. Some of the reasons are predictable: high turn over and movement between clubs, and a view of the work as temporary make many of the workers less interested in unions in the first place. And then of course there is the hostility employers have toward unions.
Do any of you see labor organizing as a useful strategy for workers in any sectors of the sex industry? How can it be made a more viable strategy?...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Unionization
I see pros and cons to sex worker unionization. Let's say prostitution were still criminal but there were more unions, to set wages, etc. The unions may be great for girls to find a support network, information sharing, etc., though many girls already find this online.
On the other hand, I totally agree with Ren, that competition lowers prices. Unions, in my understanding, exist for two reasons: one, to place workers in a bargaining position with management, and two, to limit the forces of competition to keep wages from being undercut. I could see this working in a strip club, a brothel or an agency environment, as the sex workers could bargain with club owners/madames/management in general for certain work conditions, hours, minimum pay, etc.
But free agent/independent prostitutes (i.e. non coerced, those doing it of their own free will) already choose their own working conditions and hours. If unionized, with whom are they going to bargain for pay? The Johns? Haggling is already de rigeur between hobbyists and providers. And are they going to bargain with each other? I doubt that there's going to be widespread acceptance of an idea that all girls must work for a certain rate. Some girls are happy offering full GFE for a full hour for $100. However, plenty of girls can command $500, $800, or more an hour. The $100-an-hour girl, though undercutting prices, isn't necessarily hurting her more high-priced competitors, as they're not in direct competition to start with. The $100 girl is more likely to be less attractive, offer a "down and dirty" session, and be less picky about her clientele, sort of the "working man's" provider. The $800 girl is more likely to be a porn star or businesswoman type that a man may want to take out in public to a function. Sorry if that sounds mean or stereotypical, just what I've witnessed in my experience.
I don't really see where unions would help, or even come in handy, for independent providers, as there would always be scabs willing to work for less, and men looking for a bargain.
Anti-capitalist collective self-organization (a.k.a. anarchism!)
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.
Having vented my spleen, I now go back to Amber's original Q...
I would say that it would really depend on the context of overall economic reform. If decriminalization of sex work and destigmatization of sexual media is linked with broader redistribution of wealth and income and people of less economic privilege were given more opportunities in traditional jobs with more livable wages and more generous benefits, then I guess that there would be some diminuition of profit because it would lose a lot of its stigma and "naughtiness", and thus its lure as a "guilty pleasure". On the other hand, since supply always tends to follow demand, and the more economically secure a person would be, the more that (s)he would be able to seek sexual services without fear, I'd guess that the increase in demand would make up for the temporary loss in profit pretty soon...so I'm guessing that it would turn out to be a wash in the long run.
On the other hand....if decriminalization took place within a more conservative, "libertarian" environment with no subsequent overall economic egalitarian movement to level the playing field, then I guess that we would just see more of the status quo, with the typical class stratification between the wealthy sex workers living off the services of the rich; the middle-class sex entertainer hanging on off the fruits of the Internet or the local strip club or playing on the side; and the working poor still struggling to survive....yet with a bit more protection and security than if criminalized due to the regime of labor and worker protectuions that would be assumed under a more progressive regime. The possibility of continued economic exploitation of the third group would still exist enough to engender calls for negative reform by the "antiporn Left" against such "elitist libertarianism", especially given the possible race and gender stratification; but at least there would be some buffer of protection existing for those at the bottom in a more "sex=positive" regime. Not enough, in my view, but some.
I would say that a combination of unions and worker organization for the bottom combined with some form of guild organization for the middle would be more suitable for worker activism; the latter idea would be especially helpful for those "independent providers" that Blanche talked about....those who would not be particularly helped by traditional unions. But, any type of reforn or decriminalization that does not take place within the context of a broader progressive program of economic redistribution of wealth and power, and a more direct and forward theory of sex positivity, will ultimately fall back into the same old paradigm of "libertarian" ve. "liberal puritan" vs. fundamentalist standoff that has maintained the status quo for so long.
Anthony
I would argue that if sex
I would argue that if sex work were destigmatized/decriminalized, more people would become consumers -- there are plenty of people who might choose to visit a prostitute if suddenly it was a safe, legal option. And, as Amber said, there are barriers that prevent people from becoming sex workers that are far beyond stigma/legal concerns (it's just not a job everyone can/wants to do, frankly), so the supply of sex workers would probably still be limited, keeping prices as high as demand will allow.
But, hey, why don't we just look to the Netherlands? Sex work is decriminalized there, and seems to be destigmatized, at least in comparison the the United States. Does anyone have statistics on the profitability of sex work there?
Netherlands not necessarily a good example
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.
Responding to Elizabeth's excellent rebuttal....
Anthony, I assure you that you and Kerwink are both in precisely the right place. I started this forum because I knew that those of us on "this side" need spaces where we can talk safely enough that our differences can emerge and we can discuss them. That doesn't have a chance of happening when we're all banded together in defending our basic premise against the prohibitionists.
I understand that now in the afterthought....and I want to apologize to Kerwynk for jumping his case. I was a bit over the top there.
I read Kerwink's labor speed-up analogy not as a suggestion that some kinds of activities were right or wrong in themselves, but that as a labor situation the expanding expectations of workers without negotiation presents serious problems for many. Of course the workers in most strip clubs don't have a union, and so they don't have collective bargaining..
But to remove the sex from the situation for a minute to make the point (maybe): I teach at a college where we do have a union and we do have collective bargaining. Our teaching load is 15 contact hours a semester. Some faculty do a lot of part time teaching in addition to that load in order to supplement their income. When enough of them do that extra work during the ordinary work day (instead of, say, on the weekend or at night) it makes it harder for the union to argue that the regular contractual contact-hour load should remain at 15 credits. What one group of workers finds useful, and what they do willingly, really can put other workers at a disadvantage.
To take it back to the strip club, if I chose to work in a strip club precisely because there was no sexual contact being sold, and then the expectations of customers began to change because workers could essentially do whatever they wanted, and a group of workers felt absolutely fine with selling sexual contact, and I started seeing a dramatic reduction in my earnings, and had to look for other work or give in to the pressure of the customers, I would be put at a great disadvantage.
Now, I can acknowledge how it is easy for the individual tastes of a few can sometimes undermine the collective solidarity of the group when it comes to union organizing, and I do think that open discussion and negotiation is very much important in a collective barginiing situation. And, I would never want to force anyone to do something they are not completely comfortable with.
But, can you see my point, Elizabeth, how exactly that situation you described, where the majority of workers use their collective majority powers in their union to block a minority from expanding their personal boundaries, implicitly works against the very principle of sex positivity??
I cede your point that those who don't want sexual contact would feel threatened by loss of revenue to those who would allow it, and that the peer pressure to go along against your will would be pretty intimidating for those not wanting it.
But....that still places a huge disadvantage on that minority who does want sexual contact, and they would probably be motivated to either (1) leave the union and go on their own and find employment in a non-union shop that would allow for more open expression; (2) forming their own counter-organization and competing directly with the majority orgianization for bargining rights; or (3) go along with the majority and suffer quietly (or not so quietly, possibly risking undermining the union from within).
It may not look like a morality issue from the outside, but it is one of the many ways in whiich more socially conservative worker organizations have implicitly maintained the sexual status quo by isolating and purging sexual radicals and liberals under the very guise of "protecting the majority".
This is one of the main reasons why, even though I am a strong supporter of unionization in general, I don't feel that the collective barginning model would work as well for sex workers.
This is just my own personal opinion...nothing more or less.
Anthony
my 2 personal cents...
I am absolutely for decrim for all aspects of sex work, because frankly, I think things like the "theft of services" case are a damn travesty. The fact that illegal workers can be abused freely and at will is simply something that horrifies me. Anyone, and I mean anyone, no matter their business, should be able to go to and get justice from the law if they are abused, robbed, stalked, ect.
But I will admit, and this is just me here, that I am torn on the issue of destigmtizing the whole deal. I'd like a great many of the stereotypes (all are junkie abuse survivor drop out victims who are forced too and have no other options) to disappear, but...well, in all honesty, I make a lot of money playing the bad, nasty slutty chick who loves it hard, rough and dirty. Without that, I seriously doubt I would make the money I do, and I seriously doubt I would actually like my job as much as I do. I get the kind of gigs, predominantly in porn, but elsewhere as well, that I do because other women won't do them, even other women in sex work, and because the whole virgin/whore/good girl/bad girl dicotomy exists. And no, it is absolutely not feminist at all, but it pays well and I personally dig it.
So while I can honestly say I am all for organizing or working in the name of decrim and legal rights, I can't honestly say I am all for the complete destigmization, and I know that is a hard opinion to swallow, because it does cause strife, but I am not going to lie about it.
Well, I think it would be
I'm okay with competition
I've thought about this one for years -- long before I knew what a sex worker activist was.
In the end, I'd rather have legal and human rights as a sex worker than worry about competition. I'd much rather take a bit of a pay cut than worry about my life being destroyed by arrest or violence where justice isn't served.
There would be a bell curve; an influx of new sex workers and clients, then people would leave as they discovered sex work wasn't for them. And some current sex workers might leave as they discover leaving is easier. Prices will probably drop for low-end to average sex workers; higher-end or speciality sex workers probably won't experience much economic difference. Clients with certain tastes and needs will still require sex workers who can fill those roles.
Stripping in Dallas clubs was very competitive. Regardless, dances stayed the same price. What mattered was how good you were at getting lots of dances. I learned that it wasn't sex work suited to me, so I went where I could be successfully competitive. This is a simplistic example of what I think would happen with total decriminialization.
XX
Moving the labor discussion
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
more profitable
I think sex work would be much more profitable if it were decriminalized.
I say this for a few reasons.
Destigmatizing sex work is crucial in that it goes hand in hand with decriminalization
As the stigma of sex work is block by block attacked and replaced with neutral to positive stereotypes so to can laws be individually attacked and defeated based on human rights violations and prosecution of authentic traffickers and exploiters.
As domestic human rights rights goes so goes the fates of sex workers.
Empiricism
I think there are two difficulties in this discourse. The first assumes that stigma and legal status are congruent, which they are not. This can be disposed of for the purposes of a hypothetoical discussion, but it is worth making a couple of observations. New Zealand decriminalised sex work in 2003, yet the stigma remains, you do not change a culture overnight by a change in the law. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1960s in many countries, and is still stigmatised, but that stigma is progressively declining. This may be the projected time frame if sex work was normalised legally, but not culturally. This is important because many sex workers describe the emotional labour of maintaining two lives, personal and professional as one of their more significant stressors.
The second issue relates to speculation both of supply and demand, and is probably coloured by the rhetoric of prohibitionists' attempts to forsee the future if laws were liberalised. Donovan's comparison of States in Australia found no difference in demand between decriminalised and criminalised States, supporting legal theory that law shapes but does not determine extent. If anything numbers of workers have decreased in New Zealand. There is not much research on the economics. Some sex workers in Sweden tell me their income has gone up since criminlaisation of purchase in 1999, others say it has gone down. There are clearly a variety of market forces operating that will be contextually sensitive.
back to labor issues and stigmatization
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)
The Hidden Costs of Sex Work?
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.
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Chris: You bring up really
Great point
"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.
Why I think (net) profits would probably rise rather than fall
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.
Lots of great comments here...
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...
Exactly
Stacey: Yep. There are
Post new comment