Some Lurid Prostitution Myths Debunked
Reprinted from the Providence Journal (Rhode Island), June 19, 2009
by Ronald Weitzer
In the past few weeks, advocates of criminalizing prostitution in Rhode Island have made many assertions about the “horrors” of prostitution to push legislation forward. Most of these claims are myths.
Research shows that there is a world of difference between those who work the streets and those who sell sex indoors (in massage parlors, brothels, for escort agencies or as independent call girls). Indoor workers generally have lower rates of childhood abuse, enter prostitution at an older age, have more education, are less drug-dependent, are less likely to have sexually transmitted diseases and are less likely to be assaulted or raped than street workers. Indoor workers also tend to enjoy better working conditions and earn more money.
Despite what some activists claim, most of those working indoors in the U.S. have not been trafficked against their will.
Many indoor workers made conscious decisions to enter the trade, and a significant number actually like their work. A recent New York City study found that indoor workers expressed “a surprisingly high degree of enjoyment” of their work, and several other studies also find that indoor workers have fairly high job satisfaction and believe they provide a valuable service. This is not an exceptional finding; it is confirmed by a growing body of research. The media often ignore it, and prefer to do feature stories on the abused and exploited.
This is not to romanticize indoor prostitution. Some indoor workers work under oppressive conditions or dislike their work for other reasons. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to challenge the myths that most prostitutes are coerced into the sex trade, experience frequent abuse and want to be rescued. This syndrome is more characteristic of street workers, but it’s important to point out that the vast majority of American sex providers work indoors.
Since sex workers differ markedly in their working conditions, experiences and impact on the surrounding community, public policies should treat the indoor and street sectors differently. Rhode Island’s two-track policy regarding street and indoor workers — where those indoors are not subject to arrest — is a model for other states, and many police departments already follow this policy informally.
Reprinted from Providence Journal, June 25, 2009, Response to Donna Hughes
In a Letter to the Editor of the Providence Journal on June 24, Donna Hughes called the opposition to the Rhode Island bill a “carnival” and made allegations that many would consider unprofessional and embarrassing for a university professor.
This is not the first time that Donna Hughes has engaged in character assassination in an attempt to challenge positions that contradict her own. Now, in this Letter, she attacks state legislators, Spread Magazine, and women who work in the sex industry. Like others who share Hughes' prohibitionist views, Hughes is only willing to give credence to sex workers when they seem to agree with her, and when they don't she has consistently either downplayed their views or claimed that they are the tools of pimps and traffickers.
Hughes also attacks me for an essay I wrote in last week's Providence Journal. In that article, I argued that the prostitution bill in Rhode Island was misguided and based on a set of myths, and I advocated retaining the current law instead. Interestingly, Hughes does not tell us why my position is wrong. Instead, she simply denigrates me. And this is not the first time she has done so. As it turns out, Hughes accepts all of the many myths about prostitution that I described in my article. In fact, she is one of the major populizers of those myths, myths that are contradicted by a large amount of social science research. The Rhode Island Senators were right to question Hughes on her claims, most of which are based on anecdotes and thus unscientific.
Finally, Hughes engages in scare tactics by predicting a "human rights disaster" if the bill does not pass. Well, the status quo legal situation has been in effect for about three decades, so one wonders why the "disaster" has not happened by now!
RONALD WEITZER
Professor of Sociology
George Washington University
Washington DC
RI Senate votes to recriminalize prostitution
Well, it appears that Donna Hughes can celebrate today. Oh she of little faith, who thought that the "carnival" of tattooed educators and wayward criminologists could sway the state's senate, has had her pessimism undermined. Not a single RI Senator voted against the bill to make indoor prostitution a criminal offense.
According to the Providence Journal there are some important differences between the Senate bill and the bill passed by the RI House last spring. In order for a bill to become law, both houses have to pass identical versions, so the deal isn't done just yet.
It's hard to imagine that with overwhelming votes in support of recriminalization in both houses, though, that they won't be able to come to some kind of compromise. We'll keep watching.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
It may be a nailbiter
Audacia Ray tweeted that today is the last day of the legislative session. If the bill doesn't get done completely today, it would appear that it has to be re-introduced next session.
I'm disappointed that not even one Senator had the guts to stand up and do what's right though. That's not promising. On the other hand, I have to wonder if knowing that the bill might not get done under the wire might have given some Senators a bit of political cover to avoid the crosshairs of the sex police.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
It's a Witch Hunt
As if there were ever any question.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
It is interesting that the
It is interesting that the two or three senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had opposed the bill, didn't vote against it. Maybe they weren't present for the vote?
*****************
Ron Weitzer
Sociology Dept, George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
www.gwu.edu/~soc/faculty/weitzer.cfm
35 - 0
And the one previously opposed Senator that is mentioned in the Projo voted against it.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
38 members
According to Wikipedia, there are 38 members of the Rhode Island Senate.
No word on where the three other members were.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
Pressure or fear of public reaction?
One wonders what would cause Sen. Perry to change her vote. The bill was clearly going to pass with or without her. She might have instead chosen to stand up for what she knew was right and gone on record as supporting the rights of women to earn a living and use their bodies as they choose. She could still have strongly opposed trafficking or exploitation.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Fear and Intimidation
Fear and intimidation are common tactics among the puritanical and self-righteous. Always been that way.
It's an effective method of imposing their own neuroses onto others.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
Senator Perry has long been anti-prostitution
I had been very surprised to hear Senator Perry described as opponent of the bill when the committee held its hearing. I don't remember if her opposition was based on waiting to first have the text of the bill include references or tie-ins of some sort to her human trafficking bill, or for some other detail or procedure. But it was absolutely not for the sensible, enlightened reasons you listed. Senator Perry has been the anti-prostitution leader in the Senate for several years (the Senate's equivalent of Rep. Giannini). She had actually introduced her own anti-prostitution bill at the start of the legislative session, but for whatever reason, Senator Jabour's bill went forward and her's didn't.
Perhaps she was a Swedish model fan
Ah, I see. I had not followed closely at the beginning so I was unaware of her initial bill. It sounds to me like she is a "Swedish model" type. Her stated concern about victimizing the prostitutes would be consistent with a model that would make the transaction criminal but only punish the johns via the criminal justice system (leaving the prostitutes to be punished economically).
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Confusion between bills
Senator Perry's anti-trafficking bill is reported to have had some support by those who oppose criminalizing prostitution.
From the Providence Journal:
Can somebody who already has the background on this sort it out for us?
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I left this comment
...on the article at the Providence Journal, though it has not been published yet.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
Perceptions trump reality
Ronald Weitzer, and those who stood publicly in RI to make the case against the bill deserve tremendous credit for adding some rational argument to this debate.
I did not attend the hearing in RI, but based on the written press, this incident seems to illustrate the continued wide gulf between perception and reality with respect to sexwork. In politics, perceptions trump, and reality often doesn’t matter.
So how do sexwork advocates change public perceptions? Part of the answer lies in this site and similar efforts like
www.sexworkawareness.org, and through thoughtful commentary in the mainstream press, such as Weitzer’s piece.
Another part of the answer lies in how the message is communicated. If Donna Hughes’ editorial is a guide, public perception after the hearing remained that sexwork is a dirty business, engaged in by desperate, emotionally troubled clients and, at least in this case, tattooed prostitutes forced into it out of economic desperation.
At the hearing anyway, it seems that messengers overshadowed the message. This is not to say that public advocates of sex rights need to be from the Ivy-educated, pantsuit and pumps crowd, but it does help to present an empathetic presence with which the public and their political representatives can identify and, over time, support. Politicians may visit this world, but they are not of it.
The role of sex-industry related press also needs to be considered, as illustrated by Hughes’ reaction to Spread Magazine. Thoughtful articles are there, of course, but to someone inclined to see the industry as dirty and unappealing, it would be easy to write it all off as deviant erotica and nothing more.
This isn’t to say that sex-industry publications aren’t constructive contributors to the industry – they are – but they are not likely to change the minds of politicians who are focused on attracting businesses to their districts and building stable housing markets, and more importantly on raising money from constituents for re-election. In fact, they can harm the cause. Sites like this can help, but they alone are insufficient because they only reach the converted.
Sex industry advocates need to do some serious thinking about how to re-orient their public advocacy efforts. Otherwise, these efforts are cathartic and little more.
John
More, not less
John, thank you for the comment. I think these points are important ones on the whole. I was disgusted that Donna Hughes would marginalize and dismiss an educator because of her appearance. It irks me to acknowledge that sometimes one is well served by catering to the petty biases of narrow-minded power brokers.
We - meaning everyone who cares about human rights and worker rights and who include sex workers specifically when we talk about those things - need to be doing more.
Magazines like $pread are by sex workers for sex workers. Donna Hughes and her ilk are not part of the audience.
Sites like this one largely do reach the converted, though in some cases we've been successful at reaching fence-sitters.
Organizations like Sex Work Awareness are fabulous at training sex workers in getting their message out. The "I am a sex worker" PSA was a wonderful early step. (And I think academics could take a cue from their media training materials!)
But we need to do more. When state legislatures are considering legislation we need broad representation from a range of human rights, labor activist, and sex worker rights organizations. We need in-your-face and we need subtlety. We need experiential testimony and we need academic research. We need men, women, trans, older, younger, girl-next-door and dominatrix grandmother. We need clients, workers, and their neighbors and families.
At Sex 2.0 in May Stacey Swimme said we needed a PFLAG for sex workers. I agree.
How do we get that broad coalition to show up every time the message needs to get out?
Sex worker advocacy groups like SWOP, Desiree Alliance, Sex Work Awareness and the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center are all doing incredibly important work. Are the labor unions chipping in? Are the human rights groups visibly joining up? If not, how do we draw them out?
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Increments, not revolutions
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your thoughtful post. I am new to your site and the others you mentioned, and so your clarifying the various organizations and publications supporting sexworkers and the legalization cause is helpful.
I appreciate your distaste at the prospect of playing to petty biases and narrow-minded power brokers. Instead, I would frame the issue another way: why would a politician put his or her political capital and name behind sexwork legalization? They generally support causes that will expand their influence and power, or help their constituents, in which case it will build their power base anyway. As a consequence, the individual agendas, biases and personal histories of legislators unfortunately do matter.
It is in this way that sexwork advocates may be approaching the challenge of legalization from an unconstructive angle. Why call for revolution when the majority of the voting public is comfortable with the status quo and politicians are in search of convenient (namely, defenseless) enemies? To a politician, broad public coalitions of sexwork-related advocates are unlikely to outweigh the voices - even if silent - of their larger constituency. In fact, what politician wouldn't love to have a group, occassionally tattooed, and even more often misunderstood, out fighting against them?! It's a ticket to re-election. Social conservatism still retains strong political appeal, even in the post-Bush environment.
A more subtle approach could be effective, ideally fronted by organizations and people with which legislators publicly can identify. Instead of bringing the cause of sexwork legalization to a direct head in legislatures, how can sexwork advocates benefit from the agendas and efforts of other organizations focused on human rights, social justice and constitutional law? These causes sometimes are well-organized and funded, are capable of legislative lobbying, and often advocate change without the controversy and ignorance associated with sexwork. Perhaps there already is common ground being found with these kinds of organizations.
This kind of incremental effort is unlikely to result in revolutionary change, but it could, over time, improve conditions for sexworkers and clients alike, and possibly create some means, such as through privacy laws, for sexwork to exist legally under certain conditions.
Dreams of revolution shouldn’t die, of course, and sex workers and their advocates might want to look to parallels in our history where we have made headway against backwards, stale thinking. Or more cynically, how did politicians - before they discovered it was morally right - come to believe that allowing women, and much later blacks, to vote would be helpful to them?
the politics of sex work
I think the Rhode Island experience illustrates just how little political space there is in the United States for rethinking, not to mention changing, prostitution laws. When a bill like this comes up for debate, it does not seem to matter for most / all politicians how sound the arguments on the liberalization side are, whether or not sex workers themeselves testify, whether prohibitionist claims are challenged. Even for the handful of politicians who MIGHT be sympathetic to the idea of decriminalization, they either remain silent or, on the rare occasion when they speak up, encounter character assassination by opponents and are thus marginalized. Politicians see absolutely no political gain, and much to lose if they want to be reelected, which helps explain why someone like Senator Perry blinked in the end. Even in progressive San Francisco, only one (out of 12) member of the city's Board of Supervisors voted against a recent massive crackdown on massage parlors. The very liberal mayor, Gavin Newsome, was in the forefront of the crackdown, and he has even advocated Oakland's experiment of putting the photos and names of convicted clients on billboards in the city! And this is supposedly the most progressive city in the country.
I am not saying that things will never change, but all of the trends in the past 10 years have been in the direction of greater criminalization, not less.
*****************
Ron Weitzer
Sociology Dept, George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
www.gwu.edu/~soc/faculty/weitzer.cfm
San Francisco politics
Unfortunately, San Francisco made some changes for the worse when it came to polices toward the sex industry after Gavin Newsom and DA Kamala Harris replaced Willie Brown and Terence Hallinan. Hallinan was quite openly for decriminalization as well as drug law reform, while Brown, while not openly pro-decrim, did have a history as somebody who defended prostitutes back when he was a defense attorney and was friendly with Margo St. James.
Gavin Newsom has no such sympathies and actually tends towards a Giuliani-esque attitude on "quality of life" crimes. And Kamala Harris was very close to Norma Hotaling, and hence is thoroughly in Hotaling/Farley camp when it comes to prostitution issues.
In the case of Newsom, his line on the sex industry also appears to be a product of his being acutely aware of his political vulnerability after his lead on the gay marriage issue, and also his own past sex scandals. This was apparent in his approach to the porn industry about two years back. In late February 2007, his office declared a "Colt Studios Day" for one of the larger gay porn production studios, but then backed off from it after Bill O'Reilly and the like turned it into another excuse for SF bashing. Interestingly, around the same time he was also getting behind a neighborhood group that was opposed to Kink.com's purchase of The Armory for adult video production. (However, his intervention on the issue was never terribly aggressive, since Kink.com wasn't doing anything remotely illegal, something I'm sure he was aware of.)
I'll also point out that Newsom and Harris are running for Governor and Attorney General of California next year, probably as the relative "liberals", hence, the move toward more liberal policies in California toward sex work isn't exactly looking up.
Oh, and here's a copy of a white paper submitted by Farley to Newsom, Harris, and others in SF government recommnding harsher prosecution of johns:
http://issuu.com/montavillainaction/docs/farleyprostpolicy9-30-08
It's not over
Although the legislative session was supposed to end, apparently the legislation is still in limbo.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
RI bills
Yes, Lou, there are informative articles in both the June 27th and June 28th Providence Journal regarding this. It looks like the Senate might be called back to deal with unfinished business, and both the state police and RI Attorney General's office are critical of the "weaker" Senate version. This will probably result in a stiffer, more punitive bill when the House and Senate versions are merged.
*****************
Ron Weitzer
Sociology Dept, George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
www.gwu.edu/~soc/faculty/weitzer.cfm
Alternatives to "tough on crime" as a reelection strategy
I find myself wondering, ala Ricci Levy at Woodhull Freedom Foundation, how we can restructure the political reality around crime discourse so that politicians' releection strategies are not about "tough on crime" v "weak on crime" but rather about "reducing the harm associated with crime" so that people are truly safer. If that were possible then all manner of criminal justice transformation would be possible, from ending the "war on drugs" to eliminating laws that criminalize consensual sexual exchanges.
As Judith Levine has made me understand, it isn't going to happen by reasoning with people. It is a matter of changing how they feel. For we who are stuck on evidence and rationale this is a difficult thing to accept and makes strategizing hard. But it is one reason I support so wholeheartedly the media training work that Sex Work Awareness does, just for instance. By helping sex workers reshape the way they are portrayed in the media, we do have a greater chance of changing how people feel about prostitution and other forms of sex work.
Rene Ross in Halifax tweeted about a CBC reporter who covered a recent sex work conference at Stepping Stones. The reporter, after interviewing some of the participants, including another reporter, that what stuck with her was that sex workers are not all victims and that they deserve the same rights as everybody else. She also called for better media coverage. These kinds of changes matter.
None of this means that the RI bills are stoppable or that things in the US aren't heading toward harsher penalties rather than harm reduction, but they do seem to me to be signs of the way forward in the long run, and I am not at all surprised that it is sex workers who are leading the way.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Exactly so
We are simply not going to reason people out of an idea they did not reason themselves into.
Sometimes it seems that even people with religious problems with non-heterosexuality (except the most rabidy homophobic nutters) tend to come around easier when they find out someone they love is not strictly heterosexual (eventually). So thinking about sex work in that same kind of light, it seems like getting spokespeople for groups like Stepping Stone in front of the microphones of the MSM must be a priority. Of course, getting more groups like Stepping Stone onto the MSM's radar is a prerequisite for that, and getting more organizations like Stepping Stone started or enlarged is a prerequisite to that.
Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
Yes, I'd read the comments of
Yes, I'd read the comments of the
Grand InquisitorState Police Chief yesterday, and was struck by the level of underlyingmisogynypuritanismboorishnesspompositypruderyvigor with which he expressed himself.Baby Biologist, just trying to make the world a better place.
My coments (reprinted from Providence Journal)
Whatever the merits of the regulation of street level or outdoor sex work, the issue here is the regulation of the indoor market which is generally unobtrusive and often invisible. It is difficult to see any benefits to society from overregulating or criminalising this, and relatively easy to see the potential for grave harm.
We should have learned from the prohibition of alcohol what the likely effect is going to be of criminalising behaviour that only certain segments of society dsapprove of. Such a move creates huge social problems in terms of violence and organised crime. By driving the indoor market underground it will endanger the lives of sex workers and increase the level of street based work.
Rhode Island legislators would do better to look at the effects of decriminalising sex work in New Zealand in 2003.
Welcome back!
Michael, welcome back! We've missed you, and especially so in this conversation. Good to see you survived Chicago and your most recent conference.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Sorting out the facts in Rhode Island
I would caution people, particularly those outside of Rhode Island, in assuming anything. There is a paucity of primary sources and even the Providence Journal account does not always agree with the official record of the General Assembly. I would urge people to check what sources we have access to. There are no publicly available transcription of debates or committee proceedings. However bills can be tracked and summaries of the day's proceedings are available in the Journals.
In summary, there are two bills, one introduced in the lower house (H5044) and one in the upper house (S596) - each has been passed by the house and referred to the Judiciary Committee of the other house. In turn each house is dealing with a complimentary trafficking bill (H5661 and S605 respectively).
To see the status of any bill, go to Bill Status/History choose Bill Status/History and type in the number of the bill opposite Bills, and hit Enter. From the dates listed at each stage you can go to the Journals and open the proceddings for that date and search for the bill number within the text.
The debate has now become conflated with the issue of dancing and stripping by minors, although technically this has now been dealt with in Providence by an executive order on July 27. Existing laws can be found under Statutes, the Criminal Code is Chapter 11. Prostitution and Lewdness is Chapter 11-34, Trafficking 11-67, and Children 11-9. The current row refers not to employment law, but to § 11-9-1 Exploitation for commercial or immoral purposes, which prohibits prostitution under the ager of 18, but seperately prohibits dancing and other activities for "illegal, obscene, indecent, or immoral purpose" under 16. Therefore the issue relates to 16 and 17 year olds engaging in erotic dancing. This particular moral panic seems to have been driven by a single case. The debate has now extended to underage drinking.
For recent media coverage and in particular hearing the position of Rep. Joanne Giannini (D) and Professor Donna Hughes (URI), and what information they base this on, go to:
WPRI July 24
NBC July 26
See also letter to Rhode Island legislature
Post new comment