This post is cross-posted from Taboo Trinity.
The Sunday Times last weekend had an article on the new book the Freakonomics authors recently published, Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance . Interesting title. The Times chose to publish the sex worker portion of the book which parades the idea that entrepreneurial women can make $500 an hour working as free lance sex workers. The Times, and the male writers of SuperFreakonomis come to the conclusion that women are missing an important economic opportunity by not selling sex for cash, especially during these hard economic times. Point taken. However, what the SuperFreak writers fail to recognize, or possibly what the Times fails to mention, is the social and cultural issues that keep women from pursuing sex work as a career. Their question, ‘why don’t more women try sex work,’ should be thrown back in the media's face. I believe more women don’t work in the sex industry because of the negative/fallen woman image culture has of sex workers. This stereotype is replicated in popular culture, society and the law. All women know that working in the sex industry can help pay one's rent, however, most weigh the cost and benefits of sex work and decide that the cost of being portrayed as “fallen” outweighs the monetary benefits of selling sex for cash. Why don’t more women try it? Because most do not want to be viewed as unhuman by the rest of society and the law. The question is why do we judge these women, not why don’t more women join.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Why Don't More Try It?".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16801
I think part of the reason too is that it's a risky job---you're at risk of violence and diease more than other service jobs like, says, cleaning lady.
I agree.
I'm a sex worker. I work in a dungeon as a pro-domme and I've done some freelance stuff. I enjoy it.
I hate having to lie about what I do to friends, acquaintances, roommates, dates, and my parents. It's a pain in the ass and it makes me feel ashamed of something I shouldn't have to feel ashamed of.
There would be a LOT more sex workers if society had a healthier view of sex work and sexuality.
Society has decided that the only reasons people are allowed to have sex must be intangible reasons. I'm sorry, I meant religion, Religion decided.
To me (semi-retired pro) it's not so much about a healthy view of sex as it is about the views on what sex is for, what are the reasons for sex.
Love, pleasure, procreation. And Pleasure has only recently become an acceptable reason, and in a lot of places it still isn't.
Tangibles? Money, food, shelter? Sex for that is wrong. Says Society.
I find it ironic that the kind of women who would NEVER EVER EVER go on a second date with a man who went Dutch are the same kind of women who take so much pride in being super-classy, not at all like those PROSTITUTES who put out after a few drinks.
But I do agree with you completely.
Here is what an acquaintance of mine said about Thailand:
I was thinking more of how laid back, socially accepted, and relatively healthy the flesh trade is. There is an open recognition of a dividing line between women who market their sexuality and those who don't, and those who do are more or less all considered "bar-girls". They're not hookers, per se. It's more of a lifestyle. They're loose girls who hang at a certain bar and will sleep with you if 1) they like you and 2) you give 'em some money.
Of course, the dregs of desperation arise there as they do in any field, but for the most part there is no stigma. No one looks down on them, although few young ladies aspire to be a bar girls, admittedly.
Here is where I demolish his argument:
http://aletheia-in-the-shortwave.blogspot.com/2009/06/sex-tourism-in-thailand.html
It isn't just the judgment. It is also the risk of violence, disease, objectification, and often inhumane treatment. Also, if one chooses to work in the sex industry, that is fine, and it is their personal choice, but the judgment should be halted on both ends. It is unfair to judge people who choose not to.
Another thing I find interesting, is that the overwhelming majority of people who sell sex are women. This does say volumes about not only the industry, but the very act of sex itself. It is saying that sex is something WOMEN GIVE AWAY--thus the need to receive money in return. Really?
If not, then why don't we see more women paying men for sex? (I know there are some, but they are exceptions in comparison to the majority.)
Comment cont.
And if you argue that the view isn't of sex being given away, then sex workers by default are still charging men to have ACCESS to their bodies. It is either one or the other, or both. By doing this, they are turning themselves into a product (thus an object or a commodity). Isn't this what feminism fights against? And aren't there inherent and obvious dangers/repercussions in doing this?
And again, why aren' more men treating their bodies the same way? (not talking about the FEW exceptions) Even Chippendales and male strippers don't expose their bodies as much or as long. It is more like a peep show when they do; a gag for laughs and good fun, but it is not turned into the major show business/commercial industry that female stripping has become.
I agree. There's a power issue at work here that is quite profound. I should *not* have to feel pressured to go out there and suck dick to pay my rent!!! How many guys would be okay with this? I mean, please! Why are they suggesting this for women and not men (as gay escorts? I'm sure they could make a buck if they tried it). A straight man sucking dick and getting it in the ass is *exactly* the same as a woman doing it if they're doing it for money and not desire. Period. Why should women always be the ones to have to drop their clothes, or make themselves beautiful enough to be desired, instead of being able to use their brains and talent if they want to?
Most male sex workers, I have found, cater to queer men alone. Speaking from a strictly heterosexual perspective, I think part of the reason for the discrepancy you mention is that the societal assumption is that if a woman can't find a man to have sex with her then there must be something clearly very wrong with her. Conversely, if a man can't find a woman to have sex with him, then he's either socially awkward or unlucky and thus going to a prostitute is at least understandable and potentially justifiable, though no less shameful. One sees instance after instance of this kind of conduct in literature and film, for example.
Without revealing too much, when I was sexually active with men, I could always find someone willing to sleep with me and it was never that difficult to know where to look. Whether I wanted to lower my standards to go to bed with someone exactly when I wanted to was always my decision to make. The men who pay for sex with other men are often looking for a particular look, type, or kind. Some are closeted and wishing to remain so but, in my honest opinion, few employ a sex worker because they can't come up with something on their own.
I think partially a reason why more women are not similarly inclined to hire a male sex worker can be partially explained by why my girlfriend doesn't feel inclined to read erotica or view pornography---her response is "I have you for that". A man would never say that. A man will still look at pornography when he has a steady partner, queer or straight, and will seek out a prostitute as well if he feels so inclined.
I think lots of women are inclined to hire a male sex worker, especially to have no-strings-attached sex, but it's just more difficult for us. Kathy Griffin has a great skit about this, where she actually tries to go about hiring a male prostitute. It starts with, how do we find a male prostitute? How do we know what to ask for? What do we pay? etc.
I know that I often want to have sex with a guy who is paid to pleasure me, but I have no idea how to go about it. Do I have to fly to Nevada for this?
girlfriend doesn't feel inclined to read erotica or view pornography---her response is "I have you for that". A man would never say that. A man will still look at pornography when he has a steady partner, queer or straight, and will seek out a prostitute as well if he feels so inclined.
It's good to have a true manxpert around to tell us how men are.
"I think partially a reason why more women are not similarly inclined to hire a male sex worker can be partially explained by why my girlfriend doesn't feel inclined to read erotica or view pornography---her response is "I have you for that". A man would never say that. A man will still look at pornography when he has a steady partner, queer or straight, and will seek out a prostitute as well if he feels so inclined."
So you've talked to *all* men and know exactly what they will say & do? Just as you know why more women don't hire male sex workers because of what your girlfriend said? Sheesh.....
I love pornography. I love tasteful, innovative, creative, edgy pornography that emphasizes female pleasure and I don't see any reason to assume that being in a relationship would preclude that -- or alternatively, why any one gender would have more of a need to keep watching porn while in a relationship than another.
If you believe that women have a lower sex drive overall than men, you've been misinformed. I can have more orgasms in an hour than most men have in a week.
I'm sure that your girlfriend's lack of attraction to porn has nothing to do with personal variables (like her own sex drive) or the fact that 99.999% of porn ignores the fact that women exist as anything other than subject matter. Even in erotica, which is a market with a majority of women consumers,'sexy naked lady' covers abound, as does the assumption that we want to read about super-sexy stereotypes of women having sex with kinda attractive guys, especially if they are pushy jerks. Nor could it be that her wank material of choice just happens to fall outside of her personal definition of porn, as is the case with a few of my female friends. Nope, nope.
There are several asymmetries that to me explain why more women don't become sex workers.
Others have already commented about the safety aspect. Although, I might add though that male to female violence or threats of violence happens irrespective of relationship with the woman, i.e., stranger (no relationship), sex worker (brief relationship), partner (long-term relationship); but this doesn't seem to be as true for women's violence and threats of violence against men, which seems to occur almost exclusively within a relationship.
Another asymmetry is that fact that it is far more acceptable for men to be purchasers of sex AND to have a concurrent long-term partner than it is for women to be providers of sex AND have a concurrent long-term partner.
So for men, at least historically, they do not have to chose between paying for sex on the side and being in a relationship.
For most women this option doesn't seem to be readily available or as acceptable as it is for men. That is, in keeping with the current supply and demand situation, it is less acceptable for a woman to be both wife and sex worker than it is for a man to be a husband and sex purchaser.
And really, what's the difference between a married man who cheats for decades with escorts and a married woman who works on the side as an escort, in a world of condoms, preventative health care and paternity tests?
Why do economists spend so much time analyzing women, when the sex market is driven almost exclusively by the wants and desires of males?
Men bear little societal costs in upholding the double standard and that's why it hasn't changed much, which in turn is why fewer women may choose to enter the field. And any subsequent increase in prices for stigmatized services is outweighed by maintaining the status quo.
There are three studies by economists that I am aware of.
One is Venkatash & Levitts study which relied on interviews of prostitutes which revealed some interesting information including the amount of corruption in the chicago police department (~3% were freebies to the police as I recall) Further they did address some of the issues of the consumption (such as men being far less likely to frequent prostitutes, differing demands and the effect on prices)
Another is a study of reviews of prostitutes in england submitted to an online website. Because of its nature it informed more about the johns.
A third was a study of the relation between licit and illicit prostitution, government action, and the spread of communicable diseases.
I don't see how that points to a particular trend
I don't see how that points to a particular trend
Surely you are not suggesting that what you've listed are the only studies about the economics of sex work?
Anyway, the trend is that everybody and their cat wants to set out and "figure out" why and how women participate in the sex market (or according to the NYT why women even bother to have sex at all apparently) but rarely examine men's participation as purchasers specifically with regard to creating the environment that discourages women from considering this job.
Those three are probably the most comprehensive I've seen. The first two were pretty unique because they managed to obtain reasonable data sets. The remaining of studies I've encountered fall under the category of the last one (studying the impact between prostitution/regulation/stds) and even then I'm sure were looking at the single digits
I'm dead serious that there are not that many studies.
What's relevant is the bias toward analyzing the supply side. If you search the Economist, Freakonomics Blogs, The New Republic, et. al., the trend is there.
Economists are also keen on slicing any and all data to come up with different ideas. But lately popular studies seems to be:
"A Theory of Prostitution", published in 2006 in the Journal of Political Economy, economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn.
and there's been some recent buzz on this paper:
The Wages of Sin, Lena Edlund, Joseph Engelberg, Christopher A. Parsons
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
June 4, 2009
Columbia University Economics Discussion Paper No. 0809-16
I came across yet another reference in the book
"Logic of Life" (another economist) where the author devotes some space to a study of prostitutes in one Mexican community using condoms as a bargaining chip to increase their profits. I don't have the original study.
So I came across 3 economic studies without searching, you knew a couple of studies. I'm sure if I sat down and spent some time on this, I could find more.
What's relevant is the bias toward analyzing the supply side. If you search the Economist, Freakonomics Blogs, The New Republic, et. al., the trend is there.
The trend towards analysis of the supply side is because it is easier to conduct interviews.
The study of punternet is unique partly because you had self supplied information from men who purchase sex services. Yet by and large there is difficulty in finding the johns to interview them. You could conduct general population interviews and some people have done so, but that is difficult because if you need 1000 responses, and you're generally dealing with a response rate of 10% and only 5% of men have visited prostitutes you're going to need to be able to conduct phone interviews of 200,000 people. Most economists don't have those kinds of resources. If you add in compounding factors such as men being unwilling to admit the purchase of such services, even in an ostensibly private survey, you're going to need even more.
Now simply because Venkatesh and Levitt conducted interviews with the suppliers does not mean they did not generate any information about the demand side. In fact from my recollection of their study they had a substantial amount of information about demand side trends.
The trend towards analysis of the supply side is because it is easier to conduct interviews.
I'm skeptical.
Firstly, the numbers are in favor of the demand side. Even if it's true that men are more reluctant subjects, there are a lot more of them.
Researchers pretty much agree that there are far fewer people selling than purchasing (One US survey found that over their lifetime, about 2 percent of women sold sex, and about 18 percent of men paid for sex. (Journal of Political Economy, 2002, vol. 110)); yet somehow researchers seem to manage to gather data on the supply side.
Secondly, not all communities have strict taboos for purchasing sex. Quite the contrary in some places. Furthermore the taboo is generally harsher on the supply side. And yet researchers have somehow been able to gather data on sex workers in dangerous refugee camps and in communities where sex workers and their families risk being killed if found out. That's sounds pretty challenging. Hmmm.
Honestly, this study and the proposed excuse about men being harder to gather data from, sounds like the worst kind of research bias.
I'm skeptical.
Firstly, the numbers are in favor of the demand side. Even if it's true that men are more reluctant subjects, there are a lot more of them.
If you could find a way in which to do so, other than a site like punternet or a survey of over 200,000 individuals I'm sure there would be behavioral economists who would take you up on it. I don't think it can readily be done in a scientific manner.
yet somehow researchers seem to manage to gather data on the supply side.
Because the supply side needs to advertise itself. Because, as in the case of this study, they were able to locate people who were trusted enough by the supply side to talk to them. Paying a group of former prostitutes to talk to current prostitutes about the sex trade is actually quite reasonably more likely to succeed than attempting to get any man in the redlight district to admit they might have been there for sex.
Secondly, not all communities have strict taboos for purchasing sex.
Take a look at statistics for the most recent generation, if there is a taboo it is only getting stronger.
Quite the contrary in some places. Furthermore the taboo is generally harsher on the supply side.
There is certainly a taboo for sex work, at some point, however, that is not an issue when you are talking about women who are already on a street corner or publicly advertising themselves as prostitutes. At that point it is not exactly a secret, thus speaking to a researcher is not going to change anything. Most Johns who have not been arrested likely do not have reason to believe they are known to be Johns.
If the study claimed to speak extensively about the nature of prostitution on the 4th of July where you have women who are working only that day, it would be on shakier ground, but it isn't.
those writers sound sexist and amazingly ignorant to the fact that they can make some cash on the side themselves. They can bend over or get down on their knees for men who'll pay just as much if not more for their sex work.
Lets all write them a letter asking why they don't try it out and report back to us on how much they enjoyed the work and the extra cash..
Assholes!
argh/
Who are you to judge what other people are to do and what not to do? Are you in the same vein going to scream about how women who use petrol should want to go into oil drilling? (Yes, working at an offshore drill site is dangerous, dirty and backbreaking). Or is it just the taboo of sexwork that upsets you?
I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting imuse :)
I think she's simply turning the question back to the authors, exposing their bias and ignorance. I mean, there are straight identified men who sell sex to men and women and yet this has generated likely close to zero studies (from an economists perspective) and certainly little attention on the Freakonomics' blog.
I dunno I again recall a study which dealt with the relation between homophobic attitudes and the prevalence of cruising locales versus gay bars/dating opportunities. It dealt pretty heavily with how homophobic attitudes would decrease the number of self identified homosexual men, but increase the things such as Bob Allen's or Larry Craig's proclivities.
I can only tell you why *this* woman would NEVER consider sex work. I wouldn't enjoy it. Sex is an extremely personal and emotional physical activity for me. The "goods and services" of any sexual acts I perform are gifts of pleasure to my partner, these gifts I deem priceless and would not put on a menu for some stranger I care nothing about to choose from and enjoy at a price that I could easily make in my law office or investments.
I enjoy using my intelligence, my ideas, my gift of persuasive argument and logic to make money. I love using probability to make money. Who hasn't heard a joke about attorneys? It isn't exactly a socially loved or accepted profession either but it's the one I choose for me.
I don't think any woman should feel obligated to take a job or go into a career she doesn't want to go into for te sake of feminism. Feminism i about choice and we have to accept that in that choice there will not always be equal representation of women and men because we are all so very different.
P.S. Pornocopia said a show about how males who perform se acts with or on other males make SO MUCH MORE money than women who perform sexual acts with or on anyone else. It's about th audience and how much they ar willing to pay. People who want to see guy on guy action will buy more and pay more for it.
Phenicks, I like where you're coming from, but I have to say that it obscures the issue to suggest that women who do participate in sex work don't have the same problems with it that you do. I
t's too often a "Lasheena" decision, out of desperation -- not an "Allie" decision, out of curiousity. Even though I agree with you, think about it this way: when you say that the gifts of sexuality are priceless -- where does that leave those of us who, for whatever reason, have been forced to sell these priceless gifts? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but just that we need to be conscientious to emphasize that even the sexuality of women who have been involved with sex work is still priceless. The fact that they did it doesn't mean they don't think so.
My comment about priclessness was MY determination that MY sexual favors, sexual acts and the sexual pleasure that I can give are deemed priceless by me. That doesn't mean that others don't see it that way. It means that to me, the priceless could never be sold by me of my own free will.
My post was only pertaining to choice. Those who were forced into it very well could feel the same way but they don't have a say in the matter.
What could be done to help prevent this? Especially here where many people naively think sex trafficking doesn't occur.
To say that the main reason women don't participate in sex work is the media bias is to emphasize the problems that upper-middle class, predominantly white sex workers face.
Sex workers have the highest mortality rate of ANY group of people in ANY industry. You read me correctly. In addition, there is the risk that what you think is a legitimate job will actually result in your being sold into slavery. Please read the article, with extensive research I've written here: http://aletheia-in-the-shortwave.blogspot.com/2009/06/sex-tourism-in-thailand.html
I don't doubt that shame is part of why people don't participate. But what about when you get raped (not like the previous discussion about this, where someone has sex with you but doesn't pay you, but like RAPE, where you are violently assaulted without a condom) and have no legal recourse because the person who raped you is a millionaire and a criminal psychologist for the FBI? Maybe that would discourage us?
Shame is an important problem -- but what's more important is this: legal rights to prosecute. Johns get off scot free while fourteen year old girls who are too young to consent to sex are prosecuted for solicitation of prostitution that they were violently forced into at gunpoint.
I didn't stop sleeping with millionaires because I am ashamed, or because I am not sex positive. Although the judgment I received from some of my friends ended those friendships, it's their loss, their ignorace. That is not why I stopped. I stopped because I realized it was only a matter of time before doing so meant risking my life. I stopped doing so because I wanted to put my energy into developing economic opportunities for me that didn't hinge upon my physical beauty, which in that industry has a half-life of about five years. I am twenty-two. I have had men of fifty-five tell me that a girl of twenty-five was too old for them.
Being a pro-domme is NOT the same as being a streetwalker. I was never a streetwalker, and even I faced miserable conditions. Casual comments about not to spend all of my money on one dealer, when I was actually trying to find money to go back to school. When we are talking about this, we really need to check our privilege.
I don't want to talk to any respondents about this unless they've educated themselves by reading the article I linked to above. Sorry, I just don't have the emotional energy.
Thanks.
I'm starting to think that economists spend so much time staring at their models, that they forget there is stuff that exists outside the models. How stupid can you get. There are significant non-monetary sacrifices that sex workers make, and, for many people, work has more benefits than just the money. I picked my career because it stimulates me intellectually, not because it comes with the biggest paycheque.
I've only ever taken a couple of first-year econ courses, but even then we were taught to include nonmonetary costs and benefits in our analyses (usually by trying to find a monetary-equivalent value for each of them, which is not ideal I know). These guys would fail my first-year econ classes, and they are teaching the general public about economics. Ffffff.