DEFICIENCIES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF SEX WORK

• Date: 20 December 2000
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-6136(2000)0000002014
• Published date: 20 December 2000
• Pages: 259-279
• Author: Ronald Weitzer

DEFICIENCIES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF

SEX WORK

Ronald Weitzer

ABSTRACT

It has been noted that “there are few areas in the social sciences which

have generated as much anecdotal evidence, opinion, general musing,

moral outrage, and theorizing” as prostitution (Earls & David 1989: 7).

These are not the only deficiencies, however, in the literature on

prostitution and other sex work. This article critically examines this body

of work and suggests remedial measures to help overcome some serious

problems in the field and to fill some major gaps in the literature.

OVERGENERALIZATION

‘Sex work’ may be defined as sexual services or performances in exchange for

material compensation.1Examples include prostitution, pornography, stripping,

and telephone sex. The ‘sex industry’ refers to the owners, managers, workers,

and organizations involved in the sale of sex. All too often, however, the terms

‘sex work’, ‘sex industry’, ‘prostitution’, and ‘pornography’ are used by

scholars in a sweeping fashion, masking important differences within each

category. Overgeneralization is especially common in analytical writings (e.g.

Barry, 1979; Jeffreys, 1997; McElroy, 1995), but it also can be found in some

empirical studies (e.g. Farley & Barkan, 1998; Hoigard & Finstad, 1992),

where authors move from the subgroup on which their research is based to

larger claims about ‘prostitutes’ or ‘sex workers’. When it comes to

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 2, pages 259–279.

Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISBN: 0-7623-0680-7

259

prostitution, the most serious blunder is that of equating all prostitution with

street prostitution, ignoring entirely the indoor side of the trade. In the United

States and many other countries, only a minority of prostitutes work the streets,

yet they have received the lion’s share of attention.2From the limited literature

available, it appears that there is significant variation both between and within

the categories of street and indoor prostitution, in at least five respects.

(1) Stratification. The world of prostitution is stratified. Street prostitutes

occupy the lowest order and receive the strongest dose of stigma; upscale

workers, such as call girls, are somewhat less reviled. Since their work is

largely invisible to the public, the latter experience little direct censure. Bryan

(1966: 450) writes that ‘the call girl rarely experiences moral condemnation

through interpersonal relations’. There is also a hierarchy within each level.

Street prostitution is structured by race, income, age, appearance, drug use, and

locale – all of which shape workers’ daily experiences. In many cities, for

example, black, white, and Latino prostitutes work in different areas, and

whites earn more than persons of color (Cohen, 1980; Porter & Bonilla, 2000).

Drug-addicted workers also differ strikingly from non-addicts in their

willingness to engaged in unsafe sexual practices and accept low prices.

Among indoor workers, status increases from massage parlor workers to

brothel workers to escorts and independent call girls (Heyl, 1979). Workers

themselves often draw distinctions between their work and that of others in the

industry, distinctions that usually include some disparagement of other types of

workers (Sheehy, 1973). The world of male prostitution is similarly stratified,

though there appears to be more mobility between the ranks than is true for

female prostitution (Luckenbill, 1986; West, 1993).

(2) Control over Working Conditions. Prostitutes vary in their access to

resources for protection, their freedom to refuse clients, their dependence on

managers and other third parties, and the job alternatives available should they

decide to leave sex work (Chapkis, 2000; Davidson, 1998; Heyl, 1979). Control

over these conditions is generally lowest at the bottom of the hierarchy –

among streetwalkers – but there are some respects in which mid-level workers

(in massage parlors and brothels) have less control over working conditions

than independent street prostitutes, who do not work for pimps.

(3) Work Experiences. Workers differ in whether and how often they

experience victimization and exploitation: Assault, rape, and robbery are

occupational hazards for streetwalkers, but relatively rare among offstreet

workers who have not been recruited by force or fraud (Lowman & Fraser,

260 RONALD WEITZER