What's Wrong with Prostitution? What's Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor

Hastings Women’s Law Journal Volume 10 Number 1 Symposium Issue: Economic Justice for Sex Workers Article 6 1-1-1999 What's Wrong with Prostitution? What's Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor Elizabeth Bernstein Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hwlj Recommended Citation Elizabeth Bernstein, What's Wrong with Prostitution? What's Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor, 10 Hastings Women's L.J. 91 (1999). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hwlj/vol10/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Women’s Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact . What's Wrong with Prostitution? What's Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labort Elizabeth Bernstein * I. INTRODUCTION This article stems from an interest in some of the recent debates in American feminist theory over sexuality and empowerment. By the late eighties, participants in the already polarized "sexuality debates" had formed two clearly demarcated camps around such policy issues as pornography and prostitution, and around the underlying questions of power, resistance and the possibility of female sexual agency under patriarchy.} While the figure of the prostitute has served as a key trope in the writings and arguments of both groups-as symbolic of either the expropriation of female sexuality in general, or alternatively, of its socially subversive reappropriation-there has been surprisingly little empirical research done to investigate the lived conditions of contemporary prostitution. 2 Amongst feminists, prostitution has been abundantly t The title for this article was inspired by Christine Overall's 1992 essay, What's Wrong with Prostitution? Evaluating Sex Work, in SIGNS: J. WOMEN CULTURE & SOC'Y 4, 705-24 (1992). * Doctoral candidate in Sociology, University of California at Berkeley; M.A., B.A. University of California at Berkeley. I am indebted to countless people for assisting me through the various stages of this project. I am especially grateful to the working women and men who shared their stories with me. In addition to the editors of the Hastings Women's Law Journal, I would like to thank Judy Appel, Allison Bernstein, Michael Burawoy, Nancy Chodorow, Lawrence Cohen, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, Carol Draizen, Casey Green, Norma Hotaling, Stacy Lawrence, Carol Leigh, Kristin Luker, Jackie Orr, Raka Ray, Will Rountree, Miryam Sas, Debra Satz, Laurie Schaffner, Victoria Schneider, Jerome Skolnick, Margo St. James, Carol Stuart, Loic Wacquant, and Ron Weitzer for their advice and commentary. The research described here was generously supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. 1. Key texts include LISA DUGGAN & NAN D. HUNTER, SEX WARS: SEXUAL DISSENT AND POLITICAL CULTURE (1995), the anthologies POWERS OF DESIRE: THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY (Ann Snitow et al. eds., 1983) and PLEASURE AND DANGER: EXPLORING FEMALE SEXUALITY (C.S. Vance ed., 1992) [hereinafter PLEASURE AND DANGER]. 2. See LYNN SHARON CHANCER, RECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: CONFRONTING BEAUTY, HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL 91 TF2 92 HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 10:1 theorized, yet insufficiently studied. 3 Although a growing number of firstperson accounts have been published by highly articulate sex workers and prostitutes' rights activists,4 it is not entirely clear how representative their voices are, or if other prostitutes, particularly those in the low end of the industry, share their perspective or how they envision their work at all. There are policy issues at stake in the prostitution debates, making resolution all the more urgent. 5 Despite their theoretical differences, most feminists 6 have tended to agree that the current criminalized status of prostitution and the selective enforcement of prostitution laws are 7 unsatisfactory. In response to centuries of "social purity" movements PORNOGRAPHY AND THE FUTURE OF FEMINISM 173-200 (1998) (includes a survey of the existing empirical literature). 3. Meanwhile, most of the empirical literature on contemporary Western prostitution suffers from the opposite problem: failure to engage with feminist theory. See, e.g., EILEEN MCLEOD, WOMEN WORKING: PROSTITUTION Now (1982); BERNARD COHEN, DEVIANT STREET NETWORKS (1980); ARLENE CARMEN & HOWARD MOODY, WORKING WOMEN: THE SUBTERRANEAN WORLD OF STREET PROSTITUTION (1985). Two recent and exceptional studies which attempt to bridge the gap (and reach opposite conclusions while doing so) are WENDY CHAPKIS, LIVE SEX ACTS: WOMEN PERFORMING EROTIC LABOR (1997), and CECILE H0IGAIm & LIV FINSTAD, BACKSTREETS: PROSTITUTION, MONEY, AND LOVE (Katherine Hanson et al. trans., 1992). 4. See WHORES AND OTHER FEMINISTS (Jill Nagle ed., 1997); WOMEN OF THE LIGHT: THE NEW SACRED PROSTITUTE (Kenneth Ray Stubbs ed., 1994); GAUNTLET: EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF FREE EXPRESSION 15-141 (Carol Leigh ed., 1994) [hereinafter GAUNTLET]; SEX WORK: WRITINGS BY WOMEN IN THE SEX INDUSTRY (Frederique Delacoste & Priscilla Alexander eds., 1987) [hereinafter SEX WORK]; GoOD GIRLSIBAD GIRLS: FEMINISTS AND SEX TRADE WORKERS FACE TO FACE (Laurie Bell ed., 1987) [hereinafter GOOD GIRLSIBAD GIRLS]; DOLORES FRENCH & LINDA LEE, WORKING: My LIFE AS A PROSTITUTE (1988). 5. In the fall of 1993, San Francisco became one of the first American cities in recent history to look towards the possibility of legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution. As of 1998, the resolutions of the Task Force's 1996 Final Report (advocating a strategy of modified decriminalization) have not yet been adopted. See THE SAN FRANCISCO TASK FORCE ON PROSTITUTION INTERIM REpORT (1994); THE SAN FRANCISCO TASK FORCE ON PROSTITUTION FINAL REPORT (1996). 6. I am referring here to second- and third-wave feminisms, those which have taken shape since the late 1960s. Scholars have crafted various typologies of contemporary feminist politics and thought, based upon the primary causes of gender inequality identified by each strand. Although labels can be problematic, these typically include "Marxist-" feminism (which points to economic structure and the material aspects of life as the main source of gender inequality), "radical" feminism (which identifies objectification and sexual exploitation as the primary causes of women's subordination to men) and "pro-sex" feminism (which, like radical feminism, sees the social construction of sexuality as key to women's oppression, but emphasizes the restrictions placed upon women's sexual desire and activity as being most detrimental). In the 1980s and 1990s, it is the latter two strands of feminism that have become most prominent, and which have formed the two poles of the feminist sexuality debates. Thus, it is these two strands that I will be most concerned with (...truncated)