Navigating Risk

Lessons From the Dockside Sex Trade for Reducing Violence in South Africa's Prostitution Industry

During my research into dockside prostitution in Cape Town and Durban, I found that sex workers who catered to foreign sailors faced a reduced risk of violence compared to their streetwalker, truck-stop, and brothel colleagues. After conducting comparative research on the different prostitution sectors in South Africa, I published an academic article on why dockside prostitutes are relatively safer than their peers. In it, I discuss the different sex sectors and then make policy recommendations that would enhance the safety of sex workers throughout the industry.

This is the abstract to the article:

The diversity of South Africa's prostitution industry exposes sex workers to varying levels of violence. The street, truck stop, hotel, agency, brothel, and dockside trades are characterized by different structural features that determine the prevalence of client, police, and third-party abuse against prostitutes. Comparing the structural elements of each sector allows not only gauging the likelihood of violence within a given niche but also devising more precise policy instruments to reduce violence at an industry-wide level.

This article, "Navigating Risk," focuses on the dockside prostitution sector in Cape Town and Durban, showing how its structural features enhance the women's power vis-à-vis their clients and the police. It discusses 5 key variables that influence the likelihood of violence within each prostitution sector:

- the social and legal status of the client
- the location of negotiation
- the location of the sexual act
- the level of discretion in the solicitation process
- and the role of third-party involvement

Detailed policy recommendations conclude the argument.

---

Click on the PDF icon to download article:

Trotter, Henry, "Navigating Risk: Lessons From the Dockside Sex Trade for Reducing Violence in South Africa's Prostitution Industry" Sexuality Research & Social Policy: Journal of NSRC Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec 2007): 106-119.

Does anybody "want" to be a prostitute?

On a recent episode of Interface (SABC 3), three women debated whether prostitution should be legalized, decriminalized or abolished. A Doctors for Life rep concluded that, since "nobody wants to be a prostitute," the trade should be abolished in South Africa.

Is this true? In a literal sense, yes. Every prostitute I've interviewed has said that they do not "want" to be prostitutes. They too see sex work to be "degrading" and know it can entail major negative consequences: social stigma, disease, pregnancy, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, etc.

But they still do it. Why?

In South Africa, they do it mostly for practical reasons: to make a living. Many are school drop-outs from abusive families, often bearing children from adolescent relationships. Many have kids and grandparents to take care of. They face real financial pressures. But given their backgrounds, their options are limited. They can work as check-out girls at supermarkets; hang up clothing at retail stores; work as domestics; do waitressing; dress hair; sit at home; etc. Or they can sell sex. Most women choose the former options, skimming a meagre living as casuals, but maintaining decent reputations in their communities. But they never earn the money that a prostitute can.

So, while prostitutes say that they don't "want" to be prostitutes, they feel that their other options are even worse. On any given night, a dockside pro can earn the same amount of money that a checker or sales clerk earns in a week. Though they do not get men every night, the mere possibility of such one-night bonanzas is enough to make the women think twice about slaving away six days/week in "straight" work.

Moreover, dockside prostitutes can work when they want to. There's no pimps or bosses to answer to. And they get to drink, smoke, dance, and sing as part of their solicitation duties—stuff they do when they party anyway. For many, it would be difficult to give up their relative freedom for the constrictions of shift work under a boss.

Thus, to ask again: do prostitutes "want" to be prostitutes? They say "no," but their actions say, "though we understand prostitution to be immoral, damaging, and dangerous, we prefer sex work over the other options currently available."

And few, if any, desire the abolition of the trade as it is the source of their livelihood. Though few would advocate prostitution—and almost all say that they do not "want" to be prostitutes—for now, they choose to sell sex because they feel it answers their practical needs better than their other options.

Based on this, we should not jump to the conclusion that, because prostitutes say that they do not want to be prostitutes, they support the abolition of sex work. Rather, we see that though prostitutes recognize the hazards of their work, they choose it because their alternatives seem even more undesirable. And until those alternatives look more attractive, some South African women will continue to sell sex.

Pro/Positions: Guide to Positions on Prostitution

Radical feminists demand the abolition of prostitution, Christians decry the moral degeneration that sex work represents, and libertarians say "let 'em do what they want."

Prostitution—commodified sexual relations—is one of the most fraught issues in Western society. Discursively, it is a minefield of opposing arguments and positions. For my research, I have had to engage with a vast literature on the subject. And I've engaged in many fruitful discussions with academics, sex workers, and other interested parties. I'd like to briefly discuss some of the major viewpoints that currently shape our understanding of this field.

There is no neat way to delineate the various positions, but for convenience, I divide them into feminist and non-feminist approaches. This bifurcation recognizes the powerful role of feminism in changing the nature of discussion about sex work over the last few decades.

FEMINIST POSITIONS

The broad feminist camp would include abolitionists, romantics, sex worker rights activists, and harm reductionists.

ABOLITIONISTS believe that prostitution violates women's human rights, it is inherently violent and abusive, it is categorically harmful. They represent women as "victims" and men as "abusers." More than any group, they have raised awareness about the perils of prostitution, about its link to international trafficking, and the post-traumatic legacy that "survivors" often endure. For abolitionists, there is no reforming the sex trade; it must be wiped out. The women must be "rescued" from the abhorrent trade. Melissa Farley's Prostitution Research & Education, plus many others, reflect this perspective.

ROMANTICS see prostitution as a field in which women can express their aggressive or "transgressive" sexual feelings. They highlight the agency women demonstrate in their choices, their strategies with men, and their stubborn refusal to abide by "polite" social conventions. "Johns" are seen as dupes in the hands of savvy prostitutes who manipulate male desires for their own financial gain. Romantics use such striking images of "independent" women to battle the pathetic and helpless images promoted by abolitionists.

SEX WORKER RIGHTS ACTIVISTS believe that sex work should be decriminalized and reformed into a legitimate trade. Through this, sex workers should be guaranteed adequate rights and protections. Activists borrow metaphors from the trade union movement: women are to "organize" as sex "workers" in the sex "industry" and have women "represent" their needs to official structures. Sex workers should be able to count on legal protection and access to health care, treated like any other laborer in a legal workforce. In South Africa, this perspective is represented by SWEAT (Sex Worker Education and Advocacy Taskforce).

HARM REDUCTIONISTS take a pragmatic interest in the safety and health of sex workers. They believe that, given the general ineffectiveness of policing or regulating of prostitution, society should guarantee that the women can at least operate without fear of harm, disease, abuse, or treachery. As many prostitution sectors expose women to high levels of violence and viral risk, reductionists believe their protection and empowerment is a crucial first step in addressing their needs. To the extent that societies recognize the vulnerability that sex workers face from clients, cops, pimps and other locals, reductionists believe we need to at least keep them safe from foreseeable harm.

As these positions illustrate, feminist positions are far from monolithic. But they all recognize the vulnerability of the women in the trade. Their differences revolve around strategies for empowering them.

NON-FEMINIST POSITIONS

The non-feminist camp would include religious moralists, patriarchal legalists, libertarians, and chauvinists. There is no ideology that ties them together except their relative indifference to the health of the women.

RELIGIOUS MORALISTS argue against prostitution through religiously coded language, often seeing it as a sin, a pollution of one's body ("temple"), and an abuse of the "God-given gift" of sexuality. They believe that uncontrolled sexual expression—especially female—goes against God's design of sex within the bounds of marriage. They deem prostitution an abomination, but they are also keen to "save" and "redeem" the women who have been "lost" to this "sinful" activity. Male purchasers are rarely targets of moralists' campaigns, but most believe that anyone involved in that exchange needs to repent and seek "God's grace."

PATRIARCHAL LEGALISTS support historical legislation that criminalizes the selling of sex, but not its purchase. In South Africa, this is codified in the apartheid-era Sexual Offences Bill of 1957 which is still in force today. Parliament is currently debating the bill in hopes of changing certain clauses; but many "law and order" types believe that the basic tenets of the old law should remain. They promote the status quo which places the burden of social stigma and legal vulnerability on female sellers of sex. Few explicitly claim that men deserve more rights than women, but their promotion of current legal standard reinforces a tradition of gender bias. Legalists believe that the government must be actively involved in "controlling" or at least "regulating" vice.

LIBERTARIANS see commodified sexual relations between two consenting adult as fine. They believe that the government should not interfere in the "private" realm of non-coercive sex. To the extent that such activity is free of harm, they say let the market regulate it.

CHAUVINISTS believe that "boys will be boys," that male sexual urges are natural and inevitable, and that they need outlets for their passions, including prostitution. This perspective comes through from so-called cultural traditionalists and through masculinist forms of popular culture. Cultural traditionalists place the onus of sexual moral probity on females, relieving men of responsibility for their sexual actions. Women are deemed the moral bedrock of the community, of morality, of domesticity, of family, etc. Traditionalists leave women to face public opprobrium while they praise men for going about their "natural" ways.

Young people under the influence of American rap music—depicting sexually expressive females as "bitches" and "hos"—often reveal a double-standard in their values. In the popular Usher track, "Yeah," Ludacris concludes his rap with the statement "we want a lady in the street but a freak in the bed." The idea here is that the qualities of a "lady" and a "freak" are oppositional, or at least non-coterminous. Such binaries derive from classic Victorian oppositions, like the "Madonna/whore" complex.

CONCLUSION

Most people identify with different positions depending on the context. In the face of abolitionist arguments, we may insist that not all prostitutes are hapless victims. But in the face of romantic arguments, we may highlight the ways in which women can be victimized through the trade. Ultimately, most of us sympathize with certain elements of a number of positions, especially when we are confronted with the sheer diversity of prostitution experiences, sectors, and contexts. We should be cautious of asserting blanket recommendations for all prostitutes. The industry is just too diverse for one-size-fits-all solutions.

Clarifying the ideological foundations—and limits—of each position is crucial for formulating intelligent responses to this fraught issue. Understanding the distinctions between each perspective—and what is at stake between them—can help us better communicate with each other about our own thoughts on this question. Even a rudimentary appreciation of other people's position will allow us to better determine whether we want to abolish, reform, preserve, or embellish prostitution in our society. Or some combination thereof.

Legal Prostitution at South Africa's World Cup?

South Africa's National Police Commissioner, Jackie Selebi, wants to legalize public drinking and prostitution for the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

According to the Cape Times (20 March 2007), "he suggested that the government adopt innovative ways of 'controlling' public drinking and prostitution." Selebi's deputy, Andre Prius, also proposed the creation of "red light" districts for fans' enjoyment. They both worry that, if the police must enforce this vice legislation, they will be overworked with petty concerns and the fans will be made to suffer.

While the idea of legalizing sex work is not new, the World Cup gives the proposal a sense of urgency and possibility.

But let's unpack some of the assumptions in the Commissioner's proposal:

FIRST, Selebi does not seek to legalize prostitution for the sake of the sex workers themselves. He bases his proposal on the convenience and happiness of a foreign sex-buying men.

This reveals a troubling gender bias. Since the Commissioner's rationale is not based on the rights or welfare of sex workers, it is not clear how legalization would benefit them in the long-run. Their needs are never mentioned. According to his public statements, a legalized sex industry would cater solely to the convenience of sex-buying men.

Though legalization would presumably free prostitutes from many abuses by police officers—and it might even offer some protection from client predations—the rationale behind the proposal reinforces their subordination to male desire.

SECOND, the timing of the proposal reveals that it is the hallowed status of the World Cup in South African discourse that makes Selebi's ideas seem practical and even desirable. But what about after the event?

Since the idea is motivated to deal with the circumstances of a unique situation, it is difficult to see what benefits will accrue to South Africans themselves. Will legalization be a special exception for a limited time, as some hope? Will it lead to substantive changes in the sex industry? Currently, the proposal panders to assumed foreign sexual inclinations but does not address the real concerns of South Africans for whom prostitution remains a difficult subject.

THIRD, by tying the legalization of prostitution to the legalization of public drinking, Selebi has the convenience a particular type of World Cup visitor in mind. He names them: soccer hooligans. Ostensibly, he wants to relieve the police of having to arrest masses of revelers.

But he need not "legalize" these activities to achieve his goals. A simpler solution would be "decriminalization." What's the difference? Decriminalization would allow prostitutes to ply their trade without legal interruption while legalization would add an element of government control and regulation to that work. Hence Prius' call for "controlled red light districts" (on the German World Cup model) rather than free reign for the sex workers (or public drinkers).

For many South Africans, Selebi's approach sounds reasonable. He links these proposals to the unique circumstances of the World Cup, which suggest that these laws might be temporary. And he promotes legalization rather than decriminalization, allowing the government to become "regulators"—rather than bystanders of—the vice industry. Thus, morally concerned citizens can trust that the police will not let things "get out of hand," but will in fact be "controlling" these dangerous trades.

My analysis here concerns the rights and welfare of vulnerable prostitutes. At the moment, Selebi's proposals hint at answering some of the long-standing problems facing sex workers, like the criminalization of their work that leads to police abuse and harassment. But the timing and rationale of his proposal shows that sex workers are not his main concern. He worries more about the happiness of free-wheeling, drunken, foreign johns.

However, just as the World Cup offers an opportunity for Selebi to forward the agenda of johns, so too does it offer sex worker activists the chance to push for the rights of a newly-valued class of laborers: prostitutes. It will be interesting to see how this debate continues, how parties uses the caché of the World Cup to advance their cause, and how soccer, sex and alcohol will continue to co-exist in the national imagination.