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.

Should prostitutes form a union?

We all know that prostitutes can face difficult circumstances—client abuse, pimp violence, police harassment, disease, robbery, pregnancy, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. And no matter what we think about the morality of commodified sex, we understand that these women should not have to face such risks.

In the Weekend Argus article, "Forget the sex, a worker is just a worker" (2 June 2007), Michael Schmidt dicusses the possibility of unionizing sex workers. He cites the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW) in Britain as a case-in-point. In Cape Town, he mentions the Sex Worker Education & Advocacy Taskforce (SWEAT) which spearheads the union initiative amongst streetwalkers and brothel workers.

Schmidt and SWEAT take inspiration from the powerful union and workerist movement in South Africa: they talk about sex workers being "workers" like in any other "industry." This language emanates from a factory floor model in which "workers" organize collectively, as a union, to press for greater rights, protections & benefits.

While this image—of collectively organized sex workers standing up for the rights, voicing their concerns, mobilizing, etc.—is powerful, and historically resonant, is it appropriate for prostitution in South Africa?

On first blush, it is quite attractive. But there are some practical difficulties:

FIRST, the sheer diversity of sex trade makes union-like cohesion problematic. The women who work in the various sectors—streets, brothels, dockside clubs, truck-stops, mineworker taverns, agencies, freelance—face quite different experiences. And their sources of trouble differ.

Unions typically have clear opponents, like "management." But who do prostitutes organize against?: clients? pimps? brothel owners? police officers? the government? society-at-large? All of these groups bear a certain responsibility for prostitutes' difficulties. Not just one of them.

The value of a union is that it can put pressure on a group that has the power to do something about their conditions. But who would the prostitutes represent their grievances to? In South Africa, activists would say "the government," as it is the source of onerous legislation criminalizing the sale of sex. They want this law repealed because it allows for unchecked abuses by clients, pimps, and police against the women. But even if repealed, society still sanctions the abuse of women (in general) and prostitutes in particular. Rights-bearing South African women still suffer under one of the highest rape rates in the world, so it is hard to see how prostitutes will achieve protection, health and welfare through a purely legal correction.

And if their demands were not met, what would they do? Strike? This in unlikely. Which makes it hard to see what value the union strategy has if cannot take advantage of its most strategic weapons: mass action, boycotts, strikes.

SECOND, most prostitutes do not look at sex work as a life-long career. Few embrace the "sex worker" moniker and even less want to be publicly known as such. The problem is that, even if women work as prostitutes for years, most refuse to claim it as an identity. Unlike working-class industrial laborers, who construct their lives around a plant or a job, prostitutes usually avoid such committed identifications due to shame, stigma & fear.

Because of this, sex worker unions assure their members of anonymity. But how powerful can a union be if its members refuse to identify themselves? The greatest power unions leverage is not numbers, but the ability to present an actual physical mass of members to the public when rights are threatened. Such displays—especially with media coverage—demand social acknowledgment and offer a road to change. But anonymous membership—though necessary in this case—radically weakens the utility of a "union." (In South Africa, how many sex workers would actually march with a banner for their rights?)

THIRD, does the transplanted union model adequately address prostitutes' particular circumstances by framing them as "workers"? On the one hand, yes, of course, they are workers. They work. But many of the problems they face result from their work being moralized, stigmatized, criminalized, dangerous & gendered. To take women from multiple sex sectors—who face unique challenges in each—and reduce them to an undifferentiated mass of "workers" may not do justice to their needs. And it is doubtful that their problems can be overcome by romantic rhetoric like: "Sex Workers of the World Unite!"

Essentially, I wonder about the feasibility of the union strategy. I understand its appeal, and I agree with union activists' concerns, especially the de/criminalization issue. But the diversity of concerns & experiences facing prostitutes in the numerous sex sectors militates against a one-size-fits-all response.

A better beginning might be to ask: how do sex workers in some sectors (courtesans, call girls, dockside women) achieve higher levels of safety & well-being than women in others? Might the strategies these women employ—or the structural conditions they enjoy—be exported to the more exposed sectors (streets, truck-stops)?

Rather than going outside prostitution to find models for strategic action, we could start by looking at successful strategies within different sectors. If we take the agency of prostitutes seriously—which most activists do—then we should start by understanding indigenous strategies, those developed by sex workers.

Beyond that, we need to initiate a real social dialogue about gender, prostitution, and sex that will get at the foundations of violence against women, social stigmatization, and institutional neglect (by government, health care providers & social services). This should not be left to a union vanguard, but should be engaged with by all citizens.

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.

Waiting for the Gush of Seamen

When I get downtown, the dockside clubs are totally empty. No sailors anywhere. Everything else is in place—willing women, cross-armed bouncers, bored barmaids, earphoned DJs, sleepy cabbies—but their presence lacks meaning without the seamen. They are the source of their livelihoods. Needless to say, everyone feels slightly agitated.

The women lounge around in the booths and watch Animal Planet on the big screen TV. The "Crocodile Hunter" is busy taunting spitting cobras into squirting venom in his eyes. He relishes every jet of poison deflected off his glasses. Meanwhile, the club girls squirm as they watch slow-mo close-ups of snakes shooting liquid death from their hissing fangs. For the moment, it relieves the boredom, but it doesn't shake their deeper financial anxieties.

Eventually, a couple of Taiwanese sailors walk in. Three women race to them. The men sit down and enjoy the attention: their laps are never empty. And they're generous enough, buying beers for themselves and the ladies.

But after awhile, the women realize that one of them has to go. Three ladies with two sailors: not gonna work. Despite the promiscuous atmosphere at the club, the women are profoundly monogamous in their sexual negotiations: they insist that everyone pairs off. No three-somes allowed. (No one wants to split the fees.)

While the men crawl deeper into insobriety, the women follow close behind. But they also become aggressive with each other. Then it happens. Two of the girls go at each other. Fists fly toward faces, hands grab for hair, palms hurtle toward cheeks, fingernails claw at flesh, feet kick at shins, tongues hurl abuse, and lips spit at eyeballs. Their smacks reverberate across the room above the noise of the music as the two stumble, struggle, curse, and thrash about.

The bouncers watch with mild interest—quite unperturbed—then reluctantly break it up. But like on Jerry Springer, the bouncers don't separate them so far that they can't still smack each other every now and then.

The three girls—who live together!—forget about their quarry as they are escorted outside. They yell endless accusations and insults at each other while a small crowd of women gather around them (happy for the distraction). They eventually share a cab home and continue the drunken dispute there. The Taiwanese, meanwhile, just laugh, imbibe a few more beers, and accept the attentions of other ladies.

Cape Town's dockside clubs are prone to seasonal fluctuations. But usually there's at least a couple dozen sailors to go around. Tonight, virtually NO ONE came. Instead, what came out were the women's expressions of boredom, anxiety, and frustration at a totally wasted evening of work.

Breaking Up Brawling Sailors

The other night at one of the dockside clubs in Cape Town, a dozen Chinese seamen stood poised to brawl with 8 Filipino sailors.

The trouble started by the pay phones. A Filipino guy bumped into a Chinese who was busy talking to his family on the phone. The Filipino failed to apologize and the Chinese shoved him in return. They got in each other's faces, growling in their respective tongues. Then the Chinese went back to the phone while the Filipino stomped off.

Soon after, the Chinese guy complained to his shipmates who immediately demanded redress from the Filipinos. The atmosphere at the club changed. No more good times, no more touchy-feely with the ladies, no more happy-go-lucky jacks. The crews flexed their sinewy muscles, ready for fisticuffs. The women stood helpless as their johns abandoned them to stand by their mates. Their honor was on the line.

Such displays of testosterone and rigor are regular features of dockside interaction. Insobriety, jingoism, and competition over females put the sailors on edge with each other. Usually nothing happens, but if the macho tension becomes too great, bedlam can ensue.

A few months ago, a group of Vietnamese sailors stabbed a Chinese seamen to death in one of the clubs. A Vietnamese guy had a drunken dispute with the Chinese over a prostitute. When the Chinese left and stumbled over to another club, the Vietnamese sailor rounded up his mates and followed him. There they surround him while one of the gang finished him off with a single stab.

When I was in Durban last year, Korean and Indonesian sailors cracked each other's skulls with pool cues. Two women—unhappy with the fees they had negotiated with the Koreans—tried to see if they do better with the Indonesians. A big NO-NO. When the Koreans saw the women with the other guys, they waylaid them. Two had to go to the hospital. And the women left empty-handed.

So what is the club owner to do? Bouncers typically get between the opponents, establish their dominance, and send one of the parties outside. In this situation by the phone, the Chinese were escorted outside.

But the owner called the Chinese guy back inside and insisted the Filipino sailor apologize to him. The Chinese accepted with a handshake and joined his mates outside. But they refused to accept it. So the owner sent out two 6-packs of beer that mollified them. Cops and security guards kept an eye on their public drinking—shrugging off the illegality—but the problem was defused.

The next night, the same group of Chinese and Filipinos were at the clubs again, sitting right across from each other. But they carried on as if nothing had happened. Such is the power of alcohol-based conflict-resolution strategies by savvy club owners.

Sex Drugs Booze: Prostitutes' Chemical Coping

The Cape Times (16 April 2007)—paraphrasing a report on streetwalkers in Cape Town, Durban, and Jo'burg—says that "reducing the high levels of anxiety and fear normally associated with sex work is one of the reasons why sex workers use drugs."

Charles Parry, a director of the Alcohol & Drug Abuse Research Unit and co-author of the report, says that violence and fear are key for understanding chemical abuse. He also states that such alcohol and drug use inhibits safe sexual practices, enhancing the likelihood of HIV-transmission between clients and sex workers.

At seamen's nightclubs, all of the prostitutes drink and many also take drugs. The African women in Durban tend to go for dagga (marijuana) while the coloureds and whites of Cape Town may also add rock, tik, ecstacy, or Mandrax to the mix.

But they use chemicals to cope for quite different problems than streetwalkers. Since the women solicit in nightclubs, protected by bouncers, they are relatively free of client violence. When they go to a hotel or their apartment for sex, they are also in spaces that they have more control over than the foreign seafaring clients. Most dockside women report that, if they have ever been raped, molested, or abused, it has almost always been at the hands of relatives or local men. Unlike sailors, locals know what they can get away with.

Dockside women do not experience the same "anxiety" that streetwalkers do because they are not as exposed to negative legal attention (abusive cops), financial predators (pimps), or anonymous men (local johns). This is because police don't bother coming into the clubs, all the women are independent operators (no pimps), and everyone knows which ships the sailors belong to in case they need to complain.

The anxiety they feel is related to more mundane social and psychological stresses: shame, depression, boredom, financial worries, and low self-esteem. Many felt these anxieties before working in the clubs—due to childhood abuse, dysfunctional family lives, and low educational achievement—but the stigma of sex work exacerbates these feelings.

Almost everyone woman I've spoken to says "you can't do this work without drinking. It's not nice to go with a different man every night. It makes us sick to our stomachs. Drinking is the only way to deal with it." Some say that they must drink to "get wet" for intercourse, otherwise they will think too much about their "degrading" circumstances and remain "dry." Alcohol takes the edge off their shame and battered self-worth, they say.

But the women take drugs and alcohol for recreational purposes as well. As we know, plenty of people who are not involved in sex work drink and take drugs because they find it enjoyable. Most dockside women feel the same. Many enthusiastically report that "we LOVE alcohol!" Thus, there is an ambivalence as to whether these chemicals answer a need (which makes them seem helpless and less culpable for their actions) or a want (which highlights their sense of agency).

Either way, alcohol and drugs are a big part of life for dockside prostitutes. Few survive the business without struggling with addiction issues, health problems, or the consequences of drunk/high behavior (STIs or pregnancy due to unsafe 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.

Solicitation in Different Prostitution Sectors

Prostitutes spend more time soliciting than actually servicing clients. Solicitation has a major impact on the experiences women face in sex work. But each prostitution sector is structured differently. I will briefly compare solicitation features of the various sex sectors in South Africa so that we gain a more complex understanding of the industry.

My previous post on dockside solicitation strategies reveals some of the key features of that niche. I showed how solicitation is the primary work of dockside prostitutes, that it is socially complex, that it is done in nightclubs, and that it focuses on a unique clientele—transient foreign seamen. If we compare the dockside to other sex sectors, we see that each niche is quite unique.

LOCATION: Dockside solicitation contrasts to streetwalkers who stand on sidewalks, to truck-stop women who hang around transport corridors, to courtesans who advertise through the internet, to agency ladies who solicit through newspaper ads, to 'beer prostitutes' who sit in working-class taverns, and to brothel women who wait for clients in the brothel's lounge.

Space is complicit with solicitation. Streetwalkers congregate on sidewalks that are publicly known for solicitation: their status is unambiguous due to the context of their loitering. Brothel women also work in spaces that are known—at least in certain circles—for prostitution. But the fact that they work indoors helps protect them, and to a certain degree, their clients from public view. Dockside women work at seamen's nightclubs, a space that is both "straight" and known for prostitution. However, since locals stay away from dockside dives, the women and the men are assured of a certain modicum of discretion.

A general rule is: the more that a space is known for prostitution, the less socially intensive solicitation will be. For streetwalkers and brothel women, solicitation amounts to "showing up" in the right space. They might dress sexy or make provocative gestures from the curbs, but solicitation in these contexts is often little more than "being available" for clients who have already made up their mind to buy sex. At nightclubs or tourist bars, the men are not yet clients, but "potential clients," because they may be there for other pleasures—drinking, dancing, socializing—not prostitution. For women who work from these "open" establishments, they must use a variety of social skills to entice a man to become a client.

DISCRETION: The more discretion a prostitute employs for solicitation, the greater status she will enjoy as a sex worker. Hence, streetwalkers—who offer almost no discretion—rank lower in the sexual services hierarchy than agency ladies or courtesans who rarely advertise in a way that protects their identities and the clients'.

Each niche is characterized by a certain standard of discretion, revenue, legal exposure, vulnerability, and violence (for both the prostitutes and the client). According to this formula, the hierarchy of South African prostitutes might be (from lowest status to highest): streetwalkers - truck-stop women - beer prostitutes - brothel women - dockside sugar girls - massage parlor ladies - agency girls - courtesans.

This is not an exact list—and some women move between these sectors during their careers—but each sector provides increasing layers of discretion for the seller and the buyer. The ability to provide discretion is usually linked to the class and education background of the women, their dependence upon drugs, their sense of autonomy, and their level of financial desperation.

CLIENTELE: Each prostitution sector is determined by the needs and constraints of an occupationally similar male clientele. It is they, not the women, who ultimately determine the shape, structure, and logic of each sector.

Docksiders cater to foreign seamen; courtesans look for international businessmen and tourists; truck-stop women go with long-distance truckers; 'beer prostitutes' hang out with mineworkers; agency ladies treat local middle and upper class professionals; streetwalkers handle local guys; and brothel women cater to a mix of local and foreign middle-class types.

This helps us understand why solicitation—and vulnerability, exposure, likelihood of violence, and stigmatization—differs from sector to sector.

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.