413047-Underground-Commercial-Sex-Economy

controlled employee access to basic needs and desires ranging from daily shelter and meals to affection
and intimacy. The section below explores the use of punishment to enforce dependency and control.
Punishment
I never used violence. I am not trying to break my nails. I can send you back to the
projects. If you want to live a lavish life, I will put you there. The thrill kept them there.
(D3)
Pimps responded to rule violations in multiple ways, including physical violence, isolation, and
confiscating possessions. Even in the absence of clearly articulated rules, pimps used discipline to exert
control over employees and encourage dependency. One pimp reported that violence was necessary to
keep his employees “in line.” He felt that their actions were a reflection of him:
My mom used to get beat. I’d watch my mom be with different dudes and they’d abuse
her. I’m not going to sugarcoat anything and say I never put my hands on women. I
slapped a few here and there … Every woman out there is a reflection on you. Keeping
them in line is important. Would you want them to reflect poorly on you (G12)
While tactics varied, elements of coercion were present across the spectrum of responses. Focusing first
on the use of physical violence, different methods of discipline and control are explored below.
Use of Force
The role of violence in pimping has been a focus of media, popular culture, and research. Some scholars
have found that pimps used violence and threats to intimidate, recruit, or control their workers (May and
Hough 2000; Raphael and Shapiro 2004; Williamson and Prior 2009), and others used violence
immediately after the violation of rules (Williamson and Cluse-Tolar 2002). The degree and type of
violence varies, ranging from sexual violence such as rape to physical violence such as slapping and
assault (May and Hough 2000; Raphael and Shapiro 2004). The use of threats has also been reported
(May and Hough 2000). Norton-Hawk (2004) argues that the degree of pimp-initiated violence can be so
great that it negates pimp protection for customer-initiated violence, which is assumed to be one of the
primary benefits of working for a pimp.
Fifteen percent of respondents to this study reported using violence to control their employees. Study
findings rely on self-reported information and it is possible that the use of violence was under-reported.
While only eleven respondents discussed using violence, their reports indicated that physical violence was
always used in conjunction with other forms of coercion. One respondent explained the role that violence
played in control, highlighting the climate of fear it could produce among employees:
[I would at first] beat the girls, and then I was trying to get better ways of control. But
sometimes you had to … a lot of the time I would hit one in front of the others, and that’s
all it took because they would be scared enough to stay in line, thinking “Oh, they didn’t
tell me about this before I started.” (A3)
Another respondent explained his observations about the impact of violence on employees, expressing
remorse for hitting an employee:
If a girl gets out of pocket, you have to draw the line, but I don’t beat her. I just yank on
her hair. I slapped her once but I felt bad, really bad after that. One day I had went and
got her to the hair salon, make up and all this shit. I never see her look this beautiful. I
told her I gotta get her dressed, [she] looked good. I turned quickly and she got scared. It
hurt me because she was looking so good that day and I was just going to kiss her and she
went like this [respondent flinches]. I messed her head up. I only hit her one time, and
she was scared. (B5)
Other pimps used less direct forms of physical violence. One pimp used the threat of a “discipline room”
to punish his employees. He explained, “We had a cold room. In the house we had, we had a den that had
no furniture and it was real cold. If you did anything wrong you had to strip and sit in there all night.
Nobody ever had to go in there. They didn’t want to” (D7). Another respondent required his employees to
177