1 Regulating Sex Work Adrienne D. Davis VERY ROUGH DRAFT ...

other types of risks and hazards, such as the violence, harassment, and discrimination
described in Section II.A and III.A, tend to be specific to or intensified by sex work.
Ameliorating and managing these would require a different regulatory structure.]
[Readers: I have an extended summary of new regulation from New Zealand and am
contemplating whether to insert it here]
As described in Sections II.A and III.A, violence poses one of the biggest risks to
sex professionals’ well-being. But violence threatens some sex workers more than
others. Isolation poses the biggest threat. Elizabeth Bernstein finds that “while it is true
that streetwalkers are at exceptionally high risk of physical violence, by their own
accounts, the chief danger exists when they’re alone with a john—in a car or hotel
room—not standing on the street.” 244 Audrey Macklin’s study of lap-dancing in Canada
observes the same dynamics at work: “It requires little imagination to recognize that the
risk of harm to performers in the form of non-consensual contact could only be
exacerbated in circumstances where the patron and the performer are secluded from
observation.” 245 The empirical evidence bears out these observations: [double-check the
empirics on brothel, in-home, and street prostitution violence] Hence, although some
municipal codes associate public sexual acts with “indecency,” from the workers’
perspective, the more “private” the sexual activity, the greater the risk. 246 In this view,
the degree of risk correlates not with the type of activity but with the isolation of the
interaction.
We might map this sexual geography as follows. Organizational forms in which
workers have no personal contact with clients, and importantly no personal contact with
employers or third party intermediaries/managers, have the least risk. This would
include sex professionals who provide phone sex or new media sexual services, as long
as they remain anonymous to customers and have limited interactions with their
employers or intermediaries. 247 The latter caveat is important as employers can pose as a
great a threat as do customers. 248 In sum, in sexual geographies with no physical or face
to face interactions, the risk of violence is minimal. 249 Activities within this institutional
form ought not require significant regulation to protect workers, other than clear rules and
protocols to preserve anonymity. 250
244
She continues, “In this regard, the pimps are of little or no use . . .” Bernstein, supra note [x], at 107
(footnote omitted).
245
Macklin continues, “The curtain shielding what happens on the other side of it from the public and,
therefore, judicial scrutiny is precisely what heightens the performer’s vulnerability; the parallels between
the regulation of public and private space in these cases and historic patterns of judicial treatment of
domestic violence are patent.” Macklin, supra note [x].
246
See, e.g., [add cites to municipal codes from a couple of prominent jurisdictions: check NY, LA, SF,
Chicago, etc. Just 3 will do.]
247
Phone sex from labor/safety perspective probably unobjectionable (kids at home; safety; multi-tasking;
available to all regardless of age, looks, etc)
Authenticity/performativity: doing laundry or on the treadmill (heavy breathing)
248
See supra
249
But see [fill in citation that prsottitutes/sex workers are at higher risk of violence from partners, etc]
250 Phone lines, etc.
41