Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates

Wendy McElroy

A troubling situation has been haunting the issue of prostitution, and that is the growing antagonism between the Prostitutes' Rights Movement, as expressed through organizations such as COYOTE, and those contemporary feminists who are anti-prostitution, which is the major of contemporary feminists. The conflict arises because most feminists maintain that their theories and policies help prostitutes, who are women victimized by male culture. The major of prostitute activists, on the other hand, consider themselves to be sexually liberated women who are being harmed by the feminist theories and policies that claim to protect them.

The radical feminist Andrea Dworkin captures the anti prostitute view of whoredom well: "The only analogy I can think of concerning prostitution is that it is more like gang rape than it is like anything else...The gang rape is punctuated by a money exchange. That's all. That's the only difference."[1]

To prostitutes who consider themselves to be liberated, the philosopher Laurie Shrage explains that they are being duped by the patriarchal system, "Because of the cultural context in which prostitution operates, it epitomizes and perpetuates pernicious patriarchal beliefs and values and therefore is both damaging to the women who sell sex and, as an organized social practice, to all women in our society."[2]

At a feminist conference in 1987, a representative of CORP (Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes) related the impact that the anti-prostitution attitude was having on whores: "They find it necessary to interpret prostitutes experience of their lives and then feed it back to the prostitutes to tell them what's really happening, whereas they wouldn't dare be so condescending or patronizing with any other group of women. Why is that?"[3]

Peggy Miller of CORP was more direct: "You're a bunch of fucking madonnas!"[4]

The purpose of my paper is to investigate the conflict between prostitute activists and anti-prostitution feminists in one area -- namely, the treatment of the economic associates of whores,[5] particularly of the men. Most people might assume that this conflict, and others, is the natural state of affairs between willing prostitutes, who sell themselves sexually to men, and most feminists, who decry the sexual exploitation of women by men. This assumption is wrong. Prominent spokeswomen in the '60s, such as Ti Atkinson, referred to prostitutes as the paradigm of a liberated woman. And a brief history of the Prostitutes' Rights Movement illustrates that co-operation, and not conflict, characterized the early years.

The Early Prostitutes' Rights Movement and Feminism

The Prostitutes' Rights Movement first appeared through the organization known as COYOTE, an acronym for 'Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics'. In early 1973, COYOTE emerged in San Francisco from a preceding group which was named WHO: Whores, Housewives, and Others. The 'Others' referred to were 'lesbians' -- a word no one even whispered aloud at that political juncture in time. And the willingness of prostitutes to embrace the cause of lesbian rights was one of their early and strongest links with many feminists of that time.

The founder of COYOTE Margo St. James became convinced that a prostitute-based group was necessary because the feminist movement would not take the issue of prostitution seriously until whores themselves spoke out. Earlier, the lesbian community had reached a similar conclusion about the need to speak out for themselves.

The mid-70s were a propitious time for prostitute rights. The '60s had created sympathy toward decriminalizing victimless crimes. The abortion crusade had embedded the principle 'a woman's body, a woman's right' into American society. The Gay Rights Movement in San Francisco had highlighted police abuse of sexual minorities.

Originally COYOTE limited itself to providing services to prostitutes in San Francisco, but a national Prostitutes' Rights Movement soon began to coalesce around the local San Francisco model. By the end of 1974, COYOTE boasted a membership of over ten thousand and three COYOTE affiliates had emerged: Associated Seattle Prostitutes, Prostitutes of New York [PONY], and Seattle Prostitutes Against Rigid Rules over Women [SPARROW].

The feminist movement reacted with applause. In 1973, for example, NOW endorsed the decriminalization of prostitution, and this is still the 'official' policy -- at least, on paper.[6] Ms magazine lauded both the efforts and the personality of Margo St. James. As late as 1979, prostitutes and mainstream feminists were actively co-operating. For example, COYOTE aligned with NOW in what was called a Kiss and Tell campaign to further the ERA effort. A 1979 issue of COYOTE Howls, the organization's newsletter, declared:

"COYOTE has called on all prostitutes to join the international "Kiss and Tell" campaign to convince legislators that it is in their best interest to support...issues of importance to women. The organizers of the campaign are urging that the names of legislators who have consistently voted against those issues, yet are regular patrons of prostitutes, be turned over to feminist organizations for their use."[7]

In the mid-80s, the Prostitutes' Rights Movement was decisively killed by an unexpected assassin: the AIDS virus. In the understandable social backlash that surrounded AIDS, prostitution came to be seen as a source of contagion every bit as virulent as IV needle use. The Prostitutes' Rights Movement could not advance out of the shadow of AIDS. Around this time, mainstream feminism also turned against the Prostitutes' Rights Movement and began publicly to excoriate prostitution as a form of patriarchal abuse of women. In 1985, Margo St. James left the United States to live in France. She cited the sexually conservative swing in the American feminist movement as one of her motives in leaving.

A New Image of the Prostitute

In 1985, with the decline of the Prostitutes' Rights Movement in America, the image of the liberated whore declined as well. A new image took over almost entirely: the whore was viewed as a pathetic victim of male oppression, a victim of patriarchy, and prostitution become inherently an act of violence against women. To recall Dworkin's words, "...prostitution is...more like gang rape than it is anything else..."

Prostitution is rape, gang rape. The whore is, definition- ally, a sexually abused and exploited woman. She is a victim whether or not she declares herself to be a willing partner to prostitution, and whether or not -- in the presence of other reasonable options -- she pursues paid sex. Her belief that she has consented is merely a delusion.

A great deal of feminist research has been conducted, seemingly with the goal of establishing this image of the whore. Some of the research is valuable, but -- at least in terms of its value in forming any general policy on prostitution -- the research is deeply flawed. This is because the sampling is almost always drawn from the street walking segment of the prostitute community, and usually from the further subcategory of street walkers who are in prison, who seek treatment for drug problems or who otherwise enter programs to get off the street. In other words, these samples self-select for the women who are most likely to have been victimized by prostitution and most likely to want out of the profession. Moreover, the women seeking treatment or leniency in prison are likely to give authority figures -- the researcher -- whatever answer they believe he or she wishes.

There is another reason that the studies on street walkers, in terms of forming general policy on prostitution, are inadequate. The National Task Force on Prostitution estimates that, of the entire female prostitute community in America, only five to twenty percent are street walkers. The percentage spread depends on the size of the city. Eighty to ninety-five percent of prostitutes work either incall or outcall. But because street walkers are the most visible of all prostitutes -- in terms of public awareness, arrest records and social work programs -- they are incorrectly perceived as being 'the paradigm of a prostitute'. In reality, they form the smallest portion of the community, and they are by far the portion in which the problems associated with prostitution are most likely to occur: drug addiction, violence, police abuse, and disease.

The anti-prostitute feminists Melissa Farley and Norma Hotaling have conducted an interesting study of street walkers [10] from street areas of San Francisco, particularly the strolls frequented by homeless, drug-using prostitutes, or particularly young whores. These are the whores who are easy targets for violence: they are not necessary representative even of the street walking community. Yet this study has been used by anti prostitution groups to present a portrait not simply of the most vulnerable of street walkers, but of 'the prostitute'.[11]

Farley and Hotaling entered into their research to test the hypothesis that street walkers suffered from post traumatic syndrome and compared the psychological states of whores to those of hostages and torture victims. From a sample of 130 prostitutes, which included some male and transgendered ones, Farley and Hotaling arrived at disturbing statistics. 82% reported having been physically assaulted since entering prostitution. 75% stated that they had or did have a drug problem. 88% wanted to leave prostitution.

In 1995, I conducted an intensive study of forty-one female members of COYOTE. Thirty-four of the respondents were, or had been, prostitutes. 71% of the women reported having experienced no violence over the years of sex work: 29% had experienced violence, more often from the police or a co-worker than from a client. One prostitute responded, "If you are on the street and you are dealing with someone who can remain anonymous, it is more likely that people you will encounter will be violent." None of the women stated, or evidenced, a drug problem. 17% of the women wished to leave sex work, with 24% not being sure. [12]

Needless to say, there is discrepancy between my results and those of such researchers as Farley and Hotaling. The difference grows deeper as I speak of the articulate politically-aware whores with whom I deal daily and as anti-prostitution feminists report the heart-breaking stories of ex-prostitutes who have been damaged on the streets. These are women such as those involved in the organization WHISPER, Women Hurt in Systems of Prostitution Engaged in Revolt.

I don't dispute the stories of damaged ex-prostitutes. My point is not that Farley and Hotaling are wrong, and that I am right. They surveyed the lowest rung of prostitution (street walkers in notoriously bad strolls), where abuse is rampant, while I dealt with the upper rung (callgirls), where abuse is uncommon. The phenomenon of feminists researching different segments of the prostitute community can easily devolve into a circus of confrontation with each side claiming to have 'better whores'.

I am not saying this. What I am saying is that truth is usually more complicated than any one perspective can capture. Prostitution is not a monolith. Each woman experiences the profession in a different manner.And nothing can be gained by having different groups of feminists or prostitutes -- all of whom are probably telling the truth of their own experiences -- attempting to discredit each other.

The day-to-day realities of a street walker cannot be extended to say anything that is necessarily, or even probably, true of the daily routine of a woman in a massage parlor or of an exclusive call girl or of a stripper who hooks on the side. About the only political interest all women in prostitution seem to share is that -- whatever their circumstances -- it is better for every woman *not* to be arrested and legally persecuted for the choices she makes with her own body. It is better for prostitu- tion to be decriminalized.

And this brings us more directly to the policies most feminists now advocate against the economic associates of whores, and which prostitute activists decry.

Decriminalization v. Legalization

Traditionally, society has legally approached 'the problem' of prostitution in three general ways: suppression, or abolition; regulation, or legalization; and, tolerance, or decriminalization.

The meaning of abolition is fairly clear.

Legalization refers to some form of state controlled prostitution, for example, the creation of red light districts. It almost always includes a government record of who is a prostitute -- information which is commonly used for other government purposes. For example, some countries in Europe indicate whether someone is a prostitute on her passport, and other countries automatically refuse entry to her on that basis.

Decriminalization is the opposite of legalization. It refers to the elimination of all laws against prostitution, including laws against those who associate with whores: is, madams, pimps, and johns.

With startling consistency, the Prostitutes' Rights Movement calls for the decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution. You will sometimes hear anti-prostitution feminists describe their position as 'decriminalization with the goal of abolition'. But, in using the term 'decriminalization', each side means something very different. Prostitute activists mean that all aspects of prostitution must be legally tolerated. Anti prostitution feminists mean that the police should not arrest the prostitutes, only the men (the pimps and johns) and the women who act as pimps (madams).

And -- with the support of such feminists -- there has been a sea change in how many police departments in North America legally address the nitty-gritty of street walking. Namely, they are now arresting the men. In discussions with the vice cops who were invited speakers at the International Congress on Prostitution, all but one them said that arrests now ran about 50/50 for prostitutes and for johns. This is opposed to something like 2% for the men in the past. Some police departments go even further, like the Edmonton Police Services in Canada which declared 1992 the Year of the John and concentrated on charging clients.

When I speak of co-operation between anti-prostitution feminists and vice cops I am referring specifically to the Schools for Johns, a phenomenon that seems to be sweeping North America, city-by-city. It began in San Francisco, when Norma Hotaling teamed up with the vice department to formulate new policy on prostitution.13 Instead of ignoring johns as they normally did, police arrested them and gave first-time johns an option: they could erase the arrest from their records by paying a fee and by attending a one-day seminar during which they would be lectured, usually by feminists and damaged ex-prostitutes, on the turpitude of their ways. Some cities, like Chicago, have added the touch of publishing the names and addresses of men so arrested in major newspapers.

The dozens of prostitutes I've spoken with are appalled by this development. One of their arguments is that the School for Johns is making the streets less safe for prostitutes. The force of such laws will not, and historically never has, determined how many women will turn to the streets. But, prostitute activists argue, the laws will discourage a certain class of men from seeking out street walkers. Men who are married, with respectable careers and a reputation to protect will not risk being publicly exposed as a john. On the other hand, men who are criminally inclined toward prostitutes will not be discouraged by the prospect of a police fine. Thus, police/feminist policy keeps peaceful johns off the streets, and leaves women to compete more vigorously and screen less rigorously for the johns who still approach them. Is it any wonder that violence against street walkers is rising in many North American cities?

Arresting the economic associates of prostitutes represents a farther step toward state control, rather than a step toward decriminalization. To the women who *chose* prostitution as a profession, arresting the men on whom they rely to make a living is a direct attack upon them.

Prostitutes, Feminists and Economic Associates

Part Two

by Wendy McElroy

In Defense of Economic Associates

The prostitutes I've spoken with believe that the current feminist stress on targeting 'the men' is harming 'the women'. And, because the most reviled men in prostitution are the pimps, I want to argue against current anti-pimping laws in the assumption that, if I call these measures into question, doubt will be cast on all other laws against the men.

I want to begin by presenting an e-mail exchange -- a discussion that occurred between myself and three female prostitutes -- on the subject of pimps and madams. The first woman wrote:

"I would like the movement [Prostitutes' Rights] to be *less* oriented toward social work and *more* about giving people the skills (and other things they need) to be professionally successful. Key to this is SUPPORTING MADAMS AND BUSINESS OWNERS instead of trashing them (whether subtly or directly). Because in order to succeed and have staying power a prostitute eventually has to become more entrepreneurial." [Emphasis in the original.]

The second prostitute chirped in electronically:

"I think madams are a great asset to the industry -- they're women who usually have first-hand experience, and tend to be thorough when it comes to protecting their underlings. I have a bit of a problem with pimps, though...especially men whose only experience in the biz is from the demand side."

The third whore voiced a dissenting opinion:

"What is the big fuss about pimps?...If you are talking about people who (but for a penis) might be called madams, I don't see a problem. I might prefer to work with another lady but that's a personality thing. When I was younger, I worked for an agency that was owned by two guys and one woman. They were all about the same -- sometimes nice, sometimes annoying, like anyone else in the world."

It is interesting to note that the discussion of pimps does not even touch upon the issue of violence. It dwells entirely upon economics, and that is because the definition of pimp is an economic one. As the Canadian ex-prostitute Alexandra Highcrest commented in her book At Home on the Stroll, "In simple legal terms a pimp is someone who lives off the earnings of a prostitute. Such a broad definition can include many people most of us don't think of when we hear that word. Children live off the earnings of prostitute mothers; husbands, lovers, siblings, perhaps even parents, can all meet the basic requirements for being classified as pimps by the courts."[14]

Such laws do not punish people for beating, raping, or stealing from a whore. They do not define a pimp as a man who kidnaps a woman and coerces her onto the streets. Such laws refer to financial arrangements and target those who receive money from or give money to whores. And, so, it becomes illegal for a prostitute to form the economic associations that most women take for granted.

The public widely perceives anti-pimping laws as protecting prostitutes from abusive men. And Kathleen Barry not only agrees, but extends the definition of pimping to include anyone who promotes the commodification of women, including pornographers. But if mere economic arrangements with men were damaging the women who are street walkers, you would expect the Prostitutes' Rights Movement to support measures against them. Instead, the community adamantly opposes anti-pimping laws.

In a COYOTE release, the veteran prostitute activist Carol Leigh -- 'the Scarlot Harlot' -- offered insight into their reasoning when she pleaded on behalf of her husband:

"You want to make laws against the pimps? Make sure that you make the distinction between forced prostitution, and those who want to be in prostitution by choice. Go after those who actually abuse us. Just as in marriage, some husbands are abusive of women. Not all husbands are that way. Don't take away my husband because he's really, really good to me. But if you want to help women, go after those people who actually abuse us, but be very, very careful how you word legislation that goes after those who you think exploit and abuse us, because those laws ultimately get used against us."15

How do allegedly protective laws get used against whores? For example, in both the United States and Europe, it is common practice for the police to use anti-pimping laws to ignore a whore's right to privacy. In pursuit of pimps, the police may break into the home of a known whore, riffle or confiscate her possessions, and harass anyone they find on the premises. The fear of such laws being used in reprisal makes many prostitutes reluctant to speak out or to become involved in community affairs. In turn, this makes them more alienated and less likely to break out of prostitution.

Anti-pimping laws also act as a barriers to those prostitutes who wish to marry and get out of the business in that manner. The husband, even of an ex-whore, becomes automatically vulnerable to charges of pimping. This is true even of husbands who do not live primarily off their wives' whoring, but who share household expenses with her.

But what of the husbands or lovers who are fully dependent on profits from prostitution? Are they not parasites living off the sexual wages of their wives? Whores are quick to point out that other women have the right to support their husbands and lovers. No one passes laws forbidding waitresses, lawyers, feminists, or secretaries from having dependent men in their lives. Why are whores the only women legally singled out in this manner?

Yet pimps continue to be excoriated, with no reference to whether or not they are abusive. There are two main reasons for this. First, pimps -- and not madams -- are associated with street walking which is the most violence-prone and stigmatized form of prostitution. Second, pimps -- as men -- have been systematically portrayed as exploiters and oppressors by modern feminism. As Kathleen Barry explains in Female Sexual Slavery:

"Together, pimping and procuring are perhaps the most ruthless displays of male power and sexual dominance...Procuring is a strategy, a tactic for acquiring women and turning them into prostitution; pimping keeps them there. Procuring today involves 'convincing' a woman to be a prostitute through cunning, fraud, and/or physical force, taking her against her will or knowledge and putting her into prostitution." [16]

How can this image of the pimp be reconciled with the following observation by a whore who chooses to remain anonymous:

"Many of the men who get described...as 'pimps' are boyfriends, lovers, license-plate-number takers and managers. Many girls seek out pimps and even love their 'man'. A girl has a right...even if she is a bit dumb and is being taken. And the venom of the law is another way to get at prostitutes -- by busting their lovers. If a bank teller's husband beats her, he is charged with assault, not with being a bank teller's husband."

The best explanation of the schism between these two portraits of the pimp is that pimping, like prostitution, is not a monolithic institution. Some pimps are husbands and friends, who offer protection and partnership. But, especially on the street level of prostitution, other pimps are kidnappers, batterers and rapists who deserve to be taken to a back alley where feminism can be more graphically explained to them.

But such criminals are not generally the ones being prosecuted by the law and the court system. Barry reports talking to a street prostitute who had been raped and kidnapped by pimps, and another who had been slashed by a razor the night before. Barry mentions in passing, at the women "didn't consider reporting to the police" 17 Barry details many horrifying cases of women being abused by pimps, but she never seems to dwell upon why the street walkers do not seek protection from the police. It is because regular woman are protected by laws that prosecute rapists and kidnappers, but the law routinely ignores assaults against whores. Even worse. Prostitutes are persecuted and physically abused by a legal system that protects other women. The police become just another layer of abuse.

Conclusion

The foregoing has been a political analysis of the deepening schism between prostitute activists and anti-prostitution feminists, who should be natural allies rather than enemies. The poem which follows is meant to provide a window onto the emotional impact of the ongoing conflict.

Written by Norma Jean Almodovar, director of COYOTE Los Angeles, the poem has a specific history. In her capacity as one of the organizers of the 1997 International Congress on Prostitution, Norma Jean coordinated an exhibit of Whore Art. One of the most distressing encounters she experienced was with a politically correct female academic who insisted that prostitutes could not use the term 'whore' to describe themselves. The poem was written to explain why the Prostitutes' Rights Movement prefers the word 'whore'. It also captures the emotional distress that women are inflicting upon each other over the issue of prostitution.

The "Whore" Word

I am a woman...and if I get out of line, you call me a whore
And if I have a good time, you call me a whore
And if I speak my mind - you call me a whore.
You throw the word at me when I stand on my own
You use the word often to hold me down.
You ever remind me that whores are the worst -
the outcasts, pariahs, without any worth.
"You're just a whore!" you repeat like a mantra -
Like a shot of cold water to dampen my joy.
"You're just a whore - so what do you know?
and what do I care of whatever you think!"
"You're a whore," is a dagger you drive through my heart
as you pound into my psyche that name.
You equate everything that I ever thought good - with that word
which you spit out like venom - to show me how awful I am.
But I ask you, please tell me, just what is a whore?
A whore says what she think and she thinks for herself...
She's independent and feisty - so what? is there more?
Why does it frighten you so to know I've a mind of my own
and don't need you permission to live or to love or to be?
And what if I tell you
I don't care anyone if you call me a whore...
What will you call me now?

ENDNOTES

(1) "Prostitution and Male Supremacy", Dworkin delivered this speech at a symposium entitled "Prostitution: From Academia to Activism," sponsored by the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law at the University of Michigan Law School, October 31, 1992.

(2). L.Shrage 1989 "Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution" Ethics 99: 347-361.

(3) as quoted in Good Girls/Bad Girls: Sex Trade Workers and Feminists Face to Face. ed. Laurie Bell (Toronto: The Women's Press, 1987).

(4) Peggy Miller as quoted in Good Girls/Bad Girls: Sex Trade Workers and Feminists Face to Face ed. Laurie Bell (Toronto: The Women's Press, 1987) p.11.

(5) 'Whore' is the term preferred by most prostitute activists. Please see poem "The Whore Word" at the conclusion of this paper for an explanation as to why.

(6) In reality, many of the most important offices in the highly centralized organization are held by anti-prostitution, anti pornography feminists, such as Tammy Bruce.

(7) COYOTE Howls 1979,p.1.

(8) Alexander, Priscilla "Prostitutes Are Being Scapegoated for Heterosexual AIDS", pp 248-63 in Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry, edited by Frederique Delacosta and Priscilla Alexander, Pittsburg: Cleis Press. p.203.

(9) In its HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1993; 5 (no.30), the CDC found that -- of 202,655 males diagnosed with AIDS since 1981 -- only 123 cited sex with a female prostitute as their only risk favors.

(10) Presented at the NGO Forum, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, Sept 4, 1995. The authors' address: Box 16254, San Francisco CA 94116, USA.

(11) I also had questions about the study's methodology. For example, Farley and Hotaling entered with certain assumptions, including 'Prostitution is almost always a continuation of abuse which began much earlier, usually at home.' Using this assumPtion, they often interpreted or dismissed data from subjects, rather than simply record responses. For example, the study comments, 'Several subjects commented that they didn't want to think about their pasts when responding to the questions about childhood...it was probably too painful to review childhood abuse.

Nor did they accept the subjects' own assessment of wheter they had been abused. They called such subjects 'profoundly confused'. The study reports on one woman: 'When asked why she answered "no" to the question regarding childhood sexual abuse, one woman whose history was known to one of the interviewers, said:"Because there was no force, and besides I didn't even know what it was then - I didn't know it was sex." The researchers concluded 'Denial may be affecting these subjects' ability or willingness to report their trauma history.'

(12) For a more extensive report on this study, see Wendy McElroy, XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography New York: St. Martin's, 1995, Appendix.

(13) The Prostitutes' Rights Movement was particularly outraged by this feminist co-operation because of the deep history of hostility displayed by the SF Vice Police. For example, in the early days of AIDS awareness, Cal Pep -- the California Prostitutes Education Project -- sent workers into the SF "stroll districts" where street prostitutes worked and distributed condoms, spermicides, bleach and educational materials, as well as talking to the prostitutes about safe sex practices. Meanwhile, San Francisco Police Department confiscated the condoms and used them as evidence of prostitution in court. Because of police policy, the streetwalkers would throw the distributed condoms away.

(14) Alexander Highcrest, At Home on the Stroll: My Twenty Years as a Prostitute in Canada Knopf Canada, 1997, pg. 121. From uncorrected proofs.

(15) As quoted in COYOTE Press Release of October 1995, to ANnounce VICTORY AT BEIJING WOMEN'S CONFERENCE.

(16) Kathleen Barry Female Sexual Slavery p.73.

(17) Ibid, p.90.

References

Alexander, Priscilla "Prostitutes Are Being Scapegoated for Heterosexual AIDS", in Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry. Pittsburg: Cleis Press, 1991. Frederique Delacosta Frederique and Priscilla Alexander, ed.

Barry, Kathleen. Female Sexual Slavery. New York: Avon, 1981.

Bell, Laurie ed. Good Girls, Bad Girls: Sex Trade Workers and Feminists Face to Face. Toronto: The Women's Press, 1987.

Coyote Howls, 1979. (Newsletter of Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics.)

Coyote Press Release October 1995. Los Angeles.

Highcrest, Alexander. At Home on the Stroll: My Twenty Years as a Prostitute in Canada. Toronto: Knopf, 1997.

McElroy, Wendy. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St.Martin's, 1995.

L.Shrage 1989 "Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution" Ethics 99: 347-361.

Original Links: 

Part One: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern.htm

Part Two: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern2.htm