The Multimillion-Dollar, Underground Sex Economy

A first-of-its-kind DOJ-funded study debunks myths around sex workers and pimping.

A man stops to talk to a female police officer posing as a prostitute during a major prostitution sting operation November 12, 2004 in Pomona, California.
National Journal
Elahe Izadi
See more stories about...
Elahe Izadi
March 12, 2014, 1 a.m.

In some cit­ies, the un­der­ground com­mer­cial sex eco­nomy ac­counts for as much as $300 mil­lion a year.

That’s ac­cord­ing to a first-of-its-kind study, fun­ded by the Justice De­part­ment and con­duc­ted by the Urb­an In­sti­tute, that provides es­tim­ates on the size of the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy.

The study fo­cused on eight cit­ies in 2003 and 2007, chosen to show re­gion­al di­versity and also be­cause of avail­able data, of­fi­cial co­oper­a­tion, and the avail­ab­il­ity of a suf­fi­cient num­ber of con­victed pimps and sex traf­fick­ers. In ma­jor cit­ies such as Miami, the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy was es­tim­ated as $302 mil­lion in 2003; in At­lanta, it was $290 mil­lion in 2007. Wash­ing­ton’s un­der­ground sex eco­nomy ac­coun­ted for $100 mil­lion in 2007.

“We’re not try­ing to make a state­ment that these cit­ies need to worry be­cause they are a hub for this,” lead re­search­er Meredith Dank said. “Part of it is re­gion­al di­versity in say­ing this is hap­pen­ing every­where; there is a lot of money be­ing made no mat­ter what city you go in.”

The fig­ures provide a snap­shot of the size of the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy, which grew from 2003 to 2007 in some cit­ies. The fig­ures also show that in many of the cit­ies stud­ied, the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy ex­ceeds the drug and weapons eco­nom­ies. For in­stance, the un­der­ground drug trade in Miami was es­tim­ated at nearly $94 mil­lion in 2003, when the sex eco­nomy was $302 mil­lion.

Dank spent three years con­duct­ing ex­tens­ive field re­search and in­ter­views with former pimps, sex traf­fick­ers, sex work­ers, and law-en­force­ment of­fi­cials. While much re­search and fo­cus on sex traf­fick­ing has fo­cused on vic­tims and sex work­ers, this study provides in­sight in­to how pimps and traf­fick­ers op­er­ate.

“Hav­ing done re­search in this field for many years now, it an­swers a lot of stuff that we only knew an­ec­dot­ally, but it also de­bunks some of the myths that get talked about with­in me­dia and ad­vocacy work,” Dank said.

One of those myths? That phys­ic­al co­er­cion is the main tool pimps use — only 15 per­cent of those in­ter­viewed ad­mit­ted to be­ing phys­ic­al with sex work­ers. Dank says that while many likely would not ad­mit to us­ing phys­ic­al force, psy­cho­lo­gic­al co­er­cion plays a huge role in the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy.

An­oth­er mis­con­cep­tion is that all sex work­ers are forced to use drugs. “What we found is that at least a quarter of the in­di­vidu­als we in­ter­viewed ac­tu­ally had a strict rule not to use drugs, be­cause it ‘ruined the mer­chand­ise,’ ” she said. “There cer­tainly are cases where there is forced drug use and a lot of drug use, but we need to start look­ing at all factors that come in­to play when you’re look­ing at the un­der­ground sex eco­nomy, par­tic­u­larly when it comes to sex traf­fick­ing, be­cause it’s the only real way that you’re go­ing to ad­dress it the best.”

Pimps re­por­ted be­liev­ing that pimp­ing was less risky than oth­er forms of crime, des­pite ac­know­ledging get­ting ar­res­ted as the biggest risk they faced.

The study also ex­amined the use of child por­no­graphy, which has grown rap­idly on­line and is in­creas­ingly de­pict­ing more graph­ic con­tent in­volving very young chil­dren and even ba­bies. Many of those in­ter­viewed who had been charged with dis­trib­ut­ing and pos­ses­sion (“non­con­tact” of­fenses), ten­ded to be­lieve their crimes were vic­tim­less be­cause they wer­en’t in­volved with pro­du­cing new im­ages.

Re­search­ers sug­gest a lit­any of ac­tions based on the find­ings in the nearly 400-page re­port, ran­ging from in­clud­ing co­er­cion among the leg­al defin­i­tions of sex traf­fick­ing, to man­dat­ing that traf­fick­ing-hot­line num­bers be in­cluded on web­sites such as Craigslist and Back­page.com.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×