Concluding Comments
This chapter has highlighted the complex interplay between forms of regulation (criminal laws, health laws, planning regulations, etc.) and the spaces in which male sex work takes place. Laws and policies developed to address sex work have focused primarily on FSWs, for the most part ignoring MSWs. The earlier blanket prohibition of homosexual sexual acts had a significant impact on the forms and spaces in which male sex work has traditionally taken place, rendering general sex work laws less relevant to this population of sex workers. Laws framed to address the nuisance aspects of sex work have had less importance because laws prohibiting indecent acts in public have been used to regulate male homosexuality, including sex workers. Furthermore, the historical stigmatizing and criminalizing of male-to-male sex has meant that the male sex industry has effectively self-regulated in order to keep a low profile and avoid public and police attention.
Despite the decriminalization of homosexuality, male sex work remains to a large degree within a policy vacuum. This has been the case to a great extent because male sex work has not been perceived to fit the newer paradigm of sex work as exploitation, which has become more prominent in recent decades regarding female workers. It would be a mistake, however, to simply extend narratives around female sex work to include male sex work. Attempts to reduce or abolish sex work and to criminalize clients and those who exploit workers inadequately acknowledge the complexity of sex work in general and male sex work in particular. Laws and policies should reflect the diversity of sex workers’ biographies, motivations, and experiences. Some men (and women) state that they have freely chosen to enter this line of work and claim to enjoy it. It would be equally wrong to assume that male workers are never vulnerable or subject to exploitation by others. There can be no doubt that some male and female sex workers are coerced into this work due to personal or social circumstances, and that trafficking represents a significant challenge. However, these experiences should not be regarded as paradigms of sex work.
Criminalization or overregulation through restrictive licensing models as a means to address the harms associated with sex work can be counterproductive and exacerbate the dangers sex workers face. Criminalizing the demand side of sex work with the aim of eradicating all forms may reduce the visible incidence of sex work but does little to protect those most vulnerable. Furthermore, this approach could be harmful to gay individuals and the gay community by replicating superseded forms of criminalization of homosexuality. This could “take gay liberation back 50 years and increase the vulnerability to bribery, corruption and exploitation of both the men who sell sex and those who purchase it; and in essence, it could push the activity underground” (Whowell & Gaffney, 2009, p. 118). Thus, while there are differences (sometimes significant) between male and female sex work that may require some differentiated regulation, the overarching approach to male and female sex work should be one of minimizing harm, reducing factors that lead people to be or to feel coerced into sex work, and increasing the choices and options of those within that industry.
References
Ashford, C. (2006). The only gay in the village: Sexuality and the net.
Information & Communications Technology Law
,
15
, 275-289.
Ashford, C. (2009). Male sex work and the Internet effect: Time to re-evaluate the criminal law?
The Journal of Criminal Law
,
73
, 258-280.
Ashford, C. (2012). Heterosexuality, public places and policing. In P. Johnson & D. Dalton (Eds.),
Policing sex
(pp. 41-53). London: Routledge.
Bimbi, D. (2007). Male prostitution: Pathology, paradigms and progress in research.
Journal of Homosexuality
,
53
(1-2), 7-35.
Blackstone, W. (1769).
Commentaries on the laws of England
(Book IV). London: Clarendon Press.
Browne, J., & Minichiello, V. (1996). Research directions in male sex work.
Journal of Homosexuality
,
31
(4), 29-56.
Carbery, C. (2010).
Towards homosexual equality in Australian law: A brief history
(2
nd
ed.). Melbourne: Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives.
Cooper, A. (1998). Sexuality and the Internet: Surfing into the new millennium.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior
, 1, 187-193.
Crofts, T., & Summerfield, T. (2007). Licensing: Regulating prostitution or enforcing morality?
University of Western Australia Law Review
,
33
, 289-306.
Dalton, D. (2007). Policing outlawed desire.
Law and Critique
,
18
, 375.
Dalton, D. (2012). Policing “beats” in Australia. In P. Johnson & D. Dalton (Eds.),
Policing sex
(pp. 67-81). London: Routledge.
Davies, P., & Feldman, R. (1997). Prostitute men now. In G. Scambler & A. Scambler (Eds.),
Rethinking prostitution: Purchasing sex in the 1990s
(pp. 29-53). London: Routledge.
Diduck, A., & Wilson, W. (1997). Prostitutes and persons.
Journal of Law and Society, 24
, 504-525.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bull [1994] 158 J.P. 1005.
Dorais, M. (2005).
Rent boys: The world of male sex workers
. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press.
Grivelis v. Horsnell (1974) 8 SASR 43.
Home Office. (1957). Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (Cmnd 247). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Hubbard, P. (2001). Sex zone: Intimacy, citizenship and public space.
Sexualities
,
4
(1), 51-71.
Jenkins, M. (2008, January 18). Sex worker purposely spread STD.
The Australian
.
Jeffreys, E. (2009). Sex work: HIV criminalization and control. In S. Cameron & J. Rule (Eds.),
The criminalization of HIV transmission in Australia
(pp. 122-132). Sydney: National Association of People Living With AIDS/HIV.
Johnson, P. (2010). The enforcement of morality: Law, policing and sexuality in New South Wales.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology
,
43
, 399-422.
Johnson, P. (2012). The enforcers of morality? In P. Johnson & D. Dalton (Eds.),
Policing sex
(pp. 23-37). London: Routledge.
Kirby, M. (2011). The sodomy offence: England’s least lovely criminal export.
Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law
,
1
, 22-43.
Lee-Gonyea, J., Castle, T., & Gonyea, N. (2009). Laid to order: Male escorts advertising on the Internet.
Deviant Behavior
,
30
, 321-348.
Minichiello, V., Marino, R., Browne, J., Jamieson, M., Peterson, K., Reuter, B., et al. (2002). Male sex workers in three Australian cities.
Journal of Homosexuality, 42
, 29-51.
Morrison, T., & Whitehead, B. (2007). “It’s a business doing pleasure with you”: An interdisciplinary reader on male sex work.
Journal of Homosexuality, 53
(1-2), 1-6.
Mowlabocus, S. (2008). Revisiting old haunts through new technologies: Public (homo)sexual cultures in cyberspace.
International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11
, 419-439.
Phoenix, J. (2009). Frameworks of understanding. In J. Phoenix (Ed.),
Regulating sex for sale
(pp. 1-28). Bristol, England: Policy Press.
Power, H. (1993). Entrapment and gay rights.
New Law Journal
,
143
, 47.
Prestage, G. (1994). Male and transsexual prostitution. In R. Perkins, G. Prestage, R. Sharp, & F. Lovejoy (Eds.),
Sex work and sex workers in Australia
(pp. 174-190). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Sanders, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods in social research on the Internet (pp. 66-79). New York: Berg.
Scott, J. (2003a). A prostitute’s progress: Male prostitution in scientific discourse.
Social Semiotics
,
13
, 179-199.
Scott, J. (2003b). Prostitution and public health in New South Wales.
Culture, Health and Sexuality
,
5
, 277-293.
Sullivan, B. (1997).
The politics of sex
. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, D., Brock, D., & Stuart, T. (2006). Faceless-orientated policing: Traditional policing theories are not adequate in a cyber world.
Police Journal, 79
, 169-176.
Weeks, J. (1981). Inverts, perverts and Mary-Annes: Male prostitution and the regulation of homosexuality in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Journal of Homosexuality
,
6
(1-2), 113-134.
Whowell, M. (2010). Male sex work: Exploring regulation in England and Wales.
Journal of Law and Society, 37
(1), 125-144.
Whowell, M., & Gaffney, J. (2009). Male sex work in the UK: Forms, practice and policy implications. In J. Phoenix (Ed.),
Regulating sex for sale
(pp. 99-119). Bristol, England: Policy Press.
Wiltfang, G. (1985).
New faces in the world’s oldest profession: The emergence of male heterosexual prostitution
. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Endnotes
1
See Scott (2003a), Bimbi (2007), and Whowell and Gaffney (2009) for further discussion on the paradigm shifts in the discourse on male sex work. These shifts did not necessarily take place in a linear progression.
2
Despite not specifying the gender of a “common prostitute,” it was found that this term originally used in the Street Offences Act 1957 (UK) only applied to females: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bull [1994] 158 J.P. 1005.
3
Herein lies a fundamental contrast to the basic approach to sex work in the U.S., where in all but one state (Nevada) it is a crime to actually engage in sex work; see, for example, Revised Code of Washington, 9A.88.030:
(1) A person is guilty of prostitution if such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.
(2) For purposes of this section, “sexual conduct” means “sexual intercourse” or “sexual contact,” both as defined in
chapter 9
A.44 RCW.
(3) Prostitution is a misdemeanor.
Nevada Revised Statutes, 244.345, allows the license board of counties with a population under 700,000 to issue a license to operate a house of prostitution.
4
The terms of reference of the committee specify that the committee was to examine:
(a) the law and practice relating to homosexual offences … and (b) the law an practice relating to offences against the criminal law in connection with prostitution and solicitation for immoral purposes … (Home Office 1957: para 1). The committee clearly understood (b) only to refer to female sex work (see Home Office 1957: para 13).
5
Unequal treatment of sexual practices does still exist in some Australian jurisdictions. Queensland retains a higher age of consent for anal intercourse (18) than for vaginal or oral intercourse (16): Criminal Code (Qld), s 208. Furthermore, although the age of consent is 17 in Tasmania [Criminal Code (Tas), s 124(1)] the consent of the person may be a defense if they are aged 15 or over and the other person is not more than five years older than them or where the person is aged 12 or over and the other person is not more than three years older than them [Criminal Code (Tas), s 124(3)]. This defense does not, however, apply to anal intercourse: Criminal Code (Tas), s 124(5).