Content uploaded by Jacquelyn Meshelemiah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacquelyn Meshelemiah on May 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Women in Street Prostitution:
The Result of Poverty and the Brunt
of Inequity
Jacquelyn Monroe
ABSTRACT. Street prostitution is intrinsically related to poverty. Fe-
male prostitutes, in disproportionate numbers, are known to be ethnic
minorities who are impoverished, uneducated and possess few market-
able skills. Viewed as depraved individuals, lawmakers have and con-
tinue to chastise these women through the law. Consistency in enforcing
prostitution laws, which includes laws against patronizing prostitutes,
nonetheless, has been and continues to be inequitable. The female pros-
titute or sex worker continues to be the target of enforcement strategies,
while the illegal activities of the sex buyer are minimized or completely
ignored. Sentencing practices have also followed suit. The aim of this ar-
ticle, then, is to (1) discuss Africana womanist theory in the context of
prostitution; (2) present structurally centered arguments for why poor
and minority women resort to prostitution; (3) discuss prostitution
laws; (4) examine the differential practices of law officials between the
female prostitute and the male customer (a.k.a., the John) with a spe-
cific focus on John Schools; and (5) propose short term and long term
solutions that may start to redress the impact of structural racism, sex-
ism and classism on the female prostitute. [Article copies available for a fee
from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-
dress: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> ©2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Jacquelyn Monroe, PhD, is affiliated with the Ohio State University, College of So-
cial Work, 300 Stillman Hall, 1947 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1162 (E-mail:
monroe.998@osu.edu).
Journal of Poverty, Vol. 9(3) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JPOV
©2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J134v09n03_04 69
KEYWORDS. Poverty, prostitution, inequity, John School, Africana
womanism
Poverty is a breeding ground for many negative and highly stigma-
tized behaviors, including street level prostitution. It has long been es-
tablished that financial motives are the main reasons for many women
resorting to street prostitution (Benson & Matthews, 1995; Hardman,
1997; Miller & Schwartz, 1995; O’Neill, 1997; Silbert & Pines, 1982).
Many women enter street prostitution as teens (Miller & Schwartz,
1995; Silbert, 1988; Silbert & Pines, 1982) and report doing so for basic
survival versus the fallacious contentions that (1) street prostitution is a
profitable occupation that women freely choose, and (2) most adult
women suddenly enter the trade as adults. Mounting financial responsi-
bilities including those related to being the primary providers for chil-
dren (Benson & Matthews, 1995) appear to be a chief motivator for
many adult women who enter into street prostitution. Other factors in-
clude being unemployed (Benson & Matthews, 1995), underemployed
(Rothenberg, 1995) and young and homeless (Hood-Brown, 1998).
Some researchers have also alleged that drug addictions, especially
crack cocaine, may play a pivotal role in why women resort to prostitu-
tion (Dalla, 2002; Erickson, Butters, McGillicuddy, & Hallgren, 2000;
Miller & Schwartz, 1995; Farley & Barkan, 1998; Maher, Dunlap,
Johnson, & Hamid, 1996). This claim, however, has been met with
mixed results (Dalla, 2002; Graham & Wish, 1994; Hood-Brown,
1998). Some researchers have theorized that substance abuse does not
lead to prostitution but instead may actually be an attempt to mask the
trauma and stigma associated with prostitution (Farley & Barkan, 1998;
Graham & Wish, 1994).
The purpose of this paper then is to: (1) discuss Africana womanism
in the context of prostitution; (2) present structurally-centered argu-
ments for why poor women resort to prostitution; (3) discuss prostitu-
tion laws in the United States; (4) examine differential prosecution,
sentencing and diversion practices related to prostitution and prostitu-
tion related offenses with a specific focus on (a) race, sex, and class and
(b) John Schools; and (5) to propose short term and long term solutions
that may start to redress the impact of structural racism, sexism and
classism on the female prostitute.
70 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
AFRICANA WOMANISM:
THE MISSING LINK IN FEMINIST THOUGHT
ON PROSTITUTION
Structural racism, classism, and sexism refer to institutionalized forms
of oppression through institutions in a society that subordinate individuals
based on their race, class and sex classifications, respectively (Mooney,
Knox & Schacht, 2002). Africana womanists and many feminist theo-
rists1agree that structural inequalities in the United States are all culprits of
prostitution. Africana-womanists and anti-prostitution feminists, nonethe-
less, differ in their viewpoints on what structural aspects of a society facil-
itate a woman’s entrance into prostitution. A broad, but brief, description
of select perspectives highlighting these differences is included here.
Africana womanists contend that street prostitution is the result of a
three prong oppressive infrastructure that is racist, classist and sexist
(Ntiri, 2001; Saulnier, 1996). The Marxist feminists blame prostitution
on factors related to the corruption of wage labor in a capitalistic society
(Holmstrom, 2003). The socialist feminists also blame oppressive capi-
talistic processes for why women enter into street prostitution, but they
also consider the impact of psychological and social processes on one’s
sex and race (Holmstrom, 2003). The radical feminists blame prostitu-
tion on a patriarchal society (Hardman, 1997). Unlike the less inclusive
schools of thought on feminist theories, Africana womanists suggest
that street prostitution among African American women is primarily the
result of racism in the United States more than it is the result of classism
or sexism although they all work together to maintain oppression (Ntiri,
2001). Africana womanists view race as always being classed and
gendered (Ntiri, 2001). Africana womanism2is best surmised in this
passage: ‘From so many feet away, her race was noticed; as she got into
closer proximity, her class was detected; but it was not until she got in
the door that her sex was known’ (Ntiri, 2001, p. 166). This intent of this
passage is to convey how racism takes precedence over the other
“-isms” in explaining the plight of the African American woman.
Many radical feminist theorists agree that prostitution is oppressive
to women. They have subsequently broached the issue of prostitution
with disdain contending that prostitution is an aberrant act of oppression
against women in a patriarchal society. Moreover, they contend that
“patriarchy is based in psychological and biological factors and en-
forced through violence against women” (Saulnier, 1996, p. 32). These
feminists, however, fail to incorporate the concerns and issues of
women of color because they primarily focus on sexism (from a Euro-
Jacquelyn Monroe 71
centric viewpoint) while serendipitously calculating class issues into
their model of oppression. Moreover, they have left out the preemi-
nence of race when voicing the impact of this violence against some
women. Socialist feminists, on the other hand, have been known to con-
sider race on occasion, while focusing on issues related to capitalism
and sexism (Ferguson, 1999). These feminists, nonetheless, tend to
view class issues as key to understanding women’s issues, over issues
related to race. These feminists contend that class is gendered and
raced, in an additive manner, in that order (Holmstrom, 2003). Marxist
feminists argue that capitalism is the culprit behind street prostitution
(Holmstrom, 2003). Africana womanists, however, contend that
feminists including Black feminists as a whole have failed to factor
in and/or place the appropriate emphasis on the preeminent prong
in the matrix of oppression (i.e., race ⫻class ⫻sex), which is race.
These women, usually privileged African Americans and Africans
in the academy, contend that the plight of the impoverished Black
woman is directly tied to her race (Collins, 1996; Ntiri, 2001). Specifi-
cally, these theorists purport that structural racism, classism, and sexism
are all pivotal to the understanding of why some women resort to street
level prostitution in America. These women contend that limiting one’s
major arguments against prostitution to structural sexism is a superficial
address of the core issues surrounding prostitution in this country.
Therefore, the framework for this discussion is anchored in Africana
womanist thought because of its inclusiveness of all women who enter
into street prostitution.
WOMEN IN PROSTITUTION:
A THREE PRONG STRUCTURAL PROBLEM
Poverty has been and continues to be associated with prostitution
in the United States as well as around the world (Edlund & Korn,
2002; Hood-Brown, 1998; Poudel & Smyth, 2002). Moreover, low
wages is closely tied to poverty (Rothenberg, 1995). Thirty million
Americans earn less than $8.70 per hour which translates into an official
level of poverty for a family of four, which is a very conservative esti-
mate (Shulman, 2004). Many families in this country, especially those
headed by single parent women, live in poverty (Hodgson, 1997;
Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004). This is consistent with the fact that
women control only 20% of the world’s property and goods (Poudel,
72 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
1994) and are subsequently disproportionately poor (Snyder & McLaughlin,
2004).
Historically onto present day, the failure to pay a living wage contin-
ues to be one of the main contributors to poverty in this country
(Glasmeier, 2002). Extremely low wages have resulted in persistent
poverty all across the country, especially among Latinos and African
Americans (Jones, 2004), and even more so among the women in these
groups (Nadasen, 2002; Rothenberg, 1995). Low wages obviously hurt
part-time workers, but they also hurt full-time workers. Persistent pov-
erty continues to prevail among full-time workers across the United
States as well (Rothenberg, 1995).
Unequal salaries between women and men as well as non-Whites and
Whites also contribute to poverty. Overall, women (as a whole) and eth-
nic minority men earn 70% to 80% of that of White men (Rothenberg,
1995). When further broken down, statistics show that Black and His-
panic women earn even less than White women. Black and Hispanic
women also earn less than ethnic minority men (Rothenberg, 1995).
Continued discrimination in the labor force has been particularly devas-
tating to women of color (Morgen & Maskovsky, 2003). These prac-
tices are a form of human trafficking and a violation of human rights. It
is theorized that structural trafficking of this nature leads some women
and adolescents (Black and non-Black), but disproportionately ethnic
minorities, into street prostitution. A disproportionate number of street
level prostitutes are poor women and poor children, ethnic minorities
(adults and children) and immigrants (Hood-Brown, 1998; Nelson,
1993a). According to Nelson, “Racism makes Black women and girls
especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation and keeps them trapped in
the sex industry. It does this by limited educational and career opportu-
nities for African Americans in this country [and] [i]t does this through
a welfare system that has divided the poor Black family” (1993a, p. 3).
Welfare racism has also caused enduring hardship on many families
of color in this country (Morgen & Maskovsky, 2003). In the past, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) essentially prohibited
two-parent homes, dating and legal marriages (Nadasen, 2002; Nelson,
1993a). Now, with the advent of the passage of the Personal Responsi-
bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996,
the government is now demanding that women work menial, low pay-
ing (average $7 per hour) jobs. These jobs typically have no benefits
and cannot cover the costs of child care, housing, transportation, food,
clothing, and utilities (Hays, 2003). PRWORA has resulted in a cyclical
pattern of welfare to work and then back to welfare for approximately
Jacquelyn Monroe 73
33% of its participants (Hays, 2003). The PRWORA is a step back in
this country’s attempt to reform its welfare state and is an assault on the
urban poor. Hays purports that, “The majority of the nation’s most des-
perately poor citizens are in worse shape now than they would have
been had the Personal Responsibility Act never been passed” (Hays,
2003, p. 48). Welfare recipients, who are disproportionately mothers
90% of the time, Black 38% of the time, and Latino 25% of the time,
have all been disproportionately harmed by this racist welfare policy
(Hays, 2003).
Legislators who supported the enactment of PRWORA were operat-
ing under the assumption that poverty is retractable if only poor people
would work. This policy, however, ignores the political and economic
forces (i.e., racism, classism, and sexism) that produce and perpetuate
poverty in the first place (Morgen & Maskovsky, 2003). Factors related
to race, class and sex with respect to hourly wage, full-time/part-time
status, benefits, opportunities for advancement, job security, etc., are
important issues that should be taken into consideration when reform-
ing welfare policies.
Specific to street prostitution, many women have reported going into
prostitution for reasons related to economic necessity. For instance,
Silbert and Pines (1982) interviewed 200 street prostitutes in the San
Francisco Bay Area and found that the predominant reason for their en-
trance into prostitution was destitution. El-Bassel et al. (1997) found
that 56% of the income of the sex traders (n = 176) in their study came
from prostitution, while 14.8% of their income was from public assis-
tance. Dalla (2002) in her qualitative analyses of street prostitutes also
found that 44% of the 43 women surveyed reported that economic ne-
cessity propelled them into the streets. These results are consistent with
other researchers who studied why women resorted to street prostitution
(Hardman, 1997; Hodgson, 1997; Hood-Brown, 1998; Silbert, 1988).
PROSTITUTION LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES
Every state in the United States has laws against street prostitution
(McCaghy & Capron, 1994), including Nevada, where indoor
brothel prostitution is permitted in some counties (Clark, 1993). These
laws typically fall under the rubric of (1) laws that punish the prostitute;
(2) laws that punish those who manage/promote it (e.g., the pimp and
panderer); and (3) laws that punish those who buy or attempt to buy sex
(e.g., the customer or “John”) (Jurgens, 1995). Laws designed to punish
74 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
the sex buyer are the least enforced (Jurgens, 1995; “Prostitution,
Crime and Law Enforcement,” 2003), while those designed to punish
the prostitute (a.k.a., sex worker) are the most frequently enforced
(Jenness, 1990; Miller, 1993). All sex workers are not treated the same,
however. Enforcement strategies tend to target the most vulnerable,
economically disadvantaged (Miller, 1993) and lowest ranking member
of the sex trade industry–the street prostitute (Edlund & Korn, 2002;
Miller, 1993). Although street prostitutes comprise only 20-30% of the
prostitute population (O’Leary, 2001), they are invariably pursued over
the indoor sex worker (e.g., the prostitute in a massage parlor, strip
joint, illegal brothel, or part of an escort service) (Benson & Matthews,
1995; Clark, 1993; Weitzer, 1999). Some attribute this to the race and
physical characteristics of the woman primarily found in these arenas.
For example, the majority of women chosen as escorts and brothel
workers are White females (Karp & Naka, 2001). Asian women domi-
nate massage parlors, while Latina women are found in large numbers
in social clubs like strip joints and bars. African American women,
however, are disproportionately found among street sex workers (Karp &
Naka, 2001).
Most often street sex workers are arrested for prostitution offenses,
but they are also arrested under loitering and public nuisance ordinances
as well (Barbieri, 1992; “Criminal Law and Procedure: Sex Crimes,”
1998; “Prostitution in the United States–The Statistics,” 2003). Prosti-
tution is generally defined as the act of engaging, agreeing or offering
(soliciting) to have sex with another in exchange for a fee (“Laws Rele-
vant to Sex Work,” 2003). This fee is generally in the form of money,
although temporary housing (Maher, Dunlap, Johnson, & Hamid,
1996), drugs (O’Leary, 2001; O’Neill, 1997), and other commodities
have been known to be exchanged (“USA Legal Information,” 1995).
In exchange for these commodities, street walking prostitutes are often
subjected to violence, criminalization, stigmatization, decreased civil
liberties and even death (Benson & Matthews, 1995; Farley & Barkan,
1998; O’Neill, 1997; “Prostitution in the United States,” 2003). No one
knows how many rapes and beatings of prostitutes actually go unre-
ported due to the fear of reprisal, but the estimate is believed to be very
high (Farley & Barkan, 1998; O’Leary, 2001).
Although there have not been widespread efforts to arrest men who
are violent towards prostitutes, there have been fervent attempts to
squash prostitution as a whole. The focus, however, of most state legis-
lators has been the supply side of prostitution (i.e., the female sex
worker) versus the demand side (i.e., the male customer) (Jenness,
Jacquelyn Monroe 75
1990). Selective enforcement of prostitution laws has been a point of
contention for many prostitution rights groups and women activists
alike since the 1970s (Jenness, 1990). Superficial attempts to redress
this inequity by targeting male customers has resulted in men getting ar-
rested, fined, shamed and even jailed on occasion. The John School is
one such example of a superficial attempt to redress the inequity be-
tween the female prostitute and the male client. As a pre-trial diversion
program for first time offenders of alleged prostitution activities with
prostitutes, the John School has become a legal loophole for men. Men
who agree to attend John School circumvent the criminal court system
by attending this single day educational “school” (Bergman, 2002).
(The John School will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper.)
Women, however, who are arrested as first time offenders for prostitu-
tion are not afforded this same opportunity. They consequently receive
different, harsher and/or more long lasting punishments for their prosti-
tution offenses.
INEQUITY IN PROSTITUTION LAWS
IN THE UNITED STATES
In the past, female prostitutes were severely prosecuted while their
male counterparts were exempt from prosecution (Jurgens, 1995). In
1974, Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin all had
prostitution statutes that punished the female prostitute while leaving
the male prostitute free to engage in work as a prostitute (State of Loui-
siana v. Devall, 1974). These laws have since changed in part due to two
particular State Supreme Court cases.
In Wilson v. State of Indiana (1972), Mae Wilson was convicted of
prostitution and subsequently was sentenced to 2-5 years in prison for
offering an undercover police officer sex for $10. In 1972, Indiana’s
prostitution statute read as follows: Prostitute.–Any female [sic] . . . who
commits or offers to commit one or more acts of sexual intercourse or
sodomy for hire, shall be deemed guilty of prostitution, ...(Wilson v.
State of Indiana, 1972, p. 571). Mae Wilson appealed the conviction on
the grounds that she was arrested before she committed the crime of
prostitution and that the statute in which she was charged was unconsti-
tutional. The Justices rejected Wilson’s first argument stating that a
crime had indeed been committed (i.e., offering to commit the act of
prostitution). The Justices also rejected her second argument, which al-
leged that the prostitution statute was unconstitutional because it vio-
76 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
lated equal protection of the law. Citing State v. Griffin (1948), Justice
Gilkison wrote that the law was not unconstitutional because it applied
to all individuals who came within its provisions (Wilson v. State of
Indiana, 1972). Consequently, Wilson’s conviction was upheld.
In Louisiana v. Devall (1974), Louisiana’s prostitution statute was
challenged on similar grounds as the case in Indiana (Wilson v. State of
Indiana, 1972). In this case, a female street prostitute challenged the
constitutionality of Louisiana’s statute regarding prostitutes. In Louisi-
ana, the 1974 statute read, “Prostitution is the practice by a female [sic]
of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with males for compensation”
(Louisiana v. Devall, 1974, p. 910).
The trial court ruled that this Louisiana law was unconstitutional be-
cause it was discriminatory towards women. On appeal, however, a ma-
jority of the justices reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the
Louisiana statute was not unconstitutional. The majority held that under
equal protection, the state has authority to treat different classes of per-
sons in different ways as illustrated here:
Discrimination between the sexes falls within the prohibition that
states must accord equal protection within its jurisdiction. How-
ever, in matters in which sex is a material factor, a statute may
make a distinction without violating the constitutional guarantee,
if the classification is a natural and reasonable one. (Louisiana v.
Devall, 1974, p. 910)
Today, both Indiana and Louisiana have changed their prostitution
statutes to include any person–male or female. Specifically, Indiana’s
statute now defines prostitution as any person who intentionally or
knowingly engages, offers, or agrees to engage in sexual intercourse
or deviate sexual conduct (e.g., anal sex, sodomy, etc.); or fondles, or
offers to fondle, or agrees to fondle (e.g., hand sex) the genitals of an-
other for money or property. Anyone who partakes in activities of this
nature in the aforementioned context is guilty of prostitution, which is a
Class A Misdemeanor, while repeat convictions (2 or more) under this
section are bumped up to a Class D Felony (Indiana Code Annotated §
35-45-4-2). In Louisiana, prostitution refers to the act of a person who
indiscriminately has sexual intercourse with another for compensation
or the solicitation by one to another with the intent to partake in indis-
criminate sexual intercourse for compensation. A first time conviction
can result in a sentence of up to 6 months in jail as a misdemeanor. A
Jacquelyn Monroe 77
second or subsequent conviction can result in felony charges and jail
time up to two and four years, respectively (Louisiana Revised Statute
14:82).
DIFFERENTIAL PRACTICES RELATED
TO FEMALE PROSTITUTES AND MALE CUSTOMERS
Inequity has been and continues to be a problem in the prostitution
arena. As previously stated, female sex workers are generally pursued
over their male customers. Justification for this inequity is brazenly es-
poused by Abraham Flexner in 1920 when he wrote that the male cus-
tomer or John “discharges important social and business relations; is a
father or brother responsible for the maintenance of others, has com-
mercial or industrial duties to meet. He cannot be imprisoned without
damaging society” (Weitzer, 1999, p. 94). This statement reeks of sex-
ism. It “permits” the male to partake in illegal sexual encounters, while
at the same time admonishing the female for making a minimal living.
Mr. Flexner’s chauvinistic views appear to be favorably embraced by
many today, as evidenced by bias laden prostitution statutes, differen-
tial enforcement and arrest strategies, and inequitable sentencing prac-
tices between women and men in the United States.
Explanations for the United States’ persistence in punishing the sup-
plier over the purchaser have been linked to race, sex, and class differ-
ences. The literature consistently reports the adult street walker as
female, African American, of an immigrant status, poor, and/or a single
parent (Clark, 1993; Edlund & Korn, 2002; Farley & Barkan, 1998;
McCaghy & Capron, 1994; O’Neill, 1997; Scambler & Scambler,
1997). The typical “John” or customer is a White, married, male who is
employed in a white collar job or a skilled trade. He also usually resides
in a suburban community (Clark, 1993; Freund, Lee & Leonard, 1991;
Prostitutes’ Education Network [PEN], 2003; Prostitution Task Force,
1999; “Street Prostitution,” 2003). The privileges of being White, male
and middle class have resulted in the accomplice being granted excep-
tions to the law, favoritism and “the benefit of the doubt.” This is illus-
trated in criminal statistics surrounding prostitution related arrests and
sentences.
According to national statistics, prostitution arrests average around
100,000 per year (Weitzer, 1999). On average, 70% of those arrested
for prostitution offenses are females and a disproportionate of this per-
centage tend to be poor African American women (Nelson, 1993b;
78 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
PEN, 2003; San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution, 1996). Nation-
ally, 38.9% of arrests for prostitution in 1991 were African Americans
(Nelson, 1993b). In 1999, nearly 75% of the 5,651 women arrested for
prostitution related offenses in Chicago were African American (Karp &
Naka, 2001). In 1993, 69% of the prostitutes arrested for solicitation
were convicted, while only 9% of their male (customer) counterparts
were (Weitzer, 1999). African American and Latina women accounted
for 58% and 27%, respectively, of women incarcerated in New York in
2001 for offenses related to (1) prostitution, (2) controlled substances,
and (3) causes unknown (Stafford & Salas, 2003). In most cities, the
male counterparts (i.e., the men who patronize prostitutes) to female
prostitutes often bypass prosecution for first time offenses because they
are often given warnings or citations (MacKinnon, 1993), or given
pre-trial diversion options like that of John School instead (Weitzer,
1999). In 1997, 6956 individuals were arrested for prostitution offenses
in the State of New York, while less than 30% (n = 2,081) of this num-
ber was arrested for patronizing prostitutes. Exactly 7,315 individuals
were arrested for prostitution offenses in 1998, while 2,684 were ar-
rested for patronizing in the State of New York (Department of Crimi-
nal Justice Services, 1998). Moreover, in Vancouver, British Columbia
between 1991 and 1995, 29% of convicted prostitutes were jailed while
only .5% of convicted Johns (or those who patronize prostitutes) were
jailed (Weitzer, 1999). Over the years, of those convicted and ultimately
sentenced to jail in the United States for prostitution offenses, the ma-
jority were women of color (Nelson, 1993b; PEN, 2003).
To further illustrate the inequity in laws and sentencing practices,
prostitution and related statutes in Illinois are examined. Illinois is dis-
cussed here because it stands out for its differential practices in punish-
ing the prostitute versus the John. In Illinois, prostitution and the
solicitation of a sexual act are both misdemeanor offenses. Misde-
meanor offenses, however, vary in their degrees in punishment. A Mis-
demeanor A offense is the most serious while a Misdemeanor C is the
least serious. In the case of a prostitution offense, it is classified as a
Misdemeanor A offense. Solicitation of a sexual act is classified as a
Misdemeanor B offense. A first offense of prostitution is considered to
be a Class A Misdemeanor while a repeat convicted offense is deemed
as a Class 4 Felony (Title 720 Illinois Compiled Statistics 5/11-14). A
Class A Misdemeanor charge can include up to 12 months of jail time
and a fine up to $2,500, while a Class 4 Felony in this state can include
up to six years of jail time (“Classification of Crimes in Illinois,” 2003).
Solicitation of a sexual act, however, is a lower ranking Class B Misde-
Jacquelyn Monroe 79
meanor (Title 720 Illinois Compiled Statistics 5/11-14.1) which can
include up to six months of jail time and a fine up to $1,500 (“Classifica-
tion of Crimes in Illinois, ...”2003). There is no felony charge associ-
ated with this offense in the State of Illinois. The differences in the level
and punishment of these offenses are glaringly inequitable as evidenced
by the fact that the prostitute who is generally female receives a much
harsher penalty than the sex buyer who is generally male.
Many men, however, who are arrested for prostitution related of-
fenses bypass all of these potential charges by opting to attend John
School in the many cities where they are available. John School is a pre-
trial diversion program and a widespread psychoeducational program-
ming effort whose goal is to “prevent recidivism in those who have been
charged [with prostitution related offenses] for the first time by educat-
ing them about the risks” of prostitution (Prostitution Task Force, 1999,
p. 19).
JOHN SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES
Created initially in 1995 in San Francisco, John Schools are set up as
weekend programs. The first time adult male offender who has been ar-
rested for attempting to patronize a prostitute can accept an offer to at-
tend John School over having his charge formally dealt with through the
criminal courts (Standing Against Global Exploitation [SAGE], 2003;
Van Brunschot, 2003; Weitzer, 1999). Typically each program is set up
so that men in attendance for the one day event are presented informa-
tion on morality, health, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), laws sur-
rounding prostitution, the impact prostitution has on communities, sex
addiction and the overall harmfulness of prostitution. Last, they are
given graphic testimony from one or more former sex workers about the
degradation inherent in prostitution activities (Marlowe, 1996; Van
Brunschot, 2003). Oftentimes, these former sex workers disclose bitter
and horrific testimonies about violence at the hands of Johns and the
damaging effect prostitution has on the woman (Bates, 1998; Goldstein,
2001; Rumbelow, 2002).
The typical cost or “tax deductible donation” for participation is generally
$100-$500 (Prostitution Task Force, 1999; Quan, 1997; Rumbelow,
2002). The donations are used to cover overhead costs for the program’s
operation and/or as a source of funding to help sex workers exit prosti-
tution (Prostitution Task Force, 1999; SAGE, 2003). Some cities also
impose a fine of up to $1500 and require various amounts of community
80 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
service (Schaefer, 2003). Most are also in collaboration with the local
district attorney, police department, health department, mental health
community and neighboring community (Boddy, 1998; SAGE, 2003).
To date, only men who have been caught soliciting female sex workers
have gone through John School, which are oftentimes funneled through
community courts (Boddy, 1998; Marlowe, 1996; Zack, 1999). Men are
often given the opportunity to go to John School and circumvent the
long and often drawn out criminal processing procedure. Yet, female
prostitutes are typically processed all the way through the system after
arrest.
STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS TO PROSTITUTION
Bell contends that, ‘The effects of centuries of law-sanctioned in-
equality remain painfully evident’ in the current legal system in the
United States (2003, p. 1624). This is particularly evident in the de-
velopment and maintenance of prostitution laws. Current prostitution
statutes, state legislation on prostitution related offenses, prostitution
enforcement strategies, and sentencing practices reflect flagrant racism,
classism and sexism. As noted by McWilliams, if an individual has “lots
of money,” he or she can partake in consensual crimes with impunity
(1996, p. 1). If one is African American, of an immigrant status, female,
poor and a street level prostitute, impunity is rare. This is the case be-
cause of structural racism, classism, and sexism in America’s legal and
criminal justice systems. Opponents of the decriminalization of prosti-
tution would like to reduce the economic blight of street prostitutes to
the mismanagement of resources, drug addiction, laziness, illiteracy,
and the lack of motivation on their parts. These naïve contentions, how-
ever, blindly ignore the pervasiveness of structural inequalities in this
society that directly result in poverty and prostitution.
Long Term Solutions
Conditions surrounding prostitution do not have to remain this way,
nonetheless. Thinking in the long term, as well as the short term, this author
proposes some possible strategies that may start to redress the structural in-
equalities that persist in this society. In the long term, Africana womanists
would argue that structural changes that address racism, classism, and sex-
ism are necessary. Paying more women a living wage and narrowing the
disparity in pay between men and women are good places to start.
Jacquelyn Monroe 81
The fact that thirty million Americans earn less than $8.70 per hour3
(Rothenberg, 1995), illustrates how bad the circumstances are for many
people in this country, especially for women and their dependent chil-
dren. If more women are paid enough to cover basic essentials, this au-
thor argues that fewer women would resort to prostitution activities “to
make ends meet.” It would also be much easier for women “to make
ends meet” if more were paid equitable salaries. The wage gap between
men and women is another culprit of economic inequality in the United
States today (Rothenberg, 1995). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 has done
little to remedy this. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits sex-based
wage discrimination between women and men within an organization
who partake in similar work (Equal Pay Act, Public Law 88-38). On pa-
per this Act fosters equity between women and men, but the enforcement
of such an act has yet to be fully realized in this country. Women often
have to fight for equality in pay (e.g., grievances and law suits) despite
laws that prohibit inequality in the work place. Fighting for this right is
predicated on the presumption that the woman is privy to information that
confirms that she is being paid inequitably. Men are still being paid more
than women for the same work all across the United States (Rothenberg,
1995). These practices are stifling to the woman and her dependents and
serve to perpetuate the structural inequities that exist between women and
men. Unequal pay is detrimental to all women, but it is even more delete-
rious to lower class women and their dependents who are already being
paid a non-living wage. Evening out the pay rates between women and
men is just a starting point. Evening out the salaries accorded to female
dominated occupations (e.g., social work, teaching, secretarial, child
care, etc.) to male dominated occupations (e.g., criminology, engineer-
ing, mechanics, etc.) would also start to redress economical inequalities.
Last, evening out opportunities for advancement between women and
men is another culprit that has resulted in the unfairly paid woman. Men
tend to get promotions more often than women (Rothenberg, 1995).
Although the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is intended to foster equity be-
tween women and men in the workplace (Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public
Law 88-38), it does not prohibit inequities between Whites and non-
Whites. This is reserved for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment set-
tings (Civil Rights Act of 1964, H.R. 7152). Even with the enacting of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the disparity in pay, promotions and job
opportunities between Whites and non-Whites persists. Lawsuits alleg-
ing racial discrimination on the job are difficult to prove and often-
times result in months to years of litigation only to no avail. These
82 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
glaring and pervasive inequitable practices continue to oppress ethnic
minorities and result in concentrated poverty among ethnic minorities,
especially African American and Latina women, who sometimes resort
to street prostitution. Until a record number of organizations and institu-
tions are hit with heavy penalties and class action law suits for discrimi-
natory practices, women, especially women of color, will continue to be
subjected to economic oppression on a grand scale.
Short Term Solutions
Until long term structural inequities are attenuated, welfare policies
and anti-poverty programs need to be more supportive of oppressed pop-
ulations by a renewed distribution of goods (e.g., cash) and services (e.g.,
health insurance, child care provisions, food vouchers, etc.). This should
be in addition to revamping laws surrounding prostitution. A removal in
the penalties associated with prostitution offenses should be seriously
considered as proposed in arguments for decriminalization4with the un-
derstanding that pimps and panderers, however, will continue to be
penalized for their roles in prostitution. Continued criminalization of
pimping and pandering activities are essential, however, because these
predatory behaviors perpetuate violence against women and subject them
to continued abuse, exploitation and trafficking.
Outreach practices involving prostitutes should operate out of a harm
reduction model and a social services model. An appropriate harm re-
duction model in this case would work to reduce the likelihood of con-
tinued harm to one’s self through the administration of supportive
services that include administering bleaching kits for needles and con-
doms for sexual activities. The administration of supportive social ser-
vices, which include drug and mental health treatment, should be the
next line of action. While the results are mixed on the sequence of drug
use and prostitution, no one can ignore the prevalence of drug use
among street prostitutes. Therefore, it is essential that drug treatment
and other types of social service delivery become more readily avail-
able for disenfranchised street prostitutes. In her interviewing of 1963
street prostitutes, Weiner (1996) found that many of these women
were in need of a host of social services, which included drug treat-
ment; accessing temporary, drop-in and permanent housing; food;
clothing; child care; medical attention; HIV testing, prevention and
treatment; mental health treatment; and relationship building skills.
These supportive services are needed in addition to parenting skills
development (Hardman, 1997), educational development (Hardman,
Jacquelyn Monroe 83
1997) and job training (Dalla, 2002; El-Bassel, 1997). Due to the
stigma associated with prostitution, many of the women in this trade
would ordinarily forgo services rather than potentially face rejection,
ridicule, the removal of their children from the home and prosecution
(Silbert, 1988; Weiner, 1996). Programming efforts that are essentially
male, White and upper class in orientation will not work with disenfran-
chised and marginalized women who work as street prostitutes
(Weiner, 1996). Culturally sensitive social work and educational ser-
vices specific to street prostitutes are needed (Hood-Brown, 1998).
Diversion programs for non-chronic offenders, especially women new
to the trade, need to be developed. These diversion programs would af-
ford the novice prostitute an opportunity to seek help in the very begin-
ning of her financial difficulties, drug dependency and legal entangle-
ments. These programs would also help to prevent repeated arrests, costly
fines and a criminal record that tend to spiral the woman into a cycle of
working just to cover legal expenses. Unlike the John School, a compara-
ble diversion program for the prostitute would focus more on linking the
street level prostitute to needed social services rather than focusing ef-
forts on trying to make her into a “model” and “moral” citizen, under the
real threat of incarceration and/or other swift legal penalties.
NOTES
1. Not all feminist thinkers, however, oppose prostitution as a “profession” con-
tending that it allows for some women to exert their choice of equal opportunity in a
free market (Saulnier, 1996).
2. Coined in the 1980s by Clenora Hudson-Weems, Africana womanism was first
coined Black womanism (Hudson-Weems, 2001; Ntiri, 2001).
3. This translates to approximately $1000.00 per month after taxes and other stan-
dard deductions.
4. Decriminalization refers to the declaration of prostitution activities as non-crimi-
nal behaviors. This declaration then absolves the individual from the threat of criminal
penalties (Prostitution Task Force, 1999).
REFERENCES
Barbieri, R. (1992, August 3). S.F. judge strikes down public nuisance law: City had
used ordinance to arrest suspected prostitutes. The Recorder, p.8.
Bates, W. (1998, December 6). School aims to scare patrons of prostitutes. Las Vegas
Review-Journal, p.1B. Retrieved September 26, 2003, from LexisNexis database.
84 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
Bell, D. (2003). Diversity’s distractions. Columbia Law Review, 103, 1622-1633.
Benson, C., & Matthew, R. (1995). Street prostitution: Ten facts in search of a policy.
International Journal of the Sociology of Law,23(4), 395-415.
Bergman, B. (2002, December 16). Rehab for Johns. Macleans, 115(50), 48-49.
Boddy, S. (1998). John school helps break the cycle of prostitution. Peace and Envi-
ronment News. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://perc.ca/PEN/1998-11/
s-boddy.html
Civil Rights Act of 1964, H.R.7152, 88th Cong. (1964).
Clark, C.S. (1993). Prostitution: The issues. Congressional Quarterly,3(22), 507-527.
Classification of Crimes in Illinois & How They Are Used to Determine Penalties.
(2003). Illinois criminal penalties overview Illinois criminal and DUI lawyer in
Cook County. Retrieved October 21, 2003, from http://209.133.252.161/illinois_ 2/
crime_article/Cook/felony_misdemeanor
Collins, P.H. (1996). What’s in a name? Womanism, black feminism, and beyond.
Black Scholar,26(1), 9-17.
Criminal Law and Procedure: Sex Crimes. (1998, May 22). California Supreme Court
Service.
Dalla, R.L. (2002). Night moves: A qualitative investigation of street-level sex work.
Psychology of Women Quarterly,26, 63-73.
Department of Criminal Justice Services [DCJS]. (1998). 1998 Crime & Justice An-
nual Report. Section Two: Arrests. New York State Uniform Crime Report.
Edlund, L., & Korn, E. (2002). A theory of prostitution. Journal of Political Economy,
110(1), 181-206.
El-Bassel, N., Schilling, R.F., Irwin, K.L., Farugue, S., Gilbert, L., Von Bargen, J.,
Serrano, Y., & Edlin, B.R. (1997). Sex trading and psychological distress among
women recruited from the streets of Harlem. American Journal of Public Health,
87(1), 66-69.
Erickson, P.G., Butters, J., McGillicuddy, P., & Hallgren, A. (2000). Crack and prosti-
tution: Gender, myths, and experiences. Journal of Drug Issues,30(4), 767-788.
Equal Pay Act of 1963, (Public Law 88-38). (1963). Volume 29 of the United States
Code.
Farley, M., & Barkan, H. (1998). Prostitution, violence, and posttraumatic stress disor-
der. Women and Health,27(3), 37-49.
Ferguson, S. (1999). Building on the strengths of the socialist feminist tradition. Criti-
cal Sociology,25(1), 1-15.
Freund, M., Lee, N., & Leonard, T. (1991). Sexual behavior of clients with street pros-
titutes in Camden, NJ. Journal of Sex Research,28(4), 579-591.
Glasmeier, A.K. (2002). One nation, pulling apart: The basis of persistent poverty in
the USA. Progress in Human Geography,26(2), 155-173.
Goldstein, A. (2001, July 22). Instead of sex, Johns get a lesson: D.C. court’s class
shows how society, health are imperiled. The Washington Post, p.C01.
Graham, N., & Wish, E.D. (1994). Drug use among female arrestees: Onset, patterns,
and relationships to prostitution. The Journal of Drug Issues,24(2), 315-329.
Hardman, K.L.J. (1997). A social work group for prostituted women with children. So-
cial Work with Groups,20(1), 19-31.
Jacquelyn Monroe 85
Hays, S. (2003). Off the rolls: The ground-level results of welfare reform. Dissent,
50(4), 48-53.
Hodgson, J.F. (1997). Games pimps play: Pimps, players and wives-in-laws. A quanti-
tative analysis of street prostitution. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Hood-Brown, M. (1998). Trading for a place: Poor women and prostitution. Journal of
Poverty: Innovations on Social, Political, & Economic Inequalities,2(3), 13-33.
Holmstrom, N. (2003). The socialist feminist project: An independent socialist maga-
zine. Monthly Review,54(10), 38-48.
Hudson-Weems, C. (2001). Africana womanism: The flip side of a coin. The Western
Journal of Black Studies,25(3), 137-145.
Indiana Code Annotated §35-45-4-2 (2003).
Jenness, V. (1990). From sex as sin to sex as work: COYOTE and the reorganization of
prostitution as a social problem. Social Problems,37(3), 403-420.
Jones, D.R. (2004, January 8). Raise the state’s minimum wage. New York Amsterdam
News,95(2), p. 5.
Jurgens, R. (1995). Prostitution. HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Newsletter,2(1).
Karp, S., & Naka, K. (2001, September/October). Prostitution study looks beyond ar-
rests. The Chicago Reporter: For the Record.
Laws Relevant to Sex Work. (2003). Society for human sexuality. Retrieved October
21, 2003, from, http://www.sexuality.org/l/seattle/coywalaw.html
Louisiana Revised Statute 14:82. (2003).
MacKinnon, C.A. (1993). Prostitution and civil rights: Part one. Michigan Journal of
Gender & Law,1, 13-31.
Maher, L., Dunlap, E., Johnson, B.D., & Hamid, A. (1996). Gender, power, and alter-
native living arrangements in the inner-city crack culture. Journal of Research in
Crime & Delinquency,33(2), 181-205.
Marlowe, J. (1996). What’s wrong with John ‘School’? John ‘school’ disregards Ca-
nadian law. Vancouver, British Columbia: Sex Workers Alliance of Vancouver.
McCaghy, C.H., & Capron, T.A. (1994). Deviant behavior: Crime, conflict, and inter-
est groups (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan College Publishing Co.
McWilliams, P. (1996). Ain’t nobody’s business if you do. Part II: Why laws against
consensual activities are not a good idea. Laws against consensual activities dis-
criminate against the poor, minorities, and women. MaryBook/Prelude Press.
Miller, J. (1993). ‘Your life is on the line every night you’re on the streets’: Victimization
and the resistance among street prostitutes. Humanity & Society,17(4), 422-446.
Miller, J., & Schwartz, M.D. (1995). Rape myths and violence against street prosti-
tutes. Deviant Behavior,16, 1-23.
Mooney, L.A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2002). Understanding social problems.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.
Morgen, S., & Maskovsky, J. (2003). The anthropology of welfare ‘reform’: New per-
spectives on U.S. urban poverty in the post-welfare era. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology,32(1), 315-338.
Nadasen, P. (2002). Expanding the boundaries of the women’s movement: Black femi-
nism and the struggle for welfare rights. Feminist Studies,28(2), 271-302.
Nelson, V. (1993a, Spring/Summer). Black women and prostitution. Council for Pros-
titution Alternative Newsletter, p.3.
86 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
Nelson, V. (1993b). Prostitution: Where racism and sexism intersect. Michigan Journal
of Gender & Law,1, 81-89.
Ntiri, D.W. (2001). Reassessing Africana womanism: Continuity and change. The
Western Journal of Black Studies,25(3), 163-167.
O’Leary, C.O. (2001). The prostitution of women and girls in Metropolitan Chicago: A
preliminary prevalence report. Chicago: Center for Impact Research.
O’Neill, M. (1997). Prostitute women now. In G. Scambler, & A. Scambler (Eds.), Re-
thinking prostitution: Purchasing sex in the 1990s (pp. 29-56). London: Routledge.
Poudel, M. (1994). Poverty, prostitution and women. World Health,47(6), 10-15.
Poudel, M., & Smyth, I. (2002). Reducing poverty and upholding human rights: A
pragmatic approach. Gender and Development,10(1), 80-86.
Prostitutes’ Education Network [PEN]. (2003). Black women and prostitution. Gaunt-
let, Issue 7. Retrieved November 15, 2003, from, http://www.bayswan.org/Racism.
html
Prostitution, Crime and Law Enforcement. (2003). Crime and law enforcement. Retrieved
October 22, 2003, from, h ttp://1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/P/prostitu-attempts-at-
Control-in-the-united-states . . .
Prostitution in the United States: The Statistics. (2003). PENet: Prostitution issues-sta-
tistics. Retrieved October 21, 2003, from, http://www.bayswan.org/stats/html
Prostitution Task Force. (1999). Workable solutions to the problem of street prostitu-
tion in Buffalo: Reports. Buffalo, NY: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from,
http://www.members.tripod.com/ptfofbuffalo/reports.htm
Quan, T. (1997). Johns of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shame. In
fact, you deserve protection like any other consumer. Salon. Retrieved September
18, 2003, from http://www.salon.com/april97/news/news970421.html
Rothenberg, P.S. (1995). Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated
study (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Rumbelow, H. (2002, August 28). Fallen men; At ‘John School,’ students review a les-
son picked up on the street. The Washington Post, p.C01.
San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution. (1996). Final report. San Francisco: Author.
Saulnier, C.F. (1996). Feminist theories and social work: Approaches and applica-
tions. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Scambler, G., & Scambler, A. (1997). Understanding prostitution. In G. Scambler, &
A. Scambler (Eds.), Rethinking prostitution: Purchasing sex in the 1990s (Fore-
word). London: Routledge.
Schaefer, G. (2003). The fight against prostitution: John school and the prostitution in-
tervention program. Community News for Ward 5 and its Neighbors. Retrieved
September 15, 2003, from Google database.
Shulman, B. (2004). Working and poor in the USA. Nation,278(5), 20-23.
Silbert, M.H. (1988). Compounding factors in the rape of street prostitutes. In A.W.
Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault II. New York: Garland Publishing.
Silbert, M.H., & Pines, A.M. (1982). Entrance into prostitution. Youth & Society,
13(4), 471-500.
Snyder, A.R., & McLaughlin, D.K. (2004). Female-headed families and poverty in ru-
ral America. Rural Sociology,69(1), 127-149.
Jacquelyn Monroe 87
Stafford, W., & Salas, D. (2003). New York City Council–Women’s Issues Committee
Hearing: ‘Women of color and incarceration in New York City.’ Women of Color
Policy Network and the Roundtable of Institutions of People of Color at NYU Wag-
ner School of Public Service.
Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE). (2003). SAGE programs–First of-
fender prostitution program. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from, http://www.
SAGEprojectinc.org/prog-fopp.html
State of Louisiana v. Devall, 302 So.2d 909 (La.1974).
Street Prostitution. (2003). Report and recommendations in respect of legislation, policy
and practices concerning prostitution-related activities. Canada: Department of
Justice.
Title 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/11-14 (2003).
Title 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/11-14.1 (2003).
USA Legal Information. (1995). World sex guide document. Retrieved October 21,
2003, from, http://www.worldsexguide.org/us_legal.txt.html
Van Brunschot, E.G. (2003). Community policing and ‘John Schools.’ CRSA/RCSA,
40(2), 215-232.
Weiner, A. (1996). Understanding the social needs of streetwalking prostitutes. Social
Work,41(1), 97-105.
Weitzer, R. (1999). Prostitution control in America: Rethinking policy. Crime, Law, &
Social Change,32, 83-102.
Wilson v. State of Indiana, 278 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 1972).
Zack, M. (1999, September 27). Court takes on livability crimes: Community gets a
voice in the judicial process. Star Tribune, 1B.
88 JOURNAL OF POVERTY
