Essay 3: What Do We Know? A Contrast

In 2001 Janice Raymond and Donna Hughes published a study, “Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States” (“Sex Trafficking”), issued by CATW (Coalition Against Trafficking in Women), a leading abolitionist organization.[1] Like “8 Cities,” discussed in Essay 2, it relied heavily on interviews, surveying 128 individuals in all: 40 sex workers, 32 law enforcement officers, and assorted social workers, advocates, scholars, and health care providers.

There are no surprises in “Sex Trafficking.” Ever-present pimps prey upon the economic desperation of young women to entrap them into emotional and drug dependency, then force them into prostitution while maintaining total control through violence, confinement, confiscation of money and documents, and the like.[2] Traffickers exploit the economic desperation of young women to snare them through deceit and false promises into never-ending debt-bondage and rigid control by pimps and brothel managers.[3]

Conflicting pictures: in “Sex Trafficking,” women trafficked to the United States remain in debt to their traffickers forever: “The bonded condition never ends.”[4] In “8 Cities” police make frequent reference to women paying off their debts and electing to remain in prostitution or go home.[5] In “Sex Trafficking,” men sex buyers are looking for underage girls. In “8 Cities,” men are not seeking underage girls, and if they believe a streetwalker is underage, they drive off.[6] In “Sex Trafficking,” pimps control every movement of their girls; in “8 Cities,” some pimps are tightly controlling and other pimps send their girls from city to city on “automatic.”[7] And so it goes.

Both “8 Cities” and “Sex Trafficking” were funded by the National Institute for Justice. Both interviewed law enforcement officials, social services providers, and prostitutes. Yet the findings in “Sex Trafficking” track the abolitionist party line while those in “8 Cities” reveal a far more complex picture. Which is more trustworthy, more reliable?

“Sex Trafficking” tells the reader a bit about the prostitutes interviewed and, more importantly, about how they came to be interviewed.

Women used in the sex industry are often tightly controlled by pimps and traffickers, making it difficult to interview them under circumstances in which they are free from threats or constraints. These factors create challenges in obtaining information about the sex industry and interviewing women in the sex industry, especially those who are trafficked. It was difficult to identify women who were trafficked or previously in the sex industry. The researchers made the decision not to attempt to contact women in sex industry settings, but only interview women in safe settings outside the sex industry where the women would be free to talk openly without fear of retaliation.

[G]aining access and obtaining candid interviews with women in the sex industry is difficult, particularly with international women trafficked from abroad. The 15 international women interviewed who had been trafficked, prostituted and/or sexually exploited in the United States came from Russia (12), Ukraine (1), Brazil (1), and Sri Lanka (1). Russian women are over represented in this study, because most of the interviews were arranged by our partner organization in Russia and took place there after women left the United States.[8]

Thus, members of the international cohort trafficked to the United States were interviewed after leaving prostitution here – how they left we aren’t told, nor whether they continued as prostitutes in Russia or elsewhere, nor how they were identified and chosen.

The members of the American cohort were selected by three service/advocacy organizations – SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation) Project in San Francisco, the Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services in New York City, and Breaking Free in Minneapolis. These are not disinterested players. SAGE, founded by Norma Hotaling, is staffed entirely by prostitution “survivors” (individuals sufficiently repulsed by their prostitution experience to seek out “rescue” groups or to join with like-minded others to create their own advocacy and rescue operations). The director of the Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services is Dorchen Leidholdt, a member along with Janice Raymond of the Board of Directors of CATW. Breaking Free, started by Vednita Carter, operates on the guiding principle that prostitution is violence against women. With these three partners, Raymond and Hughes were hardly going to assemble interview subjects for “Sex Trafficking” who invalidated their abolitionist views.

On the other hand, “8 Cities” is hardly pro-prostitution. It takes the entire structure of repressive state and federal laws as given, making recommendations only about how they might be more effectively deployed. That its assembly of pimps, cops, and prostitutes in their interviews muddied the stereotypical picture of prostitution isn’t something obviously stage-managed.


“8 Cities” and “Sex Trafficking” together show, both directly and inadvertently, how hard it is to gather reliable evidence about prostitution. First, both rely greatly on law enforcement officials for information about prostitution. Because prostitution and everything associated with it are crimes in the United States, naturally the police know a lot about prostitution – or do they? In fact, what police know about prostitution is largely a function of resources devoted to investigating this realm of criminal activity, and in the larger scheme of things, time and manpower generally go to other crimes. In Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, the 5th wealthiest county in the United States and possessing a population of more than one million, the police department’s anti-trafficking unit consists of a single police officer.

Further, in their acquaintance with prostitution police disagree with one another about its extent and kind. They disagree with NGO service providers, as well, and tell different stories than the targeted criminals themselves, the prostitutes and pimps.

Consider lack of knowledge. “Sex Trafficking” noted that “[l]aw enforcement officials in Manhattan were unable to accurately estimate the large numbers of sex businesses that exist in their jurisdictions.”[9] “8 Cities” described police in Seattle as professing only “limited” knowledge of the high-end escort business though this sector was highly profitable.[10] It further observed that across all the cities canvassed prosecutors and law enforcement official felt they had only “scratched the surface” of the underground sex economies.[11]

Consider conflicts in testimony. Police in Dallas, DC, Denver, San Diego, and Seattle report that pimps set daily money quotas for the prostitutes they control.[12] Yet when the researchers in “8 Cities” interviewed pimps themselves, only 18% acknowledged setting quotas.[13] In “Sex Trafficking,” police reported far lower levels of violence inflicted on prostitutes than did service providers.[14] The perceptions of service providers not only differed from those of the police, they conflicted with reports by the prostitutes as well.[15] In these cases, “Sex Trafficking” consistently resolved the conflicts in favor of service provider perceptions. If the “international” prostitutes reported significantly less violence than declared by service providers, then the “international” prostitutes must be under-reporting the violence in their lives. Indeed, perhaps, they don’t even understand what violence is.[16] If the service providers cite higher levels of violence than the police, then the police must be uninformed, not the service providers guilty of exaggeration.[17]

While “Sex Trafficking” presents a unified thesis, massaging away any evidential threats to it, “8 Cities” leaves the differences between its law enforcement, pimp, and sex worker interviews unresolved, as it does the conflicts within each interview-class.[18] This lack of resolution, though perhaps fully justified, leaves the reader with a lot of contradictory material and without a way to resolve it into coherence.

For example, a leading theme in abolitionist literature portrays pimps as preying on poor and vulnerable young women escaping from sexually abusive conditions in their homes. “8 Cities” cites several pimps confirming this portrayal.

[O]ne pimp explained: “I would look for deprived [females] or females in bad situations or runaways” . . . . Another respondent described his ideal employee, who was economically disadvantaged and experienced previous abuse . . . .

Whether or not they explicitly sought vulnerable women, pimps observed that their employees often had histories of sexual assault. One 22-year-old pimp explained, “[They] all had the same story—[when they] were younger, they were molested in their home . . . . Not too in with their families. Not family relationships as good as they could be. Drug habits” . . . . Another respondent remarked on the pervasiveness of sexual abuse among the women he pimped: “Of the five [employees] I had, all five had been raped before. It was by uncles or stepdad.”[19]

However, numerous other pimps dispute the common picture.

One pimp explained how experience changed his own assumptions: “I assumed in the beginning that they are damaged women but I have had wives of preachers who came and hoed for me for a month. Some do it for the money, some do it for the thrill, and some do it just to do it.” Other respondents reported that there was no shared background among recruited employees: “Every girl that come[s], you don’t really know where from. Some might come from another pimp. Some, like my bottom, might come from a decent home. She was tired of following grandma’s rules.” Another respondent explained, “They aren’t just like anyone down on their luck—they are college students. I’ve had women who are married and come through.”

Thus, “8 Cities” concludes:

While findings did indicate that vulnerability and past abuse can be and are exploited by pimps, there is no simple profile of women targeted by pimps for sex work. Pimps reported recruiting and employing women of all races and backgrounds.[20]

A reader can’t tell whether most or just a few pimps recruit damaged girls, only that some do and some don’t.

Especially unsettled for any reader is a crucial question about volition. Police in each of the eight cities say that some of the women participating in the underground sex economy are there against their will and some are not. Yet it is impossible to derive from their comments a relative size. Are 90% of the participants unwilling or 10%? How big is trafficking? As diligent as “8 Cities” is, it is not able to duplicate the feat of its predecessor study, “The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in New York City,” and, for the eight cities surveyed, attach a numerical figure to the participants in the illegal sex economy, nor sort them into their appropriate sectors. It is not able to give us a fair if rough profile of these participants – their ages, motives, options, ambitions, influences, backgrounds. For one thing, “8 Cities” included very few sex workers in its interviews and all of those interviewed had fallen afoul of the law. Thus, they hardly count as representative of the larger prostitute population unless we believe most prostitutes get arrested at some point in their careers, a dubious supposition. Even so, their stories don’t track well the stories by the sex workers interviewed in “Sex Trafficking.”


The literature on prostitution is large but extremely uneven. Articles otherwise methodologically sophisticated and published in top flight peer-reviewed journals can make elementary blunders. One example was noted in Essay 1 – the article by Potterat and associates that gets endlessly cited to show that prostitutes die at alarming rates.[21] Potterat and his colleagues followed the career of some 1600 prostitutes in Colorado Springs for 32 years. These were almost entirely streetwalkers, many addicted to syringe-injected drugs. Their mortality rate was far higher than average: “[they] were almost 18 times more likely to be murdered than women of similar age and race during the study interval.”[22]

Potterat and his co-authors then make the following move:

The high homicide and overall mortality rates observed in our cohort probably reflect circumstances for nearly all prostitutes in the United States . . . .


Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.

They write in a much quoted passage:

The workplace homicide rate for prostitutes (204 per 100,000) is many times higher than that for women and men in the standard occupations that had the highest workplace homicide rates in the United States during the 1980s (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers).[23]

But these are inapt comparisons, as is any comparison with the average mortality rate of women the same age and race as the Colorado Springs prostitutes. If prostitution without qualification is what’s dangerous, then the apt comparison is with other drug-taking young women who engage in illegal non-prostitution activities. If such similarly-situated women have markedly lower mortality rates, then prostitution looks responsible for the high mortality. If drug-taking women who engage in other illegal activities have death rates on par with the Colorado Springs prostitutes, then prostitution doesn’t stand out as itself an especially dangerous undertaking.

Yet a reader of “8 Cities” will come across this:

Previous research documents the especially egregious levels of violence experienced by sex workers. Such violence has led scholars to deem the work the “most dangerous occupational environment in the United States” for women . . . . Potterat and colleagues derived this conclusion from the results of their 30-year study of nearly 2,000 sex workers; in that study, they identified the following most common causes of death among sex workers: homicide, suicide, substance-related problems, HIV infections, and accidents. In a separate study, Brewer and colleagues . . . . found that female sex workers have the “highest homicide victimization rate of any set of women ever studied.”[24]

Thus, the reader of “8 Cities” easily infers that the danger of death inheres in sex work itself, not in sex-work-by-drug-addicted-women-plying-their-trade-on-the-streets. The Brewer study referred to was produced by the same set of researchers that wrote the initial (Potterat) study, and takes the Potterat study as a fixed revelation about prostitution around which further analysis is developed. The further analysis involves combing the homicide reports from several city and federal sources.[25] These homicides almost always involve street prostitutes. Indeed the authors of “8 Cities” point out “that street-based sex workers are subjected to higher levels of physical violence by pimps, clients, and others than other types of sex workers . . . and that everyday street-based sex work presents constant threats of rape, assault, mental and verbal abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and robbery.”[26] Yet the “previous research” in the passage above is described as giving us a picture of the fate of sex workers as such. When a responsible study like “8 Cities” treats sources in this indiscriminate way, readers are bound to move quickly to the sorts of abolitionist conclusions Janice Raymond and Donna Hughes embrace. If prostitutes, not just some subset of them, have an extraordinarily high death rate, then surely we must do something to abolish prostitution.[27]

That “8 Cities” in fact often throws cold water on the standard abolitionist line can get lost amidst its uncritical references to “the literature,” references that imply that the weight of solid research lies behind many abolitionist claims. For example, consider the contention, examined above, that pimps target poor vulnerable and abused girls. “8 Cities” writes that “existing research” backs up this contention and cites the research:

Jody Raphael and Brenda Myers-Powell, “Interviews with Five Ex-pimps in Chicago,” DePaul University College of Law, April 2009

Jody Raphael and Brenda Myers-Powell, “From Victims to Victimizers: Interviews with 25 Ex-pimps in Chicago,” DePaul University College of Law, September 2010

Janice Raymond and Donna M. Hughes, “Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States,” Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, March 2001

Jeremy Wilson and Erin Dalton, “Human Trafficking in Ohio: Markets, Responses, and Considerations,” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007

The Raymond and Hughes piece we’ve already examined. It interviews no pimps at all and gets all its information from a few sex worker interviews and, principally, from the anonymous “service providers, advocates, and researchers” who appear frequently and decisively in it. The two pieces by Raphael and Meyers-Powell are worth reading but in doing so the reader will discover they are far from unbiased research undertakings. The pimps surveyed were selected and interviewed by a prostitution “survivor,” Meyer-Powell, and the interviews were a continuation of prior studies by Raphael, all predicated on the starting point that prostitution is violence against women. “Survivors” are former prostitutes who do “not see their own experiences as ‘work’ or a choice they had made.” Raphael and Myers-Powell do not hide the fact that their sample of pimps is unrepresentative. However, the biases in these studies don’t come across to the reader of “8 Cities” when the studies are referred to indiscriminately as part of “the literature.”

(The fourth piece of “existing research” mentioned was funded by the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police and carried out by the Rand Foundation. Neither the Association nor Rand have an evident bias. The study’s description of pimps is based on interviews and news accounts of 10 cases of sex trafficking in Toledo; otherwise it recycles the standard deliverances of “the literature.”)

That “8 Cities” mushes these four “sources” together as “the literature” doesn’t signify a particular failing on its part. It simply follows the format common to all the writing about prostitution and trafficking. This makes reading about prostitution and trafficking a particularly challenging affair. Nothing can be taken at face value; sources can’t be granted the benefit of the doubt; double-checking becomes the order of the day.


From “CSEC-NY,” we learn several things.

We learn there are as many male juvenile prostitutes in New York City as female. This should not be surprising; other studies have indicated similar patterns.[30] Yet all abolitionist agitation treats prostitution and sex-trafficking as problems involving girls and women.

We learn that most of the juvenile prostitutes, even most of the female prostitutes, manage on their own, without pimps. This goes against the abolitionist claim that 90% or more are under the thumb of pimps.[31]

We learn that the main source of recruitment is friends.[32]

We learn that the money is attractive.[33]

We learn that the juvenile prostitutes are escaping violent and unstable family situations and that many of them prize their independence from adult rules and restrictions.[34]

We learn that the violence is a part of life for these juveniles.[35]

From “8 Cities,” we learn several things.

We learn that underground sex economies are widespread, multifaceted, and incompletely comprehended by police.

We learn that, though pimps occupy a substantial niche in the sex trade, overall only a segment of them live up to the classical stereotype – charismatic, ruthless, and controlling. We also learn that pimps come from the same socio-economic strata as the girls who work for them and often enter the trade in the same way – under the influence of family and friends.[36]

We learn that many, if not most, sex workers don’t use pimps.[37]

We learn that large populations of immigrant single men create a demand for sexual services supplied by specialized brothels, whose inmates may or may not be trafficked, more often occupying a nether region characterized by back and forth illegal immigration, debt, and less than ideal working conditions.[38]

We learn that violence from clients, pimps, and competing sex workers shadows prostitutes, some more so than others.[39]

We learn where pimps typically recruit[40]

8 Cities Picture

We learn that for sex workers money is the lure.[41]

One further thing we learn from “CSEC-NY” and “8 Cities” is how little we know. Their researches illuminate small corners of an admittedly large zone of commercial exchange. For example, “8 Cities” estimates that $103,000,000 was spent during 2007 in the Washington, DC illegal sex economy. District of Columbia arrest rates, police and prosecutor reports, testimony by service providers, pimps, and sex workers barely touch the surface of this enterprise. So, too, with the other seven cities surveyed. In all the cities, police and prosecutors have only of vague understanding of recruitment and migration into and out of ethnic brothels, massage parlors, high-end escort services, and the proliferation of Internet entrepreneurialism (pimped and independent) on Backpage, Adult Friend Finder, SeekingArrangement, Eros dot com, and scores of other sites that make commercial sexual exchange easy. More importantly, authorities disagree with one another about the nature and extent of prostitution in their jurisdictions, and disagree with other observers and principals, as well. Nor do the stories of the latter always mesh.

These disagreements and differences are magnified in various studies and commentaries by the inartful deployment of crucial concepts, by ambiguity and equivocation, and by arguments full of missing premises.



[1] CATW stands for Coalition Against Trafficking In Women; “abolitionists” are those committed to “abolishing” prostitution through attacks on “demand,” principally by making the purchase, but not the sale, of sex a criminal offense.

[2] Janice G. Raymond and Donna M. Hughes, “Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States: International and Domestic Trends” (Washington, DC: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, March 2001), pp. 10-11 (“Pimps recruit young, vulnerable U.S. women in malls and clubs by befriending and creating emotional and drug or alcohol dependencies to entrap them. Pimps are also adept at preying upon women’s vulnerabilities. Coercion and violence are also used . . . . Women were isolated, confined and guarded to prevent them from leaving. Thirty-five percent of international women, and 64 percent of U.S. women were held in isolation and under guard in brothels or compounds.”), 41 (“pimps are criminals who control the women on a day-to-day basis.”), 52 (“Drug and alcohol dependencies are tools that pimps use to manipulate and maintain control over women.”), 59 (“Law enforcement officials also reported that trafficked women lacked basic freedom of movement.”), 62-63 (“violence was used for sexual gratification of the pimps and traffickers, as a form of punishment, to threaten and intimidate women, to exert the perpetrator’s own dominance, to exact compliance, to punish women for alleged ‘violations,’ to humiliate women, and to isolate and confine women.”), 65 (“Fifty percent (N=7) of the international women and 71 percent (N=11) of the U.S. women said that drugs and alcohol were used to control them.”).

[3] Sex Trafficking, p. 53.

[4] Sex Trafficking, p. 53. This is indeed contradicted by another part of Sex Trafficking, p. 22.

[5] 8 Cities, pp. 60, 73, 121.

[6] 8 Cities, p. 69.

[7] 8 Cities, pp. 187, 154 (“Some respondents described going days or weeks without speaking to their employees, and reported that they gave employees liberty to determine fees. Pimping often occurs with little evidence of direct, hands-on management by pimps over employees.”)

[8] Sex Trafficking, pp. 29, 43.

[9] Sex Trafficking p. 33.

[10] 8 Cities, p. 118.

[11] 8 Cities, p. 158.

[12] 8 Cities, pp. 70, 80, 91, 104, 117.

[13] 8 Cities, p. 176.

[14] Sex Trafficking, pp. 61, 63, 64.

[15] Sex Trafficking, p. 45.

[16] Sex Trafficking, pp. 63 (incomprehension), 76 (underreporting).

[17] Sex Trafficking, pp. 61 (law enforcement officers uninformed), 63 (law enforcement officers in the grip of myths).

[18] The coherence of Sex Trafficking is not perfect. At one point, Raymond and Hughes write: “The range of jobs that both groups of women [the “international” and “domestic” prostitutes] held before entrance into the sex industry were varied: waitress, store manager, certified nurse’s assistant, cosmetologist, receptionist, salesperson, kindergarten teacher, restaurant manager, knitter, food service worker, caretaker for the disabled, bartender, asbestos remover, horticulturist, security guard, express mail and package worker, lab assistant, chef, maintenance, and airport shuttle driver. Three international women held jobs as teachers, one a music teacher who became an accountant, and one was a nurse.” They evidently gathered this information from the sex workers themselves. They go on to write: “Social service providers, advocates and researchers reported that women’s jobs prior to entering the sex industry were minimum wage jobs, factory workers in Korea, nursing, lingerie modeling and sweatshop work.” Sex Trafficking, p. 45. This is quite a different list. Usually Raymond and Hughes give great credence to the observations of “social service providers, advocates, and researchers” but they leave this conflict unresolved. Another small disunity in Sex Trafficking occurs when the authors assert that, as the international and domestic prostitutes move from city to city, 70% of the former and 36% of the latter “traveled alone,” while also insisting that pimps and traffickers maintained tight day-to-day control over their prostitutes. Sex Trafficking pp. 54, 59.

[19] 8 Cities, p. 163.

[20] 8 Cities, pp. 163-164.

[21] John J. Potterat, Devon D. Brewer, Stephen Q. Muth, Richard B. Rothenberg, Donald E. Woodhouse, John B. Muth, Heather K. Stites, and Stuart Brody, “Mortality in a Long-term Open Cohort of Prostitute Women,” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 159, no. 8 (2004), pp. 778-785.

[22] Potterat, p. 781.

[23] Potterat et al., pp. 784, 783. Emphasis added.

[24] 8 Cities, p. 219. Emphasis added.

[25] Devon D. Brewer, Jonathan A. Dudek, John J. Potterat, Stephen Q. Muth, John M. Roberts, Jr., and Donald E. Woodhouse, “Extent, Trends, and Perpetrators of Prostitution- Related Homicide in the United States,” Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 51 (September 2006), pp. 1101-1108.

[26] 8 Cities, p. 219.

[27] No one, to my knowledge, has done a study of the death rate of massage parlor workers (who labor not alone but in a common space with other workers and managers), or of brothel workers, bar girls, escorts, call girls, and other such sex workers. If streetwalkers make up 10% or 20% or 30% of prostitutes as a whole, their mortality rate is not very informative about prostitution in general.

[28] See Jody Raphael and Deborah L. Shapiro, “Sisters Speak Out: The Lives and Needs of Prostituted Women in Chicago,” Chicago: Center for Impact Research, August 2002, pp. 8-9: “There are two primary, opposing views of prostitution: one is that prostitution is a form of violence against and exploitation of women; the other is that prostitution is an industry that women (or men) can choose as their job or career. This research project was not intended to be used an argument for either view, but rather to collect data on the experiences of prostituted women in the Chicago area. There are data from women reporting violence and an inability to leave prostitution, as well as women who indicate they can leave if they so choose. However, the research project itself was designed and implemented within the framework of prostitution as a form of violence and exploitation. For example, the surveyors were survivors of prostitution who did not see their own experiences as “work” or a choice they had made. While every attempt has been made to interpret the data objectively, the survey questions and administration were likely biased to some degree by working within this framework. While we acknowledge our potential bias, we do not believe that this conceptualization of prostitution detracts from the importance of the findings presented in this report.”

[29] “This convenience sample cannot be deemed to represent the entire world of pimps,” Jody Raphael and Brenda Myers-Powell, “Interviews with Five Ex-pimps in Chicago,” DePaul University College of Law, April 2009, p. 8; “This convenience sample cannot be deemed to represent the entire world of pimps,” Jody Raphael and Brenda Myers-Powell, “From Victims to Victimizers: Interviews with 25 Ex-pimps in Chicago,” DePaul University College of Law, September 2010, Introduction.

[30] Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, “The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the U. S., Canada and Mexico,” Center for the Study of Youth Policy, School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania (2001), p. 60 (“A larger percentage of boys report engaging in commercial sex for money and pleasure more often than girls.”); David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod, “Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2004 (Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice), p. 5 (“[J]uvenile prostitution offenders known to police [as reported in the NIBRS system] were more often male (61 percent) than female (39 percent), a greater disproportion than among adult prostitution offenders (53 percent male and 47 percent female), Likewise, several population surveys in Sweden over the last two decades show a similar pattern. A 1996 survey showed that .05% of Swedish males had sold sex sometime in their lives, while .04% of Swedish females had. A 2008 survey produced similar numbers: 1.4% and 1.1%. A 2003/2004 survey of students showed that 1.7% of boys had sold sex in contrast to 1.0% girls. A 2009 survey showed 1.8% versus 1.2%. See Gisela Priebe and Carl Göran Svedin, “Selling and Buying Sex in Sweden 2011: Prevalence, Health and Attitudes” (Sälja och köpa sex i Sverige 2011: Förekomst, hälsa och attityder), Linköping University Electronic Press, 2012,, p. 8. See also D. Kelly Weisberg, Children of the Night: A Study of Adolescent Prostitution (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985), pp. 43-83.

[31] CSEC-NY, pp. 28, 29-30, 58, 77 (Table), 116, 124.

[32] CSEC-NY, pp. 46, 49-53.

[33] CSEC-NY, pp. 103, 108, 117.

[34] CSEC-NY, p. 109.

[35] CSEC-NY, pp. 62, 75-76, 83, 85-87, 119-120.

[36] 8 Cities, pp. 137-141.

[37] 8 Cities, pp. 76, 89, 115, 216, 218, 250.

[38] 8 Cities, pp. 61, 71-73, 86, 93, 111, 112, 127.

[39] 8 Cities, pp. 64, 180, 243, 248.

[40] 8 Cities, p. 164.

[41] 8 Cities, pp. 222, 224, 229, 233-234.