Based on qualitative data from three sites (N = 76), we describe prostitute women’s agency and problematize dominant assumptions. Prostitute women exhibit creative, resilient, and rational conduct. Rejecting victimhood, our respondents demonstrate moral reasoning, make choices, work systems that dominate their lives, and assert power and control when they can. Their resistance, while serving a symbolic function, also expresses their system savvy and self-advocacy that produce measurable benefits. We distinguish between “being manipulative” and context-specific ethical conduct intended to further their survival.
AbramsK. (1995). Sex wars redux: Agency and coercion in feminist legal theory. Columbia Law Review, 95, 304-376.
2.
AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
3.
AndersonT. L. (2008). Neither villain nor victim: Empowerment and agency among women substance abusers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
BernsteinE. (2007). Temporarily yours: Intimacy, authenticity, and the commerce of sex. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
5.
BestR. K.EdelmanL. B.KriegerL. H.EliasonS. R. (2011). Multiple disadvantages: An empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation. Law & Society Review, 45, 991-1025.
6.
BumillerK. (1987). Victims in the shadow of the law. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 421-439.
7.
CaputoG. A. (2009). Early life trauma among women shoplifters and sex workers. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 2, 15-27.
8.
Chesney-LindM. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1, 6-26.
9.
CorriganR. (2013). Up against a wall: Rape reform and the failure of success. New York: New York University Press.
10.
CorriganR.ShdaimahC. S. (2012, January4). “These are people with secrets”: Victimization, objectification, and criminal justice strategies. Feminist Legal Theory Pre-Conference, Association of American Law Schools, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC.
EngelD. M.MungerF. W. (2003). Rights of inclusion: Law and identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80-92.
14.
FergusonK. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
15.
GaarderM.RodriguezN.ZaatzM. S. (2004). Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 21, 547-578.
16.
GustafsonK. (2012). Cheating welfare: Public assistance and the criminalization of poverty. New York: New York University Press.
17.
Hannah-MoffatK. (2010). Sacrosanct or flawed: Risk, accountability and gender-responsive penal politics. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22, 193-216.
18.
HornD. G. (2003). The criminal body: Lombroso and the anatomy of deviance. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
LambS. (1996). The trouble with blame: Victims, perpetrators, and responsibility. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LeonC. S.ShdaimahC. S. (2012). JUSTifying scrutiny: State power in prostitution diversion programs. Journal of Poverty, 16, 250-273.
21.
LeonC. S.SilvermanB.RalstonK. (2011). Delaware community health needs assessment (Report to the U.S. Office of Women’s Health). Delaware Coalition for a Healthier Community.
22.
LeverentzA. (2014). The ex-prisoner’s dilemma: How women negotiate competing narratives of reentry and desistance. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
23.
LombrosoC.FerreroG. (2004). Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman (GibsonM., Trans.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McCannM. (1996). Causal versus constitutive explanations (or, on the difficulty of being so positive . . .). Law & Social Inquiry, 21, 457-482.
26.
McCorkelJ. A. (2013). Breaking women: Gender, race, and the new politics of imprisonment. New York: New York University Press.
27.
MillerJ. (2002). Reconciling feminism and rational choice theory: Women’s agency in street crime. In PiqueroA. R.TibbetsS. G. (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges (pp. 219-240). New York, NY: Routledge.
O’BrienE. (2013). Ideal victims in human trafficking awareness campaigns. In CarringtonK.BallM.O’BrienE.TauriJ. M. (Eds.), Crime, justice and social democracy: International perspectives (pp. 315-326). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
OselinS. (2010). Weighing the consequences of a deviant career: Factors leading to an exit from prostitution. Sociological Perspectives, 53, 527-550. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.527
31.
OselinS.S.CobbinaJ. (forthcoming). ‘I got you:’ street prostitutes’ perceptions of protective strategies against violence. In Hail-JaresK.ShdaimahC.LeonC., New perspectives on street-based sex work. New York: Columbia University Press.
32.
PortilloS.RudesD. S.ViglioneJ.NelsonM. (2013). Front-stage stars and backstage producers: The role of judges in problem-solving courts. Victims & Offenders, 8(1), 1-22.
33.
RosenE.VenkateshS. A. (2008). A “perversion” of choice: Sex work offers just enough in Chicago’s urban ghetto. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37, 417-441.
SandsR. G. (2004). Narrative analysis: A feminist approach. In PadgettD. K. (Ed.), The qualitative research experience (pp. 48-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
ScottJ. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
ShdaimahC. S. (2010). Taking a stand in a not-so-perfect world: What’s a critical supporter to do?University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 10, 89-111.
38.
ShdaimahC.S.Bailey-KlochM. (2014). “Can you help me with that instead of putting me in Jail?”: Participant perspectives on Baltimore City’s Specialized Prostitution Diversion Program. Justice System Journal. DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2013.869154
39.
ShdaimahC. S.LeonC. S. (in press). Relationships among stigmatized women engaged in street level prostitution: Coping with stigma and stigma management. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society.
40.
ShdaimahC. S.WiecheltS. A. (2012). Crime and compassion: Women in prostitution at the intersection of criminality and victimization. International Review of Victimology19(1), 23-35.
41.
ShowdenC. (2011). Choices women make: Agency in domestic violence, assisted reproduction, and sex work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
SossJ. (2002). Unwanted claims the politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Van WormerK. (1999). The strengths perspective: A paradigm for correctional. Federal Probation, 63, 51-58.
44.
WeitzerR. (2005). Flawed theory and method in studies of prostitution. Violence Against Women, 11, 934-949.
45.
WiecheltS. A.ShdaimahC. S. (2011). Trauma and substance abuse among women in prostitution: Implications for a specialized diversion program. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1, 159-184.
46.
WilsonH. W.WidomC. S. (2008). An examination of risky sexual behavior and HIV in victims of child abuse and neglect: A 30-year follow-up. Health Psychology, 27, 149-158.
47.
WilsonH. W.WidomC. S. (2010). The role of youth problem behaviors in the path from child abuse and neglect to prostitution: A prospective examination. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 210-236.
48.
WyseJ. J. B. (2013). Rehabilitating criminal selves: Gendered strategies in community corrections. Gender & Society, 27, 231-255.
