Sex Work

Abstract

Sex work is a form of sexual behavior that cognitive psychology treats less as a moral category than as a domain of decision, perception, and emotion regulation. Its economics turn on a decision under risk: unprotected sex commands a measurable price premium, so the choice to accept or refuse it is a wager weighing money now against the expected cost of infection later. Its social reality turns on perception: stigma is a cascade of labeling, stereotyping, and separation that bites only where power lets it, and can tip into outright dehumanization. Its daily practice turns on emotional labor, the managed gap between performed and felt affect. Three demonstrations trace the risk premium, the stigma cascade, and emotional labor.

Keywords: sex work, decision-making, stigma, dehumanization, emotional labor

Sex work — the exchange of sexual services for money or goods — is usually argued about as a moral or legal question. Read through cognitive psychology it becomes something more tractable: a setting in which people make repeated decisions under risk, are perceived and categorized by others through the ordinary machinery of social perception, and manage their own emotions as deliberately as any frontline service worker. Each of those is a well-studied cognitive process, and each has been measured directly in the sex-work literature rather than assumed (Vanwesenbeeck, 2001; Weitzer, 2009).

Framing it this way does not moralize and does not romanticize. It asks what decisions are being made, how they are valued, how the people making them are perceived, and what that perception costs — the same questions cognitive science asks of any behavior. The influence runs both ways: economic and legal conditions shape the choices available, and the choices, in turn, shape health, safety, and the next decision (Shannon et al., 2015; Platt et al., 2018).

What Sex Work Is

Sex work, in the sense indexed by MeSH and used across the social-science literature, is the exchange of sexual services for money or other material compensation. The taxonomy files it in two places at once: as a form of sexual behavior, the parent descriptor under which it sits in the behavioral tree, and under social problems, reflecting its long treatment as a matter of policy and public health rather than psychology alone. That double placement is itself informative: sex work is simultaneously a behavior people choose and value, and a social situation structured by law, stigma, and economics (Weitzer, 2009; Benoit et al., 2019).

The field's own history is a shift in frame. Early research treated sex work as individual pathology — something to be explained by the worker's deficits. Four decades of empirical work replaced that with a labor-and-rights frame, in which sex work is understood as a form of service work carried out under widely varying conditions, and in which outcomes are explained far better by those conditions than by the people (Vanwesenbeeck, 2001; Vanwesenbeeck, 2017). Weitzer's polymorphous paradigm makes the point sharply: sex work is not one thing with one moral valence but a range of arrangements spanning coercion and agency, so any claim that treats it as uniformly degrading or uniformly empowering is contradicted by the variance in the data (Weitzer, 2009).

Three features make sex work a revealing case for cognitive psychology. It is decided: entering, and each transaction within it, involves valuation under risk and uncertainty (Edlund & Korn, 2002). It is perceived: the worker is categorized and stigmatized through ordinary social cognition, with measurable consequences (Benoit et al., 2018). And it is performed: the work demands managed emotion, a gap held open between what is displayed and what is felt (Sanders, 2005).

How Sex Work Intersects Cognition

Sex work touches cognitive psychology at three points, each a different process operating on the same activity. First, decision under risk: transactions are valued by weighing payment against the probability and cost of harm, which is why unprotected sex carries a price premium. Second, social cognition: the worker is labeled, stereotyped, and separated from the moral in-group, a stigma cascade that can deepen into dehumanization. Third, emotional labor: the work requires managing the distance between a performed sexual persona and private feeling. Table 1 lays out the three, and the three interactive demonstrations below take them in turn.

Table 1

Three Cognitive Problems Behind Sex Work

Note. The three problems are facets of one activity, not stages in a sequence; a worker decides, is perceived, and performs continuously. MeSH files Sex Work (D011477) under Sexual Behavior (F01.145.802.790) and under Social Problems (I01.880.735.679), and records no narrower descriptors beneath it, so the organizing structure here is cognitive rather than taxonomic.

Decision under risk: the condom premium

The first cognitive problem is how a transaction is valued when it carries a probabilistic cost. The cleanest evidence is the compensating differential for unprotected sex: clients pay more, and workers can charge more, to forgo a condom. The premium has been measured directly — in Calcutta, sex workers who used condoms earned less per transaction, so the price of safety was a real and quantified income loss (Rao et al., 2003) — and modeled as a market in which the premium reflects the expected health cost the parties are trading over (Gertler et al., 2005). This is a decision under risk in the textbook sense: accept the unprotected transaction only if its premium exceeds the probability of infection times the cost of infection, a comparison that prospect theory predicts will also be warped by how the gain and the loss are framed.

Two things follow. First, the premium is not evidence of irrationality; it is the price of a risk, and it moves as the expected cost moves — higher where infection is more likely or more damaging, lower where it is not. Second, and crucially, the risk is not fixed by the worker. Edlund and Korn's economic account explains why sex work pays a wage premium at all — it compensates for forgone alternatives and for risk (Edlund & Korn, 2002) — and the policy evidence shows the risk parameters are set by the environment: decriminalizing indoor sex work in one natural experiment reduced both sexual violence and sexually transmitted infection, shifting the whole decision toward safety (Cunningham & Shah, 2018). Changing the environment changes the expected cost, and the rational premium falls with it. Demo 1 makes the computation explicit: set the infection probability and the cost of infection, and the indifference premium — the price at which accepting and refusing are equally valued — is drawn against whatever premium is offered.

Social cognition: the stigma cascade

The second problem is how sex workers are perceived. Stigma is not a single attitude but a cascade, and Link and Phelan's model specifies its parts: a group is labeled as different, the label is linked to negative stereotypes, the labeled are separated into a distinct out-group (“them”), and they suffer status loss and discrimination — but, decisively, all of this operates only in a situation of power that lets the labeling group enforce it (Link & Phelan, 2001). That last condition is what makes stigma contingent rather than inevitable: strip out the power difference and the same labeling and stereotyping produce no discrimination. For sex workers the cascade is well documented and its effects are concrete — prostitution stigma measurably worsens working conditions, personal relationships, and health, operating as a cause of harm in its own right rather than a mere attitude (Benoit et al., 2018).

Stigma's severe form is dehumanization. Haslam's integrative model distinguishes two kinds: denying a group the uniquely human traits of civility, moral sensibility, and refinement, which casts them as animal-like, and denying them the human-nature traits of warmth, emotion, and individuality, which casts them as object-like (Haslam, 2006). Sex workers are a recurring target of both, and the dehumanizing perception is precisely what licenses the violence and rights violations the structural literature records (Decker et al., 2015). Seeing stigma as a cognitive cascade gated by power, rather than as a free-floating disapproval, is what makes it addressable: the interventions that work act on the power and the separation, not on persuading individuals to disapprove less (Benoit et al., 2019). Demo 2 runs the cascade: labeling, stereotyping, and separation each contribute, but a power control gates the whole product, so setting power to zero collapses discrimination to nothing however strong the stereotypes.

Emotional labor: performed versus felt

The third problem runs inward: sex work is emotional labor, the managed production of a feeling-display for pay. Sanders's ethnographic account — captured in the phrase “it's just acting” — shows workers constructing a sexual persona and holding it deliberately apart from their private selves, using the same surface acting (displaying an emotion not felt) and deep acting (working oneself into actually feeling it) that Hochschild first identified as the core of emotion work (Hochschild, 1979; Sanders, 2005). The gap between the performed persona and genuine feeling is emotional dissonance, and sustaining it is cognitively costly — the same mechanism implicated in burnout across emotion-work occupations.

What makes the sex-work case theoretically sharp is the manufactured boundary. Rather than suffer the dissonance, many workers build an explicit separation — a working name, a scripted persona, rules about which acts and which emotions are off-limits — that absorbs the dissonance and protects the private self. The stronger and clearer the boundary, the less the performed/felt gap costs; where the boundary is thin or breached, the cost rises, which is one route by which conditions translate into the elevated distress some studies find (Rössler et al., 2010). This reframes “it's just acting” not as denial but as a competent regulatory strategy, and it predicts that the psychological toll of the work depends less on the acts themselves than on whether the worker can keep persona and self apart — which, in turn, the working conditions either permit or prevent (Sanders, 2005; Benoit et al., 2018). Demo 3 makes the trade-off visible: set the performed and felt affect and the strength of the manufactured boundary, and the self-cost of the dissonance is shown shrinking as the boundary does its work.

Worked Example

Model the condom decision to see why unprotected sex carries a premium and why a safer environment shrinks it. Represent the choice as a comparison of two values. Refusing the extra payment keeps the worker protected: value 0 change, risk unchanged. Accepting an unprotected transaction adds a premium Δ to income but incurs an expected health cost equal to the per-encounter infection probability p times the monetized cost of infection H. A risk-neutral decision-maker accepts only if

Δ ≥ p × H,

so the indifference premium — the price at which accepting and refusing are equally valued — is Δ = p × H. Take a per-encounter infection probability p = 0.02 and a monetized infection cost H* = 5,000 (in the same units as the fee). Then

Δ* = 0.02 × 5000 = 100.

An offered premium above 100 is, on these numbers, a wager worth taking; one below 100 is not. The figure of 100 is not a moral statement — it is the expected cost of the risk expressed as a price. Now change the environment, not the worker: suppose decriminalization and safer conditions halve the per-encounter infection probability to p = 0.01, consistent with the direction of the policy evidence (Cunningham & Shah, 2018). The indifference premium falls to

Δ* = 0.01 × 5000 = 50,

so the same worker now rationally accepts unprotected transactions at half the former price — or, read the other way, the market price of safety has halved. The premium tracked the risk, and the risk was set by the environment, not by the person facing it (Rao et al., 2003; Gertler et al., 2005). Prospect theory adds one wrinkle the risk-neutral version omits: because a certain gain (the premium, now) tends to be overweighted against a probabilistic loss (infection, later), real decisions may accept premiums somewhat below Δ, especially under economic pressure. Demo 1 runs exactly this computation, letting p, H*, and the offered premium vary so the threshold crossing can be watched directly.

Discussion

Reading sex work through cognition does two useful things. It relocates explanation from the person to the situation: if transactions are decisions under risk, if stigma is a power-gated cascade, and if distress tracks the breachability of a manufactured boundary, then the strongest levers on outcomes are the risk environment, the power behind stigma, and the working conditions — not the character of the worker. That is exactly what the structural-determinants literature finds, with legal and physical environment predicting violence and disease far better than any individual variable (Shannon et al., 2015; Platt et al., 2018). And it dissolves the tired empowerment-versus-oppression dichotomy: a polymorphous activity spanning coercion and agency will show both, and the cognitive variables — what is decided, how it is perceived, how it is performed — are what vary across that range (Weitzer, 2009; Vanwesenbeeck, 2017).

Two cautions keep the account honest. First, a cognitive framing is not a claim that every transaction is freely and coolly chosen; coercion, trafficking, and economic desperation are real and shift the decision's parameters to the point where “choice” is the wrong word, and the risk model describes the trade-off being imposed, not an endorsement of it (Decker et al., 2015). Second, much of the strongest quantitative evidence comes from specific populations — female workers, particular cities, particular legal regimes — and generalizing across the full range of sex work demands care (Vanwesenbeeck, 2001). The mechanisms are well supported; the complete mapping from cognition to outcome across every kind of sex work is still being drawn.

Current Directions

The most active front is the policy experiment. Natural experiments in decriminalization and in the various “end-demand” (client-criminalizing) models are being used to test, rather than assert, how the legal environment changes the risk parameters that the decision model takes as inputs — with the strongest reviews to date finding that criminalization worsens health and safety while decriminalization improves them (Platt et al., 2018; Cunningham & Shah, 2018). A second front develops the stigma account into something measurable and interveneable, distinguishing the components of the cascade so that interventions can target the power and separation that drive discrimination rather than individual attitudes (Benoit et al., 2019). A third extends the structural-determinants model with better data on how environment, stigma, and decision interact to produce the sharp disparities in HIV and violence that the global epidemiology documents (Shannon et al., 2015; Decker et al., 2015). The question uniting them is whether the outcomes of sex work are best changed by acting on the people in it or on the conditions that set what they decide, how they are seen, and what their work costs them.

Common Misconceptions

The premium for unprotected sex shows that sex workers are reckless.

It shows the opposite. A compensating differential is the price of a measured risk: the premium rises and falls with the expected cost of infection, exactly as a rational trade-off under risk predicts. Treating it as recklessness misses that it is a priced wager whose terms are set largely by the risk environment, not by indifference to harm (Rao et al., 2003; Gertler et al., 2005).

Stigma against sex workers is just disapproval, and harmless.

Stigma is a cascade — labeling, stereotyping, separation, and discrimination — that produces real, measured harm to working conditions, relationships, and health, and it operates only where a power difference enforces it. Because it is a mechanism and not a mood, it causes outcomes and can be targeted at the power and separation that drive it (Link & Phelan, 2001; Benoit et al., 2018).

Sex work is either inherently empowering or inherently degrading.

Neither, as a blanket claim. The activity is polymorphous, spanning coercion and agency, so the data show both outcomes depending on conditions. Any theory that fixes a single moral valence is contradicted by the variance; what varies is the decision, the perception, and the conditions (Weitzer, 2009; Vanwesenbeeck, 2017).

If a worker says “it's just acting,” they are in denial.

“It's just acting” is better read as a competent emotion-regulation strategy. Building a manufactured boundary between a performed persona and the private self absorbs emotional dissonance and limits its cost; the phrase names the boundary, not a refusal to feel. Distress rises when conditions make that boundary hard to maintain, not because the strategy is self-deception (Sanders, 2005; Rössler et al., 2010).

Glossary

Compensating differential.

The extra payment that offsets a worse or riskier condition of work; for sex work, the measurable premium attached to unprotected transactions, which prices the expected cost of infection (Rao et al., 2003).

Decision under risk.

A choice whose outcomes have known or estimable probabilities; the condom decision is valued by comparing a premium against the probability of infection times its cost (Gertler et al., 2005).

Deep acting.

Emotion work in which a person induces the feeling they must display, rather than merely simulating it; one of the two strategies workers use to produce a sexual persona (Sanders, 2005).

Dehumanization.

The denial of uniquely human traits (casting a person as animal-like) or of human-nature traits (casting them as object-like); the severe form of stigma that licenses violence and rights violations (Haslam, 2006).

Emotional dissonance.

The gap between a performed emotional display and genuine private feeling; sustaining it is cognitively costly and is the mechanism behind emotion-work burnout (Sanders, 2005).

Emotional labor.

The managed production of a feeling-display as part of paid work; in sex work it is the deliberate holding-apart of a performed persona from the private self (Sanders, 2005).

Labeling.

The first step of the stigma cascade, in which a human difference is selected and named as socially significant; a precondition for the stereotyping and separation that follow (Link & Phelan, 2001).

Polymorphous paradigm.

Weitzer's view that sex work is not one thing with one moral valence but a range of arrangements spanning coercion and agency, so outcomes vary with conditions (Weitzer, 2009).

Risk premium.

The extra compensation demanded to bear a risk; here, the amount by which an unprotected transaction must be priced above a protected one to be worth accepting (Edlund & Korn, 2002).

Separation.

The stigma-cascade step in which the labeled group is set apart as a distinct out-group (“them”), enabling status loss and discrimination to follow (Link & Phelan, 2001).

Sex work.

The exchange of sexual services for money or material compensation; cognitively, a setting of decision under risk, social perception, and emotional labor (Weitzer, 2009).

Sexual behavior.

The parent category under which MeSH files sex work; the broad class of behavior within which the paid exchange of sexual services is one form (Vanwesenbeeck, 2001).

Stereotyping.

The stigma-cascade step that links a label to negative attributes, so the labeled person is assumed to carry a cluster of disvalued traits (Link & Phelan, 2001).

Stigma.

The co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, and status loss in a situation of power; a cause of measured harm to sex workers' conditions and health, not a mere attitude (Benoit et al., 2018).

Structural determinants.

The legal, physical, and economic conditions that shape sex workers' risk; the strongest predictors of violence and disease, locating risk in the environment rather than the person (Shannon et al., 2015).

Surface acting.

Emotion work in which a person displays an emotion they do not feel; the more dissonance-prone of the two acting strategies, and a driver of emotional cost when the boundary is thin (Sanders, 2005).

Key Researchers

Cecilia Benoit

(University of Victoria, Sociology; Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research). Established that prostitution stigma is a measurable cause of harm to working conditions and health, and reframed the “prostitution problem” as a question of claims, evidence, and policy rather than individual pathology. ORCID · Faculty page

Nick Haslam

(University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences). Produced the integrative model of dehumanization — the denial of uniquely human and human-nature traits — that supplies the social-cognitive mechanism behind the severe form of sex-work stigma. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Teela Sanders

(University of Leicester, Criminology). Showed that sex work is emotional labor, with workers constructing a manufactured persona — “it's just acting” — that holds the performed self apart from the private one as a regulatory strategy. Google Scholar · Faculty page

Kate Shannon

(University of British Columbia, Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity). Built the structural-determinants model of sex-work risk, showing that the legal and physical environment, not the worker's choices, drives the global epidemiology of HIV and violence. Faculty page

Ine Vanwesenbeeck

(Utrecht University, Social and Behavioural Sciences). Reviewed four decades of social-scientific research on sex work, documenting the field's shift from a pathology frame to a labor-and-rights frame and arguing that criminalization targets the wrong cause. ORCID · Faculty page

Ronald Weitzer

(George Washington University, Professor Emeritus of Sociology). Developed the polymorphous paradigm, distinguishing coercion from agency across sex-work markets and showing that no single moral valence fits the variance in the data. Faculty page

Frequently Asked Questions

How is sex work a decision-making problem rather than a moral one?

Cognitive psychology treats each transaction in sex work as a decision under risk: a choice whose outcomes carry estimable probabilities and costs. The clearest case is the condom decision, where accepting unprotected sex adds a premium to income but incurs an expected health cost equal to the probability of infection times its severity. A worker who accepts only when the premium exceeds that expected cost is making a rational trade-off, not a moral failing. This framing does not endorse the choice or ignore coercion; it identifies what is actually being weighed, which is what lets research measure how the decision changes when the risk environment changes rather than arguing about the morality of the activity.

Why does unprotected sex cost more, and what does the premium reveal about risk?

Unprotected sex commands a compensating differential — a measured price premium — because it carries a higher expected health cost that someone must be paid to bear. Studies have quantified it directly: condom-using transactions earn less, so the premium is the market price of the infection risk being traded over. The premium therefore reveals how the parties value the risk: it rises where infection is more likely or more damaging and falls where the environment is safer. That is why decriminalization, which lowers the per-encounter risk, also lowers the rational premium — the price tracks the risk, and the risk is set largely by legal and physical conditions rather than by the individual.

How does stigma against sex workers actually work as a cognitive process?

Stigma is a cascade of four linked steps operating through ordinary social cognition. A group is labeled as different; the label is tied to negative stereotypes; the labeled are separated into an out-group; and they suffer status loss and discrimination. The decisive condition is power: the cascade produces real discrimination only where a power difference lets the labeling group enforce it. For sex workers this cascade measurably worsens working conditions, relationships, and health, so it is a cause of harm rather than a passive attitude. Because it is a mechanism with identifiable parts, interventions can target the power and separation that drive it rather than trying to change individual disapproval.

What is the difference between stigma and dehumanization of sex workers?

Stigma is the cascade of labeling, stereotyping, separation, and discrimination; dehumanization is its severe form, in which the target is denied full humanity. Haslam's model distinguishes two kinds: denying uniquely human traits such as moral sensibility and refinement, which casts a person as animal-like, and denying human-nature traits such as warmth and emotion, which casts them as object-like. Sex workers are a documented target of both. The distinction matters because dehumanization is what licenses violence and rights violations: it is not merely a stronger disapproval but a perceptual shift that removes the target from the circle of moral consideration, which is why it predicts the most serious harms.

Is emotional labor in sex work psychologically harmful, and what protects against it?

Emotional labor — producing a feeling-display for pay — is costly when it forces a persistent gap between performed and felt emotion, the state called emotional dissonance that drives burnout across service occupations. What protects against it in sex work is a manufactured boundary: a working persona, a stage name, and explicit rules that hold the public performance apart from the private self. The stronger and clearer that boundary, the less the dissonance costs; distress rises mainly where conditions make the boundary hard to maintain. So the psychological toll depends less on the sexual acts than on whether the worker can keep persona and self separate, which the working conditions either permit or prevent.

Does entering or leaving sex work change a person's later decision-making?

The influence runs in both directions. Economic and legal conditions shape the choices available, and the experience of the work — its earnings, its risks, its stigma — feeds back into what a person expects and pursues next. A worker who has priced the infection risk, managed the emotional labor, and absorbed the stigma carries those updated expectations into future decisions, including whether to continue, how to negotiate, and how much safety to demand. This is why outcomes cannot be read from a single snapshot: sex work is a sequence of decisions in which each transaction updates the valuation the next one starts from, and the structural environment sets the terms throughout.

Why do researchers say the risks of sex work are structural rather than personal?

Because the data show that the legal and physical environment predicts violence and disease far better than any trait of the worker. Where sex work is criminalized or pushed into isolated settings, rates of violence and infection rise; where it is decriminalized and conducted in safer conditions, they fall. The same person faces very different risks under different regimes, which locates the cause in the situation rather than the individual. This structural-determinants view reframes prevention: the effective levers are law, policing, and working conditions — the parameters that set what a worker can decide and how safely — not interventions aimed at changing the workers themselves.

How does decriminalization change the cognitive calculus of sex work?

Decriminalization changes the inputs to the decision rather than the decision-maker. By lowering the per-encounter probability of violence and infection, it reduces the expected cost that the condom premium prices, so the rational premium for unprotected sex falls and safer transactions become easier to insist on. By reducing the power imbalance that enforces stigma, it weakens the cascade that turns labeling into discrimination. And by making the working environment more controllable, it strengthens the manufactured boundary that limits emotional cost. In each facet the same cognitive process is at work, but the parameters are friendlier — which is why natural experiments in decriminalization show improved health and safety.

References

Benoit, C., Jansson, S. M., Smith, M., & Flagg, J. (2018). Prostitution stigma and its effect on the working conditions, personal lives, and health of sex workers. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(4–5), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1393652

Benoit, C., Smith, M., Jansson, M., Healey, P., & Magnuson, D. (2019). "The prostitution problem": Claims, evidence, and policy outcomes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(7), 1905–1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1276-6

Cunningham, S., & Shah, M. (2018). Decriminalizing indoor prostitution: Implications for sexual violence and public health. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(3), 1683–1715. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdx065

Decker, M. R., Crago, A.-L., Chu, S. K. H., Sherman, S. G., Seshu, M. S., Buthelezi, K., Dhaliwal, M., & Beyrer, C. (2015). Human rights violations against sex workers: Burden and effect on HIV. The Lancet, 385(9963), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60800-X

Edlund, L., & Korn, E. (2002). A theory of prostitution. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1086/324390

Gertler, P., Shah, M., & Bertozzi, S. M. (2005). Risky business: The market for unprotected commercial sex. Journal of Political Economy, 113(3), 518–550. https://doi.org/10.1086/429700

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

Platt, L., Grenfell, P., Meiksin, R., Elmes, J., Sherman, S. G., Sanders, T., Mwangi, P., & Crago, A.-L. (2018). Associations between sex work laws and sex workers' health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies. PLoS Medicine, 15(12), e1002680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680

Rao, V., Gupta, I., Lokshin, M., & Jana, S. (2003). Sex workers and the cost of safe sex: The compensating differential for condom use among Calcutta prostitutes. Journal of Development Economics, 71(2), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00025-7

Rössler, W., Koch, U., Lauber, C., Hass, A.-K., Altwegg, M., Ajdacic-Gross, V., & Landolt, K. (2010). The mental health of female sex workers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 122(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01533.x

Sanders, T. (2005). 'It's just acting': Sex workers' strategies for capitalizing on sexuality. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00276.x

Shannon, K., Strathdee, S. A., Goldenberg, S. M., Duff, P., Mwangi, P., Rusakova, M., Reza-Paul, S., Lau, J., Deering, K., Pickles, M. R., & Boily, M.-C. (2015). Global epidemiology of HIV among female sex workers: Influence of structural determinants. The Lancet, 385(9962), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60931-4

Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2001). Another decade of social scientific work on sex work: A review of research 1990–2000. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12(1), 242–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2001.10559799

Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2017). Sex work criminalization is barking up the wrong tree. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(6), 1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1008-3

Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120025