Who coined the term “sex work”? What was the context in which they did so?

Answer the four questions below according to the readings (see attachments, there should be 7 readings, 3 of them are uploaded below, other 4 are URLs in the doc.); each answer should be 150-200 words.

Who coined the term “sex work”? What was the context in which they did so?

What are some of the labor issues within porn work that Berg presents?

In your own words, how would you describe carceral feminism? How does Maynard argue it comes into play regarding sex work and workers?

What cities/regions besides Chicago do Ritchie and Schultz look at? What are some of the issues or efforts taking place in those other areas?

Requirements: 600-800 words

Male sex work in the porn industry: genderingrisk and protectionHeather BergDave Pounder, a porn performer/director/producer, laughed when 1 askedwhat he thought of straight pornÕs gender dynamics, especially theconvention of paying men half the rates women command. I wanted to knowit, having been a performer himself, Dave had tried to do things differentlywhen he was writing the cheques. Dave explained that the question for himin deciding rates is ÒWhat is the lowest rate I can pay people where IÕd stillget people to shoot for me?Ó:Most guys want to do porn. Most girls donÕt want to do porn. It you Þndsomeone whoÕs willing, the only reason they want to do it is because theyÕregetting paid. If you pay the guys halt of what you pay the girls, theyÕre stillgonna want to do it. … I donÕt want to lowball guys. It I get a crappy guy whocanÕt perform, I paid the location, I paid for the girl, if he climaxes in twominutes I have to shoot all over again.(2014)DaveÕs response points to the centralÑand contradictoryÑfeatures otcisgender menÕs work in the porn industry. Their work is both subject tointense pressureÑa manÕs performance can make or break a sceneÑandsystematically devalued. Thus, men performers are at once marked asdisposable and in possession ot hard-to-Þnd skills.Home Sociology12

In this chapter, I explore how gender shapes working conditions in the U.S.porn industry, along with the public policy responses to those conditions. Onthe one hand, an employment law apparatus organized around a Fordistworkplace makes porn workers, like other feminized and contingent workers,precarious. On the other hand, anti-porn critics construct porn work as a siteot sensationalized feminine sexual vulnerability. The result directs policy andpopular attention away from the mundane workplace risks that porn workersof all genders face. In fact, when performers speak about feeling ÒexploitedÓor Òtaken advantage ot,Ó they are almost always referring to workingconditions and pay, not to bad or violent sex. And, contrary to the dominantnarrative, cisgender (or ÒcisÓ) women are not uniquely vulnerable toworkplace abuse.I begin this chapter by describing porn work as feminized labor. As a kindof work associated with physical and emotional intimacy, porn work shouldbe understood as feminized work even when the performers are not ciswomen workers. 1 then provide an overview of the conditions of porn workand the ill-Þtting legal structures that attempt to regulate the work. Theworkplace strains that workers identify as most pressing emanate directlyfrom an employment law system that excludes feminized jobs. Finally, 1explore how gender norms shape menÕs experience ot porn work on set. Thischapter asks, ÒWhat can a Materialist feminist lens reveal about menÕs pornwork?ÓThe interviews 1 quote here come from my research on labor in the pornindustry, which explores labor politics and work processes in pornÕs variousgenres. The research is grounded in 81 interviews 1 conducted between2012 and 2015 with U.S. adult him industry performers, managers, and crewof diverse gendered, ethnic, age, sexual, and other identities. My Þeldworkalso included observations of porn sets, trade meetings, and conventions.34

This chapterÕs focus on cis men performers reveals the speciÞc conditionsthey encounter. It also identiÞes the strains that many porn workers describeas they labor in jobs that are at once largely invisible as sites of economicstruggle and hyper-visible as sites of gendered violence.Porn as feminized laborPorn work is feminized labor in two key ways. First, like other sexuallabors, it is dominated by women workers, though not to the extent mostscholars assume (see Smith, 2012). Second, porn work is feminized in themore expansive sense in which Materialist feminists deploy the term. Here,ÒfeminizationÓ signals not only workersÕ identities but also the workÕsgendered meanings. Feminized labor is work that, as Rosemary Hennessydescribes it, carries Òthe marks of femininity,Ó and workers of all genders canÞnd their labor thus marked (2006b, p. 390). Femininity marks labor asunskilled, cheap, and replaceable. It also works as Òthe glue that bindscorporate and state impunity,Ó subjecting feminized workers to workplace risk(Hennessy, 2006b, p. 390). Similarly, Christina Morini describes the waysthat feminization shapes the Òadministration of labour (precariousness,mobility, fragmentary nature, low salaries)Ó and its Òcontents . . . capacitiestor relationships, emotional aspects, linguistic aspects, propensity for careÓ(2007, p. 42).Hennessy refers to the feminization of factory labor and Morini to labor inwhat she calls Òcognitive capitalism,Ó but their analyses help to explain powerin porn too. Regardless of the genders of those performing in any givenscene, porn and other sex work are marked as feminized and thus madeprecarious. Porn work is certainly subject to Òcorporate and state impunityÓÑas we see in the industryÕs propensity for ßouting labor law and the statesconcerted lack of interest in enforcing it. We also see in porn work themarks of feminization that Morini describes. It is precarious and fragmented,3

with short career spans for most performers. It is also marked byhypermobility, with workers performing multiple roles and moving amongsectors of the industry. Most performers make a middling income, and so thelow-salary criterion does not quite Þt here. Sex work is unique in this respect;it is one form of feminized work in which the Òmarks of femininityÓ do nottranslate into lower pay.Porn carries the marks of femininity in terms of its ÒcontentsÓ too. Withintense demands for emotional and bodily labor, it blurs the boundariesbetween life and workÑanother characteristic of feminized work (see Boris &Parrenas, 2010). ÒWorkÓ here means Òless and less a circumscribed part oflife and more and more a comprehensive actionÓ (Morini, 2007, p. 44).Indeed, porn workers encounter a boundless workday, populated by laborsdone oft set and off the clockÑself-marketing, readying the body for work,and resting from it.Porn workers ot all genders do this feminized labor, a reality that getsobscured in readings that reduce ÒfeminizedÓ to simply Òdone by women.ÓNicola Smith warns of this tendency in sex work research especially,describing aconceptual leap in which the sex industry is not only explored as afeminized sphere of workÑthat is, as marginalized and denigrated becauseof its association with the private realm of erotic/aftective lifeÑbut is alsodirectly attached to female bodiesÑthat is, as labor that is not justdiscursively constructed as ÒwomenÕs workÓ but that is, in reality, ÒwomenÕswork.Ó(2012, p. 590)In such constructions, sex work comes to be understood as an exclusivelyheterosexual phenomenon, with men buying and women selling. Here, even6

heterosexual phenomenon, with men buying and women selling. Here, evenfeminist analyses posit a Ògender order in which sexual objectiÞcation is tiedto female bodies and sexual subjectivity is tied to male onesÓ (Smith, 2012,p. 590). Such analyses reßect trans workersÕ self-identiÞcations unevenly,sometimes constructing trans women as vulnerable as women and transmen as invisible as men, sometimes mis-gendering them, and sometimesignoring their existence all together.We see gendered stereotypes even where research engages sex workerswho do not identify as cis women. In this textÕs previous volume, John Scottand Victor Minichiello describe the tendency to present female sex workersÒas a passive ÔsupplyÕ population, and male ones as Ômore activeÕÓ (2014, p.xvi). My research suggests, instead, that when we understand sex workthrough the lens of political economy, such gendered assumptions do nothold. Instead, workers ot all genders are active agents in navigating workingconditions but within constraints over which they have limited control. This isnot to say that power relations here are not gendered. On the contrary,gender forms a Òsecond skinÓ (Hennessy, 2006a) that shapes workplacedynamics in countless ways. But Þxed assumptions about female passivityand male subjectivity obscure more than they reveal, in the porn workplaceand beyond.Unlike other feminized jobs such as secretarial work or domestic labor,porn and other sex work are overwhelmingly understood through the lens of(typically white) cis womenÕs vulnerability as sexual subjects rather than asworkers. Thus, sex work becomes what Brooke Beloso calls a ÒdeclassiÞedÓallegory for gender politics rather than a form of work in its own right (2012,p. 48). Shannon Bell describes prominent anti-porn feminist CatherineMacKinnonÕs move to perpetuate the idea of Òthe whore as womanÕsfundamental position in masculinist societiesÓ (1994, p. 97). In this context,ÒexploitationÓ signals objectiÞcation and sexualized violence rather than theextraction of surplus value through waged labor (see Berg, 2014).7

These framings of porn and sex work have two key effects. First, theyerase the sexual labor of men and trans people (Logan, 2014, p. Ill; Scott &Minichiello, 2014, p. xvi; Smith, 2012). ÒNo one seems too worried about menbeing exploited by the porn industry,Ó says Laura Kip- nis, Òwhich sayssomething about just how beset with stereotypes these discussions areÓ(1999, p. xii). Second, they cut oft conversations about sex work andpolicymaking from materialist analysis. The result is performative concern forcis womenÕs sexual vulnerability coupled with a silence around other forms ofworkplace risk. Anti-porn feminists focus on underage sex, doublepenetration, and BDSM (see MacKinnon, 1988, pp. 128, 138, 147) and notunion busting, independent contractor status, and racist pay inequality. As Ihave argued elsewhere, because porn scholarship tends to frame itself indirect response to anti-porn feminist analysis, this Þeld of vision sets theterms for the conversation (Berg, 2014).There is a clear line tracing anti-porn discourse to the poorly designedpolicies it inspires. For example, the most regularly enforced porn industryregulation (and thus the regulation that porn managers most reliably enforce)is the set of federal Ò2257Ó recordkeeping statutes. These require producersto maintain records of performersÕ legal names and copies of their photoidentiÞcations in order to demonstrate that performers are over 18. Workerssay that the 2257 statutes present serious privacy concerns, leaving themvulnerable to stalking and public exposure. Such regulations also address alargely imaginary problem. According to my interviewees, producers arenÕtseeking out underage girls (other underage people are rarely the subject ofthese concerns) in hopes of duping them into porn performance. Evenmanagers with the lowest ethical standards said they found the idea oftrolling tor underage workers distasteful. Managers note that with aseemingly limitless pool of willing (and legal) workers, there is no reason totake the effort and legal risks associated with cajoling unwilling workers. ÒA89

lot of people donÕt understand,Ó explained producer/director Matt Frackas,Òwe do not need to seduce or convince or trick girls into this. ThereÕs alwaysa supplyÓ (2013). The specter ot predatory producers tricking young womeninto appearing in porn distracts from the very real concerns faced by theworkers in pornÕs always renewable labor force.Gendering workplace policyFocusing on porn as a source of womenÕs sexual vulnerability obscuresthe reality that the vast majority of the workplace strains and abuses thatporn workers describe are about work, not sex. These abuses are notexplained by porn managersÕ special antipathy toward women, or, as manyanti-porn feminists suggest, male consumersÕ desire to watch violenceagainst women play out on screen. Porn workers are exploited at workbecause that is how the employer/employee relationship works, and workersdescribed conditions similar to those described by other workers.When 1 asked performer Richie Calhoun about the beneÞts available toperformers, he responded, ÒWe have nothing, we have no medical insurance,we have no union, we have no residuals or royaltiesÓ (2013). Like otherstreated as independent contractors, porn workers are overwhelmingly deniedprotections under wage and hour regulations such as overtime and mini-mum-wage requirements. Porn workersÕ liminal employment status and thelack of clarity around antidiscrimination policy also create the conditions forubiquitous and unchecked racial inequality in work opportunities and pay. Mr.Marcus talked about the routine racism he encountered as a Black man inthe industry. ÒWhen they shoot Black,Ó he explained, Òthey automatically thinkthey can pay lessÓ (2013). WorkersÕ de facto independent contractor statusalso makes them vulnerable to poverty upon retirement. ÒThe thing withbeing an outlaw,Ó 30-year industry veteran Carter Stevens told me, Òis thatthe retirement package sucksÓ (2013). Finally, treating performers as

independent contractors affects occupational health practices, shaping thelevel of risk that workers encounter on set and determining what happenswhen they sustain an infection or injury.These conditions are made possible by an employment law system thatwas designed to Þt a workplace that is less and less a reality for U.S.workers. Feminist legal scholars suggest that labor law modeled on male-dominated mass production manufacturing is especially ill equipped toaddress work in todayÕs ßexible, service-based, feminized economies(Stewart, 2013). It is also worth noting that such ßexible labor arrangementsarenÕt at all new for sex workers and others whose working arrangements falloutside the full-time, long-term, single-employer model of the twentiethcentury.Gendered dynamics at workMale performers must navigate the combined force of these exclusionsand their invisibility as sex workers who might be vulnerable to employerabuse. This status, as FounderÕs earlier comment suggests, is heavilystructured by normative ideas about gender and sexuality: Men are alwaysready tor sex, but women need a bit more cajoling (see Beres, 2007). Theidea ot menÕs sexual readiness was compounded by the advent of Viagra,which opened porn work to men who were previously unable to performunder the conditions it requires. Viagra and injectable erectile dysfunctiondrugs de-skilled mens jobs by opening the Þeld up beyond the select fewwho could maintain an erection for hours-long shoots, in strenuous positions,with crews watching, and with partners with whom they may or may not havehad chemistry. With Viagra, Òany guy could be a porn star,Ó and pay Òtook anose dive,Ó explained Carter Stevens, a veteran ot pornÕs Ògolden eraÓ of the1970s (2013).The idea that men are always ready tor sex emerged again and again in10

The idea that men are always ready tor sex emerged again and again inmy interviews with both performers and managers. It is in some ways theinverse ot a common refrain in other forms of feminized labor, one thatsuggests that low wages result from the supposed effortlessness ot the work.But for men in porn, the popular perception is not so much that their work iseasy. Workers and managers agree that even with chemical supports,maintaining an erection for hours at a time and ejaculating on command, inaddition to men performersÕvarious other job tasks, are skilled work. Thethreat of Òfailing a sceneÓÑbeing unable to maintain an erection, ejaculatingtoo early or not at allÑalways looms. It emerged again and again in myinterviews with male performers as a major source of anxiety, and one thatencouraged often risky overuse of erection-enhancing medications.Although managers generally see menÕs porn work as skilled, theynonetheless see it as too desirable to command high pay. Access to no-strings-attached sex becomes a sort of supplementary payment. MathieuTrachman found a similar dynamic in his study of French porn work. Heretoo, men confront a dynamic is which an erection is both an essentialÑandpressure- inducingÑpart of the job and visible evidence that one is not reallyworking but instead experiencing pleasure (Trachman, 2015, p. 83). Men inmy interviews described sex as a reward as a common managementresponse when they demand better pay. ÒEveryone has this little thing theylike to poke you with,Ó Mr. Marcus explained, Òlike, ÔI know guys who will do itfor free, I know guys who will do it for cheaper.Õ Girls wonÕt do it for free, butthey might do it for lessÓ (2013). Marcus insisted that managers pay the ratehe set, not just because he wanted higher pay but also because he wantedto make a political point about the devaluation of Black menÕs labor. As oneof few Black men cast to perform in higher-paying scenes with white women,he was in a better position than most to make such demands. Most men takewhat they can get, and Black men in particular Þnd their work particularlydevalued in a system that, as Mireille Miller- Young describes, sees Black

workers as ÒhypersexualÓ and cheaply available (2014).For most male performers, the idea that willing replacements would happilystep in restricts negotiating power. When 1 asked if he felt he could negotiatework terms, white gay performer Christopher Daniels explained, ÒWhen Ihear models negotiate, IÕm just like, ÔYouÕre pretty brave.Õ If you donÕt want todo it, theyÕll Þnd someone who willÓ (2014). This perceived labor surplusshapes efforts at collective bargaining too. Male performers were more likelyto tell me they had tried to initiate unionizing efforts, partly because they tendto have longer careers in the industry and partly because they often haveless power to negotiate on individual terms. But when they attempt toorganize, they are again confronted with the idea that if they have complaintsabout the work, a string of replacements will be happy to step in. Of anunsuccessful organizing attempt, industry veteran Herschel Savage told me,ÒThe producers and production companies have the power, the cash . . . youhave no negotiating powerÓ (2013). The same is true for all porn workers, notjust men, but pornÕs gendered dynamics mean that men have not onlyreduced negotiating power but also the outward appearance of having less toorganize around in the Þrst place.MenÕs comparatively reduced access to alternative income streamscompounds these barriers to collective organizing. While women can easeout ot performing with erotic dance tours, high-paying escort gigs, andbranded merchandise, menÕs wages often dry up as soon as their porn gigsdo. Men who do sexual labor aimed at male clients can access some otthese opportunities, with escorting, personal appearances at events, andstripping and go-go dance gigs (Grov & Smith, 2014, p. 248), but on thewhole, these pay less than similar work available to women sex workers. So,while women performers who make signiÞcant money in side gigs can affordto negotiate harder with managers because Òa scene is just a marketing toolÓand not a primary income source, the same is not true for most men$78.40$247.50$187.13$36.75$367.50

performers (Berg, 2016).Male performers can, however, take on behind-the-scenes work as(usually) low-budget directors and producers. In rare cases, performers canamass enough start-up capital to produce major scenes in their own right,but here, as for worker/producers of all genders, piracy and the explosion ofuser-generated content make production much less lucrative than it oncewas. And so the reality’ remains that when men performers work for others,they have very’ limited bargaining power.Gendering consentMost male performers accept the terms on offer not only’ in terms of ratesbut also in negotiating consent and the conditions ot a scene. Womenperformers are expected to compile Òy’esÓ lists ot men they’ are willing towork with, and they can generally refuse partners without tear of losing acasting. Meanwhile, men might be permitted a short ÒnoÓ list ot women theyrefuse to work with. Likewise, casting directors know beforehand what typesof scenes and what speciÞc sex acts women performers are willing toperformÑwhether they will Þlm anal scenes, for instance. The generalassumption, however, is that men are up for anything. Agency websitesreveal this gap. Women performersÕ pages usually’ include a list ot the typesof scenes for which they are available, while menÕs Òavailable forÓ lists arety’pically blank. For the few straight production companies that allowperformers to decide whether to use condomsÑmost Þlm only withoutcondomsÑthe option is available in practice only’ to women performers. Thispolicy is not explicit but rather is enforced by cultural norms that presume ciswomenÕs sexual vulnerability and men and trans womenÕs lack thereof.Directors proudly’ told me about the consent procedures they’ use with ciswomen performers, but they never mentioned their consent procedures (ifany) tor men and trans women. This was the case even where directors werer

any) tor men and trans women. This was the case even where directors wereotherwise respectful of trans womenÕs gender identity’. Here, still, theytended to view trans womenÕs consent needs through the prism of menÕssexual invulnerability. Trans woman performer Venus Lux described, forexample, directors and crew treating her as one of the guy’s (2014). Thefocus on feminine sexual vulnerability, rather than workersÕ vulnerability asworkers, means that no one seems vulnerable on a gay’ porn set. Gayperformers suggest that the cursory check-ins directors do on straight setsare largely absent in their workplaces. ÒIt still pisses me oft to this day,ÓChristopher Daniels explained, Òsometimes [directors] donÕt even tell me whomy’ scene partner isÓ (2014).But on the whole, men complained about these conditions much lessfrequently than I expected them to. Instead, they’ tended to excuse suchpractices by’ referring to norms of feminine passivity and vulnerability. Inresponse to another performerÕs suggestion that porn is Òa womanÕs game,Óperformer Richie Calhoun replied, ÒI think [that] makes perfect senseÓ (2013).1 asked why. His response: ÒBecause sex, still to a certain extent, no matterwhat you do to it . . . heterosexual sex is largely’ . . . someone doingsomething to someone else . . . IÕm not say’ing thatÕs a categorical thing, butin a lot ot instances, women are having things done to them . . .it only makes sense that that person should have more sayÓ (2013). Formen who perform in straight scenes who adopt such a perspective,managing their own identity as the person doing things to women requiresintense emotion and identity management.In her Þeldwork with male sex workers in San Francisco, Nicola Smithfound a similar faithfulness to gendered dichotomies. Interviewees werecareful to position themselves as agents, rather than victims, and they did soin part through gendered and racialized tropes (2012, p. 597). In myinterviews, too, men often located vulnerability Òover there,Ó even as they

also described limited access to full consent, safe working conditions, andfair pay.Gendering scene workReducing porn work to the sex performed also erases the intense creativeand emotional labor that workers perform. Performers describedÑand in setobservations I sawÑthe careful work of cultivating a connection with co-stars. On gay and straight sets, male performers (at least those who hope toget cast again) participate in this work alongside their co-stars. They calmtheir own nerves and those of partners, work to generate familiarity andchemistry, and do the emotional work of tuning into their partnerÕs needsduring a scene. In doing so, they confront broader cultural ideas thatemotional connection in sex is unimportant for men and, in straight scenes,industry-speciÞc conventions that often place women at the center andreduce men to a de-personalized penis. Industry veteran Herschel Savagetalked about how proud he was to be known among women performers as aconsiderate partner, and how frustrating it was to be treated as Òa piece ofmeatÓ by management (2013).Men encountered a similar attitude toward their physical labor. Here,again, ideas about female vulnerability and male invulnerability erasecommon workplace strains. Dick ChibblesÕ account of his experience playingChewbacca in a Star Wars porn parody provides just one example of theworkplace health risks that go unreported:I was wearing thirty pounds of fur, it was about 135 degrees inside thatoutÞt, they actually used a thermometer. The sex scene itself took Þve hoursto shoot, every 5 minutes I had to cool down for 10. . . [I felt 1 was] going tofaint.(2014)

Even in scenes without the extenuating circumstance of the Chewbaccacostume, workers experience the various health risks associated with intensebodyworkÑmuscle strain, dehydration, and nerve damage, for instanceÑinaddition to the risk of STI transmission and side effects from overuse oferectile dysfunction medications, steroids, and other performance enhancers.A common frustration among the workers I interviewed was outsidersÕtendency to view pornÕs health risks only in terms of sexual danger. Thismyopia ignores the other risks that workers of all genders face and reinforcesanti-sex and anti-sex-worker stigma. The state of California has, tor example,engaged in a years-long campaign to enforce on-set condom use, anintervention that workers overwhelmingly oppose. Meanwhile, workersachieve little success in pursuing better enforcement of occupational healthregulations that would protect them from mundane workplace risks such asstaph infections. In the event of a sprained ankle, they Þnd an opaqueworkerÕs compensation system that offers no relief. These are the costs ofworking in an industry that is both feminized and typically regarded onlythrough the prism of womenÕs sexual vulnerability.ConclusionThis chapter pushed against the idea that only cisgender women pornworkers are susceptible to poor working conditions while also arguing thatsuch vulnerability is feminized. As such, 1 have focused on points ofvulnerability rather than the ways that workers resist them. But in porn as inother forms of work, workers develop creative strategies, ranging fromcollective action to subtle workarounds, tor making their work lessprecarious. For men, the costs of a system that views work in porn onlythrough the lens of feminine sexual vulnerability are clear. But this frameworkfails workers ot all genders. It forces workers to operate at the precariousintersection of the states hyper-scrutiny surrounding imagined dangers and

violent non-interference around real dangers. Legal scholar Deborah Dinnerasks, ÒWho is left behind when appeals for safe workplaces rely on genderedideas of which bodies need protection?Ó (2017). In the context of porn work,the answer is: all workers.Notes* (Daniels, 2014)1 Cisgender refers to those whose gender identity matches the sex theywere assigned at birth.2 While Dave is speaking about men who work in straight porn, myresearch found that this dynamic largely applies to men who work in gayÞlms also. Here, too, the idea that Òmost guys want to do pornÓ shapesthe labor market.3 Fordistn refers to the male-dominated mass manufacturing typical of theearly-mid twentieth century.4 Materialist feminism refers to a tradition of feminist thought focused onthe relationship of gendered subordination to capitalism.5 Notable exceptions include intense but selective state enforcement ofoccupational health law, which is not designed to Þt the porn workcontext and often places workers at greater risk (see Webber, 2015).6 Some scholars suggest that this tendency is speciÞc to the U.S. andwestern European contexts. In the Greek context, for example, adifferent history around feminist sexuality debates places porn in adifferent discursive context (Tsahki & Chronaki 2016, p. 176). I focus onthe United States, as my Þeldwork was based in that country.7 I specify white women here because constructions of sex workervulnerability overwhelmingly frame white femininity as uniquelyvulnerable, contrasting it with the ÒhypersexualityÓ of Blackness (Miller-

vulnerable, contrasting it with the ÒhypersexualityÓ of Blackness (Miller-Young, 2014).8 A notable exception is Jeffrey EscofÞerÕs work on gay male performers(2007).9 Record Keeping Requirements, 18 U.S. Code 2251, 2005.10 Here we can look to the work of labor scholars such as Noah Zatz andEileen Boris, who identify the processes by which contingent workershave been systematically denied access to basic beneÞts and coverageunder labor law (2014, p. 96).ReferencesBell, S. (1994). Reading, writing, and rewriting the prostitute body.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Beloso, В. M. (2012). Sex, work,and the feminist erasure of class. Signs, 3#(1), 47Ñ70.Beres, M. (2007). ÒSpontaneousÓ sexual consent: An analysis of sexualconsent literature. Feminism & Psychology, /7(1), 93-108.Berg, H. (2014). Labouring porn studies. Porn Studies, /(1Ñ2), 75Ñ79.Berg, H. (2016). ÒA scene is just a marketing toolÓ: Alternative incomestreams in pornÕs gig economy. Porn Studies, 3(2), 160Ñ174.Boris, E., & Parrenas, R. S. (2010). Introduction. In E. Boris & R. S.Parrenas (Eds.), Intimate labors: Cultures, technologies, and the politics ofcare (pp. 1Ñ12). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.Calhoun, R. (2013). Interview by author, Los Angeles, CA.Chibbles, D. (2014). Interview by author. Granada Hills, CA.Daniels, C. (2014). Interview by author. Los Angeles, CA.Dinner, D. (2017, June 2). Equal by what measure: Masculinity,

Dinner, D. (2017, June 2). Equal by what measure: Masculinity,antidiscrimination law, and labor protection, 1964Ñ1991. Presented at theBerkshire Conference on the History of Women, Genders, and Sexuality,Hempstead, NY.EscofÞer, J. (2007). Porn star/stripper/escort: Economic and sexualdynamics in a sex work career .Journal of Homosexuality, 53(1Ñ2), 173Ñ200.Frackas, M. (2013). Interview by author, phone.Grov, C., & Smith, M. (2014). Gay subcultures. In V. Minichiello & J. Scott(Eds.), Male sex work and society (pp. 240Ñ259). New York: HarringtonPark Press.Hennessy, R. (2006a). The value of a second skin. In D. Richardson, J.McLaughlin, & M. Casey (Eds.), Intersections in feminist and queer theory:Sexualities, cultures and identities (pp. 125Ñ150). Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.Hennessy, R. (2006b). Returning to reproduction queerly: Sex, labor, need.Rethinking Marxism, 18(3),387-395.Kipnis, L. (1999). Bound and gagged: Pornography and the politics offantasy in America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Logan, T. (2014). Economic analysis of male sex work. In V. Minichiello &J. Scott (Eds.), Male sex work and society (pp. 106Ñ147). New York:Harrington Park Press.Lux, V. (2014). Interview by author, phone.

MacKinnon, C. (1988). Feminism unmodiÞed: Discourses on life and law.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Marcus, Mr. (2013). Interview by author. Balboa Park, San Diego, CA.Miller-Young, M. (2014). A taste for brown sugar: Black women inpornography. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Morini, C. (2007). The feminization of labour in cognitive capitalism.Feminist Review, 87(1), 40Ñ59.Pounder, D. (2014). Interview by author, phone.Record Keeping Requirements. (2005). 18 U.S. Code 2251.Savage, H. (2013). Interview by author. Los Angeles, CA.Scott, J., & Minichiello, V. (2014). Introduction: Reframing male sex work.In V. Minichiello & J. Scott (Eds.), Male sex work and society (pp. xiiÑxxvii).New York: Harrington Park Press.Smith, N. (2012). Body issues: The political economy of male sex work.Sexualities, 15(5Ñ(>), 586Ñ603.Stevens, C. (2013). Interview by author. Skype.Stewart, A. (2013). Legal constructions of body work. In C. Wolkowitz, R.L. Cohen, T. Sanders, & K. Hardy (Eds.), Body/sex/work: Intimate, embodied,and sexualized labour (pp. 61Ñ76). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Trachman, M. (2015). The market for actresses: Gender, reputation, andintermediation in French pornography. In V. Roussel & D. Bielby (Eds.),Brokerage and production in the American and French entertainmentindustries: Invisible hands in cultural markets. London: Lexington Books.Tsaliki, L., & Chronaki, D. (2016). Producing the porn self: An introspection

Tsaliki, L., & Chronaki, D. (2016). Producing the porn self: An introspectionof the mainstream Greek porn industry. Porn Studies, 3(2), 175Ñ186.Webber, V. (2015). Public health versus performer privates: Measure Bsfailure to Þx subjects. Porn Studies, 2(4), 299-313.Zatz, N., & Boris, E. (2014). Seeing work, envisioning citizenship.Employee Rights and Employee Policy Journal, 95, 95-109.Part II

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.