Legalizing Prostitution: From Illicit Vice to Lawful Business (21 page)

The going rate for renting a window room in 2008 was €800 per week. Split between two women working different shifts, this amounts to €400 per week ($560). Sex workers are not allowed to reside within the RLD, but some of them live nearby. Building owners pay €2,500 ($3,500) per year in tax on each window unit, which is low relative to the amount of rental revenue. As of 2008, there were 283 windows, including 51 in one complex, the Villa Tinto, pictured in
figure 5.1
. Banks refuse to lend window owners money, forcing the 40 owners to lend within their own network. The owners have not formed an association to advocate for their interests, unlike in the Netherlands. However, city officials meet with all window owners twice a year, informing them of any new policies and asking the owners for input on improving the RLD. As an official told me, “We make sure every owner knows our policies and
why
they exist.”
²⁷
Most owners do not resist the authorities’ requests for improvements in their buildings, perhaps because they realize they have no legal standing to oppose official dictates. About five times a year, an owner is fined by the city for failure to comply with regulations such as a defective shower, faulty electricity, or unclean facilities.
²⁸

About one-tenth of the window workers are transgender women, and the rest are female (males work elsewhere: in saunas, bars, and parks). Antwerp’s single-purpose RLD is a good hike from the center of town, though still within walking distance. There are a couple of peep-show venues nearby, a disco, a snack shop, and one bar where prostitutes work—but the RLD proper consists almost entirely of window prostitution rooms. Almost everyone cruising the zone is male. I saw no minors, few couples, and no groups of tourists, as there is little reason to visit Antwerp’s RLD unless one is seeking titillation or sex. Given the relative isolation of this district, the women are “on display” to a lower proportion of the general public than in a town-center RLD with far more pedestrians present or where cars troll through the area. The visual objectification of women is
thus more restricted in a semi-isolated RLD such as Antwerp’s. Its location also shields youth and the general public, one of the conditions for public tolerance of legal vice advanced in
chapter 4
.

Figure 5.1. Villa Tinto.

Antwerp’s red-light district is shown in
figure 5.2
. Unlike raucous RLDs in some other cities (including Amsterdam and Bangkok), Antwerp’s is clean, tidy, and quiet. I barely heard a sound as I visited the area on separate occasions. I observed men (but no women or children) cruising the area silently, occasionally pausing to speak to one of the workers. The lack of vehicle traffic and the fact that this RLD is an enclave away from the city center contribute to its tranquil atmosphere. My observations are confirmed by clients who contribute to online message boards. When they compare the RLDs of Antwerp and Brussels, Brussels is viewed much more negatively: as somewhat unsafe, “seedy,” “rough,” “intimidating,” and “shady.” In Brussels’s RLD, “you’ll see some junkies/drunkards/beggars/pimp wannabes around”; “gangs looking for trouble sometimes”; and “a ‘strong arm’ element. I’ve seen big surly men in black BMW’s dropping girls off.”
²⁹
The area is not particularly attractive, with lots of graffiti and litter as well as some abandoned buildings. The cars cruising slowly through the area give the place an eerie aura. Clients also complain about the curtains (instead of walls) separating window rooms in Brussels—allowing one to hear a couple in the next room—and about the lack of beds in some rooms that have a couch instead, not well suited to comfortable encounters.
³⁰
Antwerp, by stark contrast, is described in glowing terms:

• “Very laid back and well policed.”

• “The whole area seems modern and clean.”

• “Probably the best RLD that I’ve visited. Like AMS [Amsterdam] without the bachelor party and tourist groups.”

• “The best window-shopping environment that I’ve been in. It had a very relaxed environment to it—no gangs of the ‘psst, Charlie’ variety [i.e., drug sellers] hanging around, or any noticeable pimps, no stag-do’s or groups of tourists snapping their cameras, just guys like you and me looking to get laid.”

• “Antwerp is a secret, little known gem. Fantastic place. … Clean, safe. … Loads of choice and no frigging tourists.”
³¹

This atmosphere dates back several years. In a posting from 1997, a client described this RLD as “very safe to visit day or night. There is a visible police presence everywhere to make you feel secure. The selection of women is very good to excellent.”
³²

When comparing the two Belgian sex markets to Amsterdam’s, clients vary in which one they like best. Some described Antwerp as too tranquil, sanitized, and one-dimensional (lacking other attractions), whereas Amsterdam was judged superior as a “fun place to hang out.”
³³
They prefer the bustling ambience in Amsterdam and its multiple attractions (marijuana cafes, bars, restaurants, tourist shops, porn stores, live sex shows). But those who dislike Amsterdam’s carnivalesque climate find Antwerp far superior—praising its cleanliness, safety, and lack of intoxicated, rowdy tourists and obtrusive tour groups.
³⁴
Brussels’s atmosphere, however, is almost universally ranked inferior to both Antwerp’s and Amsterdam’s: “Would you rather walk along the immensely scenic dimly-lit canals of Amsterdam or the very basic, very dull single street along the railroad line [Brussels’s North train station] where you have to take care not to be pick-pocketed or plainly robbed?”
³⁵

Figure 5.2. Antwerp’s red-light district.

Of course, Antwerp’s RLD shares certain features in common with other window-prostitution areas. An obvious universal is the women’s conspicuous interest in attracting customers. They dress in sexy outfits—miniskirts, bikinis, lingerie—and their demeanor is designed to catch a man’s attention. They pass the time by listening to music, dancing, eating, doing their makeup, or knocking on the window or calling out to men on the street, and they periodically take a break to disengage from the game. Walking through the area, the visitor will observe some who look bored and make little eye contact with passersby and others who are quite animated in their efforts to attract business. These dimensions of the window scene are a function of solicitation in public, akin to street prostitution behind a transparent facade. It is a different kind of presentation, much more performative than what occurs in a brothel, massage parlor, or other establishment where transactions are much more relaxed and genial.

Antwerp’s window arrangement allows for some fraternization among workers. Some of the rooms have separate doors and windows, but many other units are clustered into blocs of three, five, or seven units. This has two important advantages: the women can socialize with each other, and they can collectively assert control over troublesome men. In other words, both camaraderie and empowerment are enhanced by this proximity to other workers. At the same time, such close quarters can create tensions, such as disputes over music choices, smoking, and the poaching of customers. For these reasons, some women prefer to work in separate units.
³⁶
It would be easy for individuals standing next to each other to compete for a particular customer, though I did not observe this happening and there appears to be a norm against poaching that is usually honored.

Visibility is a prominent feature of this RLD. Everything is out in the open. Unlike Amsterdam, there are no narrow window-lined alleyways, there are no hidden areas where drinking or drug use might occur, and the lack of bars and cafes discourages visitors from loitering. I observed no malingerers
in Antwerp’s red-light area, unlike Amsterdam, where they are quite visible. Interestingly, Antwerp has not installed security cameras in its RLD, a fixture in Amsterdam.

The location, single-purpose orientation, and general lack of disorder help to explain why Antwerp’s tolerated red-light district is relatively uncontroversial and is much less politicized than some others, including Amsterdam’s (discussed in
chapter 6
). As noted earlier, nearby residents do not complain about it; clients are attracted to it because it is clean, orderly, and safe; youths and the general public are shielded by virtue of this RLD’s isolated location; working conditions for window prostitutes have improved significantly over the past decade; and these sex workers appear to have fairly good relations with the authorities.

A 1999 poll reported that 68 percent of Germans favored legalizing prostitution.
³⁷
This level of support is not unusual in Europe, as majorities in many other nations favor legalization as well (see
table 4.1
). Another survey asked about the acceptability of prostitution, and this poll allows us to compare attitudes before and after legalization in 2002. The proportion of Germans who felt that prostitution can “never be justified” declined from 42 percent in 1981 to 33 percent in 1999, dropping further to 24 percent in 2005—a trend toward greater tolerance that may have been catalyzed by legal reform in 2002.
³⁸

Prior to 2002, selling sex was not a crime in Germany, nor was operating a brothel. But court rulings considered prostitution to be immoral and antisocial, and prostitutes had virtually no rights.
³⁹
It was a crime for third parties to be involved in “the furtherance of prostitution”—for example, pimping, promoting, and profiting from prostitution. This did not apply to brothel owners as long as they did not keep workers in a state of dependency, meaning any action that went beyond providing accommodation (although in practice these owners operated in some jeopardy of violating the “furtherance” measure). Building owners faced the least risk if they simply rented space to workers—hence the existence of Eros Centers, where women rent a room in which to work and are not employees of the house.
⁴⁰
The first Eros Center opened in Hamburg in 1967, followed by one in Frankfurt in 1971; the centers were designed to reduce street prostitution without formally legalizing brothels.
⁴¹
Pimping was prohibited by a section of the penal code that outlawed three things: taking money from a worker in a way that reduced
the person’s standard of living, keeping the worker under visual surveillance, or specifying the minimum amount of money a worker must earn or the number of customers she or he must service.
⁴²

In the 1980s, the prostitutes’ rights group Hydra and its sister groups began to press for measures that would protect workers from discrimination, winning support from the Green Party, which sponsored an antidiscrimination bill in parliament in 1990. After the Social Democrats and Greens formed a coalition government in 1998, the Greens got more leverage in advocating for legal reform. Four years later, a new bill was presented.

In the debate on the 2001 bill, most political parties expressed a desire to reduce discrimination against workers, which they hoped the bill would facilitate.
⁴³
The general orientation in German political circles had evolved into one that views prostitution as both inevitable and in need of certain protections. There was also an explicit rejection of the oppression paradigm, as reflected in the following statement by a member of parliament, Petra Pau: “New criminological research has shown that … the image of the oppressed woman, who has been driven into this profession, can no longer be maintained. Prostitutes today resemble average businesswomen, … [and] the predominant number of prostitutes make a conscious decision to start and to go on with their activity.”
⁴⁴
Four of the five political parties voted for the bill, with only the Christian Democratic Union opposing it. The central goals of the 2002 law were the following: