No help on finding the study, but for people who are only interested in problems where there’s a lurid sensationalistic sex aspect, it’s worth noting that sweatshop workers have about as much protection against sexual harassment as they do against any other abuse by management. Is having sex as a job worse than having sex in order to keep a job? The former often pays better.
How? Why would they work in a sweatshop if they could make more money as a prostitute?
The obvious answer would be that they have to have much more sex as a prostitute. After all, one prostitute can serve several clients, but a lot of workers only have one boss.
Prostitution is often illegal; perhaps as Luke Somers suggests this is encouraged by sweatshop owners trying to eliminate competition for workers. There is also a history in many places of using “rescued” prostitutes as essentially slave labor, as in the notorious Magdalene laundries in Ireland.
Actually, prostitution is rarely illegal, especially in the past. In particular, it is legal today in Bangladesh and has always been legal in Ireland. Though child prostitution is not legal in either place today.
Admittedly, the actual exchange of sex for money is, as you say, not illegal in Ireland, but it’s virtually impossible for a prostitute to work there without breaking some law or involving someone else in lawbreaking, because most activities associated with prostitution are illegal (operating a brothel or keeping any premises for the purpose of prostitution, advertising, and soliciting are all illegal, and anyone employed by prostitutes, as, say, a driver or to provide security is also breaking Irish law). Bangladesh appears to be similar, though perhaps with a few less such laws. Places which don’t arm the police with plenty of excuses to harass prostitutes are quite rare.
No help on finding the study, but for people who are only interested in problems where there’s a lurid sensationalistic sex aspect, it’s worth noting that sweatshop workers have about as much protection against sexual harassment as they do against any other abuse by management. Is having sex as a job worse than having sex in order to keep a job? The former often pays better.
How? Why would they work in a sweatshop if they could make more money as a prostitute?
The obvious answer would be that they have to have much more sex as a prostitute. After all, one prostitute can serve several clients, but a lot of workers only have one boss.
Prostitution is a more dangerous profession and is lower status.
If prostitution doesn’t involve more sex, why would it be more dangerous and lower status?
It was an answer to
Of course prostitution involves more sex.
Prostitution is often illegal; perhaps as Luke Somers suggests this is encouraged by sweatshop owners trying to eliminate competition for workers. There is also a history in many places of using “rescued” prostitutes as essentially slave labor, as in the notorious Magdalene laundries in Ireland.
Actually, prostitution is rarely illegal, especially in the past. In particular, it is legal today in Bangladesh and has always been legal in Ireland. Though child prostitution is not legal in either place today.
Admittedly, the actual exchange of sex for money is, as you say, not illegal in Ireland, but it’s virtually impossible for a prostitute to work there without breaking some law or involving someone else in lawbreaking, because most activities associated with prostitution are illegal (operating a brothel or keeping any premises for the purpose of prostitution, advertising, and soliciting are all illegal, and anyone employed by prostitutes, as, say, a driver or to provide security is also breaking Irish law). Bangladesh appears to be similar, though perhaps with a few less such laws. Places which don’t arm the police with plenty of excuses to harass prostitutes are quite rare.