For better or worse? : decriminalisation, work conditions, and indoor sex work in Auckland, New Zealand/Aotearoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, sex workers and other people who participate in the sex industry remain subjected to social, economic, and political inequalities on a daily basis. While decriminalisation has been championed by sex workers and advocates in Canada and elsewhere, New Zealand remains the only country to have implemented this model, which is arguably the most conducive to improving the work conditions for sex workers. More than a decade post-decriminalisation, we have scant knowledge on what criteria sex workers use to choose what sectors to work from and the labour conditions existing in those locations. In this case study, I built upon anti-colonial and feminist literature by conducting in-depth interviews with 30 indoor sex workers and 10 managers to discover the advantages and pitfalls to working in the sex industry in Auckland. Placing sex workers’ voices centre stage, I explore what motivates their involvement in sex work and the meanings they attach to their work. Second, I describe the work conditions experienced within the managed sector of the sex industry, with a focus on the relations between sex workers and managers. Lastly, I further the understanding of working conditions experienced in the private sector, and private workers’ ability to create their ideal work environment within a decriminalised context, specifically worker-run cooperatives. I found that sex workers seek greater autonomy over their work processes but that constraining dynamics prevent them from doing so. These dynamics include the whore stigma, discrimination outside of the sex work community, and the presence of restrictive by-laws. Overall, my participants described a disjuncture between the rights granted by the 2003 change in law and their lived experiences that jeopardized their occupational well-being. I provide social and policy recommendations for areas related to stigma and working environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".