Reframing IPV and Sex Work As Intersectional Spaces of Gender-Based Violence

Background/Purpose:  Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sex work have been primarily constructed as disparate phenomena within scholarly literature and service delivery. Yet, both have been described as a consequence of male sexual proprietariness–the perception that women are sexual and/or reproductive property to be owned and exchanged (Wilson & Daly, 1996; Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1992; Rubin, 1975). Socio-structural conditions that necessitate women’s physical, emotional, and sexual labor provide the foundation for male privilege, which instrumental male-to-female violence further reifies.

Although notable distinctions among these phenomena exist, the scholarly construction of IPV and sex work as parallel—and thus unrelated—disguises the systemic nature of each issue and potentially pits victims against one another in the struggle for legitimacy. However, IPV and sex work share similarities with respect to coercive control, emotional labor, internalized shame, and social stigma. We argue that compartmentalization of either phenomenon into a specialized area of research or intervention can limit understanding of gender-based violence rather than enhance it. This study’s objective was to gauge the extent to which these phenomena have been compartmentalized in scholarly literature. 

Methods:  A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles since 2000 from MedLine, PsychINFO and PubMed was conducted using the keywords “intimate partner violence” OR “domestic violence” AND “sex work” OR “prostitution.”

Results:  Systematic review of the literature produced only 48 articles containing both IPV and sex work, representing less than 1% of IPV articles (n = 5,845) and 1.7% of sex work articles (n = 2,829). Over half of the 48 articles were based upon studies outside of North America. We found that, at best, scholarly literature acknowledged the co-occurring nature of IPV and sex work, but typically failed to integrate these phenomena or address their systemic nature.

From this review, we chose 6 exemplary articles (Benoit et al., 2013; Dunkle et al., 2007; Dunlap et al., 2003; Karandikar et al., 2010; Paul et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2012) that challenged the common conceptualization of IPV and sex work as disparate, with the understanding that, in the context of social and economic gender disparity, sex workers can have abusive partners (who may or may not be customers) and victims of IPV can engage in transactional sex (sex-for-things exchanges that are not always monetary). Through unique terminology and research design, article authors drew attention to socio-structural relationships that transcend micro-interactions.

Conclusion/Implications:  IPV and sex work are rarely integrated in research and intervention; however, integration is possible and can result in productive discourse and practice. Reconceptualization involves reframing these social problems not merely as interpersonal pathologies but as resulting from cultural attitudes regarding gender and power. When resources and funding are scant, pitting these social problems against one another creates a competitive platform for human suffering rather than addressing a systemic issue. For social work practitioners and scholars in IPV and sex work, we propose a more collaborative approach that transcends existing categorizations of victimization and seeks to address all forms of gender disparity and the potential for violence against women.