This piece will argue why it is important to have a clear working definition of pimp – a definition which is distinct from boyfriend or manager, both of which are often conflated with pimping . I will outline the current discourses on pimping, then explain why these are confusing. I will use Holly Davis’ argument toward a working definition of pimp and the dangers of ambiguous understanding. I will then expand Davis’ point to show how a clear definition of pimping is important, not just for policy and research, but also for projects and services who work with sex workers. I will do this by discussing the varying working and romantic relationships that sex workers may have and the dangers which come with conflating all of them with pimping, especially when a once consensual relationship begins to show signs of abuse or coercion – characteristics compatible with working for a pimp. I will end by reiterating the importance of a clear working definition of a contested, but often used term.
- What does the term ‘pimp’ mean?
UK law is unhelpful in this respect, since the term is not referenced in legislation but is mentioned in passing in CPS guidance and the Policing and Crime Act. Under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act,
A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally controls any of the activities of another person relating to that person’s prostitution in any part of the world, and
(b)he does so for or in the expectation of gain for himself or a third person.
This is consistent with the dictionary definition of a pimp: a man who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking a percentage of their earnings in return. However, as well as carrying a defamatory and emotive subtext, this definition is far too narrow to encompass the activities to which the word is frequently applied.
The word is more commonly found in the discourses of radical feminism where the loose meaning of pimping is rarely defined, but commonly used. Mackinnon uses pimping to encompass any third party involvement in the sex industry, including websites, managers, co-workers and human traffickers. Julie Bindel considers pimps to be anyone involved in the sex industry at all who isn’t a buyer or a ‘prostituted woman’. Organisations such as Nordic Model Now and Object as well as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution make no effort to define pimping or to say what makes pimping different from, say, helping, advising or supporting someone in the sex industry. These are the groups who wish to abolish the sex industry to protect women from pimps, but they appear unable to define or consistently refer to what a pimp is.
- Problems with ‘pimp’ talk.
The problems with this discourse are principally two-fold. First, the term ‘pimp’ is ill-defined as outlined above. And second, findings by the Home Office in 2000, and again in 2019 refute the APPG hypothesis that most sex workers are controlled by pimps by showing that a majority of sex workers do not: they were found to work independently.
Davis explains the limitations and problems in the lacking and ambiguous understanding of pimping. Inconsistent and culturally influenced meanings of the word mean that it is indefinable and thus un-researchable; a challenging barrier in an already under-researched area.
There are many different types of sex worker, so if pimping were found to be commonplace there necessarily must be many different types of pimping. But even taking this into account, it clarifies nothing: as far as radical feminists are concerned, all sex work is exploitation and force. All pimps are the same and all, as per the subtext of the dictionary definition, are abusers of women. Definitions do not exist in a vacuum, and pimping is politically charged, masculinised, often racialised and highly emotive.
This is often the point for those writing with a political motive, such as eradicating sex work and criminalising those involved in it. As Davis, writes, “by avoiding the use of an academically sound, and rigorous definition, readers are likely left relying on cultural perceptions of what a pimp is and ultimately guessing what the authors mean when they use the word pimp.” Instead of attempting clarity, those who use ‘pimp’ without interrogating its meaning reproduce the same confused understandings of the word that they employ, closing down attempts to understand the nuances around consent, labour and agency.
- Who does ‘pimping’ refer to?
The traditional, cliched, notion of the woman working in the sex industry may be of someone who is controlled by a pimp, who lives off her earnings and coerces her into the industry and forces her to stay. For the majority of sex workers, however, there is no third party involved.
For those sex workers who do choose to work with other people, the relationship with such parties may have little to do with coercion. They may be receptionists, employers, business owners, managers, security people, bookers, drivers, webmasters, agency owners or yes, even brothel owners, because working with other people is safer than working alone. As well as safety, it is easier to employ others than to build one’s own advertising, handle one’s own admin, or perform the role play that comes with branding. The false binary between pimp and sex worker also obscures the reality that many people facilitating sex workers are sex workers themselves.
Though there is danger and exploitation that comes with handing over money to someone who manages your business for you, as brothel worker Lydia says, “I also don’t want to pretend that my situation is a unique horror under capitalism or that my experiences of sexual violence have been isolated to the sex industry or that my boss is doing anything different from what bosses all over the world do when they ignore the working conditions of their employees.”
Some sex workers proactively seek out managed sex work, and wish to have enhanced power within their relationships with bosses and increased employment rights, rather than the relationship being criminalised. This criminalisation could prevent potentially abused or exploited workers from seeking help out of fear that they themselves may be in legal trouble.
- Who is vulnerable to pimping?
An oft-cited statistic purports that the average age of a sex worker when they enter the industry is between twelve and fifteen. This figure is often used as evidence of the dangers pimps pose to young women, but it has been shown to be false. It also distorts the dialogue around sex work, focusing on a tragic but narrow subsection of the industry. Home Office Research shows that the age is closer to 20-24 years, and the majority of women enter the sex industry of their own volition.
The subset of children who are groomed into sex work by exploitative pimps should be contextualised by the reasons some children are more at risk than others. Research shows that routes into selling sex for children and young people are very clearly related to poverty, debt, homelessness, running away or being in – and leaving – local authority care. A blanket statement decrying ‘pimping’ as the cause of child sexual exploitation fails to address the root cause of vulnerability; that same vulnerability that makes organised crime gangs and grooming a viable, albeit tragic, alternative.
Deeply emotive responses to the phenomenon of child sexual exploitation should not drown out an evidence based discussion of pimping in all its different forms.
- What about boyfriends who act like ‘pimps’?
Though the 2000 Home Office study cited above showed that partners of sex workers could be charged with living off immoral earnings, none interviewed had involved themselves with any sex workers other than their partner and they worked in a way which was “active, not coercive”.
A person who is in a romantic relationship with a sex worker and who benefits financially from her employment, in the same way as any other partner of person in paid employment, is clearly not a pimp. Being supported by a partner is not inherently abusive practice. But it is easy to see how he, if he helps his partner at work, may be enveloped into the definition of ‘pimping’. Many sex workers financially support their partners or are managed by their partners in a consensual and respectful way. Unfortunately if the vantage point is that all sex work is exploitation (as abolitionists believe it is) then a supporting boyfriend is vilified as a pimp – even if he has no bearing on how she earns her living.
The boundary can blur between boyfriend and ‘pimp’, and evidence has shown that this can come about when the partner gets ‘greedy’ and feels entitled to money that they had no place in earning. This category is most problematic since, because of the loose understandings of pimping, it can be difficult to distinguish between financial abuse by the partner of a sex worker and a sex worker who is being pimped.
Teasing out the threads of financial exploitation by partners can be hampered by the demonisations of what we understanding to be pimping. This is concerning because it may be the relationship, not the work itself, where intervention or help is needed. If the sex industry is criminalised, then when intimate partner abuse (financial or otherwise) happens, the criminalised nature of the work is a barrier to accessing help. More concerning, if help is sought anyway, then services my look to remove from sex rather than working with her to stay safe from an abusive relationship. A clear definition of what a pimp is what is needed, rather than a catch all term for anyone involved in sex work or its peripheries.
- Holly Davis’ definition
In an interview on the Talking Research podcast, Davis unpacks what she considers the best working definition of ‘pimping’. Though it can be tempting to use the word pimp for all managers who take payment for sex workers’ labour, it is best to reserve this word for a specific style of management, and a specific type of problematic and exploitative arrangement. Her paper calls for a new formulation which is gender and racially neutral, excluding personality and behavioural characteristics, such as ‘cunning’. It refers exclusively to a financial arrangement whereby the pimp is controlling the work, movement, and money of sex workers. These are qualities which are quantifiable, not value driven, and identifiable through thorough research, without conflating consensual working or personal relationships.
- Why we need a more robust and comprehensive definition
Davis concludes that a new definition of ‘pimp’ could reformulate who is included and who is excluded by the term, for continuity and cohesion across interdisciplinary research. This specification could lead onto identification of the various types of ‘pimping’, and a more appropriate distinction between them. It would remove values and emotions from working definitions, and this could be helpful outside of academia too.
An understanding of pimping needs to be distinct from other types of working or personal relationships. This could allow sex workers in problematic, dangerous or exploitative working arrangements to speak about their problems as distinct from, or separate to, working practices they opt into for safety, company or relative ease – such as brothel work, agency work or letting their boyfriend manage them. The boundary can be blurred between these two categories, but that is exactly why a robust and comprehensive working definition is needed.