ABSTRACT
From the perspective of a non-positivistic research tradition, any reporting of research is eloquent when the text is re-construed from a stance of examining both that which is said, and that which remains silent. In that sense the writing of a book about matters as controversial as sex tourism is in itself a difficult task. As Manderson (1992) noted, it leaves the authors exposed, even while judgements on the authors’ work convey meaning about those who make comment. Further, to include in a book research undertaken at a primary level that was based on, in some cases, comparatively long relationships with informants, makes the task all the more difficult. As has been discussed, the authors have sought to examine on the one hand, issues of motive and, on the other, their relationship with informants. In the previous chapter, one value judgement that is a result of this work has been made explicit, and that is that women possess a right to work as sex workers if they so wish, albeit it is recognised that the conditions that give rise to ‘choice’ may be constrained by economic necessities among other factors. In short, the authors deny that all sex workers are, by definition, victims. Yet, as hopefully is made clear by the chapter on sex trafficking, it is equally recognised that power structures exist whereby there is undoubtedly exploitation. Legalisation and/or decriminalisation (as may be deemed appropriate by those involved) of the industry is not seen as an answer to all the problems, but it is seen as a means of securing better support mechanisms in terms of health, protection and self-assessment by those men and women who work as sex workers. Such a course of action runs the danger of perpetuating those systems that create the conditions for sex tourism, but from a purely pragmatic perspective the authors would ask, how many women (and men) need to continue in danger from middle men who withhold monies, health protection and can continue to threaten sex workers, while the wider social problems of inequitable distribution of economic power are ‘put right’?
