Local and national economic fluctuations alter demand for paid sex.

Discussions in all areas were heavily influenced by the effects of a volatile local economy. It was evident in all of our FGDs that economic conditions directly affected demand for paid sex by impacting the affordability of commercial sex and indirectly by affecting the affordability of drinking patterns associated with buying sex. Described experiences predominantly featured the felt effects of a deepening economic crisis that culminated in collapse of the currency in 2009, coinciding with these FGDs. However, in the RTS, the small town and the growth point, economic conditions were also altered by a localized economic boom caused by unregulated diamond panning, colloquially termed the “Chiadzwa period”, which immediately preceded the economic collapse. News reports at the time suggested the mine was left unoccupied between 2006 and 2008, and attracted many unauthorized diamond panners[42] until government authorities claimed control in late 2008[43].

Most respondents in the affected areas mentioned how the commercial sex industry was “resuscitated” by diamond panners who temporarily distorted local monetary systems (it was unclear whether these were local men or non-locals passing through—in the growth point they appeared to be the latter, S2 Text). Daniel, a man from RTS, notes the fluctuating demand in a discussion about the demand for sex work:

Daniel: “I started working in the late 80s and early 90s. I would say that we had our piece of cake, we really enjoyed ourselves … People used to do it [sex work] long back when the economy was still okay. Sex work is going down, it was just resuscitated for a short time during the Chiadzwa diamond days” (Male, RTS)

The diamond panners not only resuscitated the demand, they also stimulated a hike in prices. In a discussion about the earning potential of sex work, a group of FSWs reminisce on the days when prices for sex work were twenty-fold higher than what they received after panners had left.

Hannah: “The time of the diamond panners, we really made money, because they would pay up to about US$100–150 per session … The diamonds panners had a lot of money; they would even give you such an amount for free … without asking for sex.”

KN: “How much are you making these days since the diamond panners are no longer here?”

Charity (and Esther agreeing): “Aah these days it’s difficult, people no longer have money, it’s by chance [that you will find a wealthy client].” (FSWs, growth point)

As Charity and Esther acknowledge, the post-boom austerity was a stark contrast for women who had profited from sex work; not only did prices change, a number of FSWs and clients reported changes to the timing and frequency of demand. Where previously demand fluctuated in a predictable manner–peaking at weekends and around payday when men would typically go to bars–economic decline reduced opportunities for regular employment, which meant that local men could no longer afford drinking in bars or to pay for sex. FSWs and men talked about how the demand for paid sex had become erratic and men would purchase sex on an ad hoc basis if, for example, they had earned money or commodities through piece-work.

Hugh: “Nowadays there is no longer month-end [payday] as far as things are concerned, it depends on what you earn on that day. It can be any income that you managed to receive on that day, whether it is groceries, a bar of soap, maize-meal or whatever you earn that particular day. These FSWs accept anything you have as payment.” (Male, small town)

Noted by Chris below, reduced disposable income also appeared to indirectly vitiate demand for paid sex by interrupting ritualized socializing–characterized by heavy drinking in a male-dominated environment–that was once central to the way sex was negotiated. Male respondents described how such socializing in combination with the attention given to them by FSWs, heightened their sexual arousal which they described as often culminating in unplanned or even involuntarily purchase of sex (S3 Text).

Chris: “For someone to engage with sex workers it means you have a lot of money; people would invite each other and go for a beer binge-drinking. If he has money on a particular day he will call a lot of friends to go and drink beer. That’s what these young men do. But, nowadays, money is scarce. It’s rare for someone to get money and go and drink, because life now is very tough. He would rather stay at home.” (Male, SFA)

Bars thus formed a nexus for sex work by combining the social and chemical properties of drinking, with the socio-cultural reasons that make bars male-dominated (also documented in other studies[44, 45]). Reduced drinking and patronage of bars, due to erratic income, removed an important space for sex negotiations.

Social changes alter demand for paid sex.

Besides a volatile local economy, several social changes were also observed to impact demand for commercial sex. Fear of HIV and death had become linked to commercial sex and promiscuity more widely.

Rose: “Prostitutes make our lives difficult here. They infect our boyfriends before we start having our own families, so they spoil everything for us. These days young men are eager to have an experience with these old ladies, these prostitutes, so it will be difficult to marry someone who is not infected.” (Vendor, Growth point)

In the RTS community, focus group participants indicated an escalation of intolerance against selling sex in bars. The following exchange highlights how anxiety about HIV and recognition of the need to reduce high-risk behaviors, governed the demand for sex work through public humiliation for purchasing sex and scapegoating of sex workers:

Walter: “Local women used to enter the bars, but we ended up chasing away women from the bars; we didn’t want them in the bars anymore”

KN: “Was it unanimously decided that as a community you agreed not to allow women in the bars?”

Walter: “To answer your question, I would say that many people died. People had a nasty experience due to this disease, so they do not want it to befall them. At funerals, people were aware of the deceased’s previous activities and if s/he was not straight [i.e. if they were promiscuous], then people would warn those remaining to be watchful, for their time will come. People were afraid and they exercised self-control.”

Peter: “Plus these women used to document all the partners they had slept with. They left a record listing all people who had had sex with her.”

KN: “Who would know of what was in the record?”

Michael: “The whole village, the list would be read in public”

KN: “What if your wife was there? Wouldn’t she have heard about that?”

Michael: “Of course, she would know of all your hidden activities!” (Males, RTS)

This scapegoating of FSWs as responsible for HIV transmission seemed to be recognized by FSWs as a perception that they were less “healthy” than women involved in TS. That this perception prevailed, despite their reported insistence on condom use, was a source of frustration for Grace and other FSWs in the small town and growth point who also argued that some men even requested protection (some FSWs met resistance on occasion or men offering more money for unprotected sex, S4 Text). Men in the town and RTS also corroborated this “rule” of condom use for commercial sex, unless they were drunk (S4 Text).

Grace: “Pure prostitutes who are doing it on full time, they use condoms, no matter what. Even if they know that they are HIV/AIDS positive, they know the rules and they use condoms strictly. But for those who are doing it outside [the bars including women involved in TS–see S1 Text for full quote], they are tricky, they do not use condoms, men believe that they are healthy…such people are the ones who spread HIV/AIDS on a fast rate, because they are still trusted. As for us, we are no longer trusted and we now have a number plate, no one trusts us anymore.” (FSW, small town)

It is evident that both the economic decline and fear of HIV has had direct and indirect impacts on the demand for paid sex. We will discuss in the next section how FSWs and their clients have adapted to these changes. In the final section, we return to discuss tensions between TS and sex workers highlighted by Grace and consider reasons for and community reactions to the perceived growth in TS.

Sex negotiation dispersed from visible locations into the community.

In all sites, FSWs and clients mentioned the waning dominance of bars as a locus for commercial sex, but the extent of dispersal away from bars varied by site. In the growth point and small town sites, FSWs continued visiting bars, but with decreased frequency and would look for other opportunities to make money. For example, FSWs who had made money during the Chiadzwa period were “beginning to sell those things they got from that time” (S5 Text). In the other three sites, there was consensus that bar-based solicitation had virtually ceased (as Paul suggests below).

Paul: “In the past, women used to fill the bars and men will fight over women in the bars … Nowadays they are no longer doing that, you find them doing sex work from their homes and from the work place, not in the bars as before. If you go to the bars you would think that there are no sex workers here yet there are there, but they are doing it in their homes and in the bushes, not in the bars anymore.” (Male, estate)

New and alternative places for client recruitment included workplaces, on the roads, in the bushes, and in haulage trucks of drivers delivering to the forestry estate. In the forestry estate, participants reported it was common for negotiations to occur during working hours with sex exchanged after work (see S6 Text). Also, events or gatherings where men and women congregate and mix were mentioned by most focus groups, to provide new avenues for negotiating sex work. This included Chenura ceremonies (celebrations of ancestors that take place in August), during grain distributions from international aid organizations, all-night Church meetings, concerts, weddings and funerals. Christina and Sylvia, two sex workers who used to travel to a nearby growth point to sell sex, explained how the economic decline meant they had to find other opportunities to attract clients.

Christina: “Nowadays it is rare that we meet the clients at the beer halls. We meet them at our homes, as people no longer go to the beer halls.”

Sylvia: “We also see each other at traditional ceremonies to mark the death of a departed family member (Chenura) …”

Christina: “… and at the consolation ceremonies (Nyaradzo).”

Sylvia: “From the way I dance, they [men] will definitely notice me.” (FSWs, SFA)

Third parties and word-of-mouth, as Mary describes above, were also mentioned as ways to find clients in the RTS, though the zero-tolerance policy combined with economic decline appeared to have driven sex work underground. To facilitate clandestine negotiations, FSWs were said to live in accommodation nearby the bar and find non-local clients among the migrant NGO workers whose central distribution point and workers’ accommodation were slightly secluded from, but near the marketplace (we confirmed this with the workers when we visited the distribution point; they referred to local women who brewed “Ndari”–a “seven-day” beer–who also exchanged sex). Jeffrey and market vendors, Mavis and Victoria, shared their observations of the sex work dynamics in the area.

Mavis: “Nowadays, the sex workers are concentrated at that organization that is distributing grain … The sex workers are targeting truck drivers that are bringing in trucks of food there.”

Victoria: “The shop assistants know very well the dynamics that are going on there. They are the ones that are sent to call sex workers by these truck drivers.” (Vendors, RTS)

Jeffrey: “Some of these sex workers know people’s pay days, they know the companies and the pay days, so they usually grab the opportunity [to sell sex then] … We have some non-governmental organizations operating in here, so they keep a record of their pay days” (Males, RTS)

FSWs employ new interpersonal strategies to recruit clients.

FSWs working in bars in competition with other women developed a range of strategies to attract men and to maximize business, including exploiting fear of HIV and manipulating local perceptions of risk:

Esther: “Older women are very jealous of the younger girls; they will tell the men in the bar that the younger women are infected by HIV/AIDS, so men shouldn’t pick them” (FSW, growth point)

Tactics to help initiate conversations in bars, such as approaching men with an empty cup (to request beer), were less subtle than the sophisticated signals FSWs employed to recruit clients outside bars, as the environment differed substantially from one where solicitation was the norm. FSWs from all groups mentioned having to use a host of body language techniques and linguistic skills to signal that they were approachable (it is culturally unacceptable for women to proposition men with sex directly). Signals ranged from verbal cues to more subtle eye contact and body movements.

Chloe: “Before I became a sex worker, I used to be bothered about how I would indicate that I am approachable. Have you seen those very large hooped earrings? They are called “do not hesitate to approach me!” When you are wearing those earrings, men will know that you are approachable. Also from the way I talk to a man, for instance at a bus terminus, he should know that I am free. I would go and approach him and ask him seductively, ‘Was there any bus that has passed so far?’ (standing up to demonstrate, twisting her body). My posture would also indicate that I am asking for more. If I am a decent person, I would be talking to him more politely, ‘My son-in law, was there any transport here? I am coming from a funeral’. As a sex worker, my manner is completely different. The guy I’m talking to would definitely know that I am free (All laughing from the gestures). It’s called marketing yourself!” (FSW, estate)

Changes to monetary systems.

All focus group discussions alluded to the elasticity in payments for sex. Hyperinflation and shortage of funds among clients meant changes in monetary systems. While FSWs in the small town and growth point and male focus groups in the RTS and small town talked about how FSWs were accepting smaller payments, some discussed how it was now possible to pay for sex using commodities.

Peter: “Nowadays the market is low, payments are low, ever since the mine was closed.”

Unidentified participant: “If they get groceries then they are paid. They get a piece of bath soap. They can be given a bottle of cooking oil or anything as a form of payment.” (Males, RTS)

This was corroborated by FSWs who reported agreeing to credit-based arrangements, where payment is negotiated upfront, but honored after an agreed period. This emerged as a particularly common form of payment in the forestry estate. A number of features of the estate appeared to contribute to its viability: a) wages were paid in commodities by the proprietary company and thus may have been less amenable to per-encounter payments; b) sex workers and men worked in the same place so FSWs knew how much and when their clients would be paid (and where they lived); c) the relatively stable male workforce meant FSWs knew where to find them to collect payments (few men occupied the low-skilled jobs that involved seasonal rotation and had high turnover; these were some of the only jobs available to women). However, such arrangements still exposed FSWs to extortion by clients who could refuse to pay, as described by FSWs from the forestry estate below.

Phoebe: “Here we get our diamond [hampers given as part of the salary] at the end of the month, that’s when we pay each other…If the company takes two months without paying us, we will then be having sex with each other for those two months for nothing. So, that’s the deal…usually it’s 2 liters of cooking oil and a bar of soap…”

Chloe: “…or 4 liters and a bar of soap”

Phoebe: “If he runs away without paying I would definitely not let him come back again for such services… But I would not make a follow up, it would just mean the end of the relationship… If I am tricked, I am tricked; it is not possible to make a follow up, is it?”

Chloe: “I would try to make a follow up, aah!”

Claris: “He would have used me for nothing, so I would make a follow up until he pays me my money or whatever we have agreed. As soon as he pays me, I won’t bother him anymore or even to bother his new partner, I won’t. I would leave him and look for someone else.” (FSWs, estate)

Transactional sex fueled by poverty.

The prosperity of the ‘Chiadzwa period’ against a backdrop of general economic decline was perceived to provide a powerful incentive to sell sex and was noted for an initial spurt in TS including among married women (despite the risk of marital breakdown):

Tiffany: “When we meet as women and we rebuke each other about this behavior, one will say, ‘The man you are chiding me about brings food at home, my own husband doesn’t bring food for the children’ … The husband is just sat at home doing nothing, so the wife will go [to earn], for example, recently, some went to Chiadzwa…She would have gone with the diamond panniers and after a few days she brings home a lot of goods. You observe that everything worked out well, even the family looks well” (Married woman involved in TS, growth point)

However, it was the austerity of the post-boom period, marked by deep poverty and the lack of basic household supplies, that was mentioned in many of the FGDs (including FGDs in communities that had encountered the diamond boom) as the principal contemporary driving factor for housewives to engage in TS, as Moses describes below.

Moses: “Right now because we have a lot of poverty, we have poverty driven sex work [transactional sex]. For [women] who are poverty driven [to sell sex] they maybe in a married couple and the man cannot support their families. The wife will then approach you asking for grain/maize or anything to feed their families and in return they will agree to have sex with you.” (Male, small town)

Moses’ excerpt also illustrates the uneven effects of the economic decline causing women from impoverished households to resort to TS to support the family and who approach men in households that are less impoverished. Because of the cash crisis, and a desire for consumables, several respondents (such as John below and S7 Text) pointed to a rise in transactional sex among adolescents, particularly those from poorer households or orphans.

KN: What you can say about the trend of sex work, how has sex work changed since 2000 and before as you compare it with nowadays?

John: “I wanted to refer to Chris who said sex work is decreasing; I disagree, I believe sex work is increasing. I spend most of my time at the shopping center in my barber shop. I will shave the hair of six girls and, after finishing, they will tell me that they do not have any money to pay for the service … I will see Revai at the shopping center with one girlfriend, he has two or three now, I will see Ruvimbo with the same girlfriend, I will see a third person with the same girlfriend, so I can say sex work is on the increase.” (Male, SFA)

Beatrice: “These children nowadays depend from what they get from men from the bars. That’s where they get sugar, soap, and all other basics.” (FSW, estate)

The combination of sex workers selling sex on a more ad hoc basis and outside bars (leading to a perception of commercial sex diminishing) with a rise in women and children engaging in TS suggests a shifting sex trade.

Increased transactional sex perceived to fuel the HIV epidemic.

We have described how FSWs were perceived to be responsible for HIV spread despite a tendency for condom use in commercial sex. This trend helped illuminate a perceived difference between commercial sex workers and women who engaged in TS. In discussions about differences between commercial and transactional sex, it often emerged that condoms were less often used in TS partly because men perceived women or girls involved in TS as uninfected (mentioned in every FGD with men). On the other hand, many women considered commercial sex workers less risky, precisely because, unlike women involved in TS, FSWs were believed to use condoms consistently:

Brian: “Some people still have a wrong perception about condoms. There are still some people who believe that condoms are for commercial sex workers. So as a result, if someone falls for somebody’s wife they think that she doesn’t have any infection, they do not use a condom and they also believe that a condom is only used for a sex worker. Again, a married woman would prefer not to use a condom for she doesn’t consider what she is doing as sex work” (Male, forestry estate)

KN: “So what are your views on sex work and sex workers?”

Violet: “I am more pained by married women who are doing sex work than by those who are doing full time sex work in the bars. These married women are spreading HIV/AIDS like a veld fire [wildfire] and it’s a concern to us, but those who are in the bars doing commercial sex work use protection. I do not know what can be done about the married women, for these are the trouble causers.” (Vendor, small town)

We note that Violet’s views contrast with felt experiences of FSWs, that they were “no longer trusted”, and community responses to FSWs (theme 1) and thus possibly reflect more nascent views rather than an established norm (similar views were found in married women’s FGDs in the estate and RTS; though there were dissenting views in the RTS). While all FGDs acknowledged condoms were rarely used in TS encounters, suggestions by males that women may be affronted by requests to use condoms were not corroborated in discussions with females. Rather, they felt the main barriers to condom use concerned the male partner who determined condom use (young girls were widely reported as particularly vulnerable), the risk of losing payment, the unplanned/opportunistic nature of sex, and the fear of discovery by their spouses. If condoms were used, it was only in the first few encounters.

Violet and Brian’s views indicate how local social attitudes to sex work may be shifted by changes in the market for sex. Women–whether involved in sex work or transactional sex–not men were, however, repeatedly held responsible for HIV transmission.