MONGERS IN HEAVEN:

SEXUAL TOURISM AND HIV RISK IN COSTA RICA AND

IN THE UNITED STATES

Jacobo Schifter, PhD

Costa Rica

In a talk given at the Albany campus of Massey University of New Zealand on the epistemology of research, Chris Ryan and C. Michael Martin (2000), authors of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities,[1] provided a metaphor likening research truths to an onion. In their study of prostitution in Thailand, they found that the women involved in the industry of sexual tourism had different answers to questions posed by different people in different circumstances. They described this as being like a sheet of an onion, which has its own truth, and its own logic that changes each time you peel it. They postulate that, as sex researchers, we confront partial truths. The truth lies in the whole onion rather than at a “core” or at one single layer. 

Sexual work aims to please others and offers a theatre where fantasy and reality intermingle. This is the reason why sex researchers, who enter a brothel, nightclub or massage sauna, will receive a variant representation, generally the type of information they themselves want to hear. “Are you doing STI prevention?” our ethnographer asks a prostitute. “Yes, we are all concerned here and use condoms all the time,” she responds.  Yet, later she charges a client double to perform sex without a condom.

If the people who work in the sexual industry know that researchers belong to a nongovernmental or private organization in the health prevention field, they will probably say when questioned that safe sex is generally practiced, that the consumption of drugs is low or nonexistent, and that they work inside the industry because of harsh economic difficulties. Although we found other realities in our 2000 survey with sex workers, it is very probable that most of them underreported the amount of unsafe sex, drug consumption and misrepresented their reasons for engaging in sex work.

We did not find in our 2000 Survey a total commitment to safe sex. As a matter of fact, unsafe sex was high. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that if we factor in the underreporting – especially with regard to condom and drug use - the risk index would have been much higher.

In Costa Rica, sex work is legal and the country has a strong tradition of tolerance toward prostitution. In 1894, the first laws (Ley de Profilaxis Venérea and Reglamento de Prostitución) were enacted to regulate and control the activity under the rationale that it was important for guaranteeing “hygiene and public morals.” From then on, sex workers were subject to a weekly medical check-up in order to detect sexually-transmitted diseases (STD’s). Prostitutes had to register with the police and those who failed to do so, could be sentenced to a maximum of 10 days in prison. Women who were infected were forbidden to work and were subject to longer prison terms.  Sex workers were prohibited from living 200 meters from schools and in cases of scandalous behavior, were expelled from their neighborhoods. Sex workers were listed in the public registry and could only be removed if they were married or had proof of a “respectable job.” In the 1943-1944 Penal Code, supervision of sex workers was handed to social workers. This proved to be problematic as the sex workers evaded the officials. In the present Penal Code of 1970, it is again the Ministry of Health that is responsible for periodically testing registered sex workers. Those who do not comply are subject to arrest by the police. [2]

The Costa Rican Penal Code of 1894 was emulated by the Netherlands in its 1911 Code that legalized prostitution. The Dutch penal code defined the broader context for prostitution laws and regulations in their colonies: brothels were banned throughout the kingdom and the active promotion of prostitution, as in Costa Rica, was criminalized. Nevertheless, prostitution was considered a necessary social evil, and sex work itself was not criminalized, allowing some forms of tolerance of sex work and the legal existence of the social category of the prostitute. In Dutch colonies such as Curazao and Aruba, there was greater tolerance than in the Netherlands, and brothels –like the famous Campo Alegre- were set up. This led to government intervention in and regulation of prostitution and provided an active role for the police in guaranteeing that sex workers were  “free of disease.”  Thus, the states that legalized prostitution and took it upon themselves to protect “society from prostitution’s evil influence,” became directly involved in the sex trade.[3]

Although prostitution is legal in Costa Rica, pimping[4] (proxenetismo) is not. Many practices can be considered pimping and thus be illegal. According to a strict reading of this law, an individual who owns a nightclub that promotes prostitution can be prosecuted for pimping. Massage parlors, hotels that cater to prostitutes, and bars with private rooms, can all be legally prosecuted as well. Furthermore, the manner in which sex workers are paid can determine what is considered legal and illegal. Dildoman, for example, explains to other sex tourists that Art y Sauna, a massage parlor, was closed by a “technical” interpretation of the Law: Since the receptionist would “collect all the money from the client and then pay the ‘chicas’ the authorities considered that as pimping.”[5]

In addition to pimping, establishments and individuals are often prosecuted for other reasons. The police and the Ministry of Health may crack down on places that employ HIV-positive sex workers and illegal residents, detain American tourists who do not have their papers at hand and imprison owner and managers if there is a minor on the premises. This vulnerability to police harassment and blackmail is one of the worst fears among those involved in the sex industry.

The first warning usually comes from newspaper articles. A.M., a newspaper, tells mongers that the Ministry of Health will make sure that the Massage Parlors are not being used for prostitution and that it will take measures to "avoid the camouflage of places of prostitution that function under the name of massage parlors." [6]  A few days later, the police raid the Massage Parlors and their clients are imprisoned. In other circumstances, the arrival of a questionable individual is the trigger. Jeff99 –for example- is aware of the danger that “Easy”, a sex tourist, is in San José.  This man is looked for the police for “his Sex Wax scam he perpetrated last November”. Since he is in town he thinks, “new raids are to be expected this week.” Mongers or sex tourists –he believes- will pay collective punishment. “The smart thing to do” he adds “is to remember that Easy is a long time member of this Forum” and to “carry your passports this week if you are in town, especially if you’re in the vicinity of Mr. Easy. Easy arrives on June 28th. Be on the lookout. Be careful out there gentlemen.” [7]

The manner these mongers act reminds us of the homosexual harassment in the 1970’s. In that decade, the police used to have periodic raids on gay bars. Once the police was spotted, bar owners would turn on a red light to warn their customers. Gay couples were to immediately stop dancing with each other and run to the exit doors. Twenty-years later, straight heterosexual American males are the ones who run away for their lives.

Romulus, for example, is coming to town and wants to know if there have been any raids recently. If the answer is affirmative, he asks other mongers what to do: “Do you run for the elevators or exit doors? How about stairways or inside the kitchen downstairs?”[8]

An estimate was made of the number of sex workers who work in the establishments and in the streets. [20]  The random nature of the sample was established by the choice of hours for interviews. [21]  Finally, 400 interviews were carried out at the different social centers in San Jose.[22]   

Focus group discussions

A sample of 10 sex workers were invited to participate in focus-group discussions held at ILPES in San Jose, Costa Rica. These were carried out on July 29, 2000 from 8 pm to 10:30 pm. [23] The discussions focused on participants' perception of the data gathered with regard to sexual risk-taking in association with substance use and possibilities of behavior change. [24]

In depth- interviews

A sub-sample of 20 sex workers was invited to take part in individual semi-structured in-depth interviews about their perceptions and behavior concerning psychoactive substance use and sexuality. These interviews had an average duration of one hour and were conducted in three nightclubs in San Jose, Costa Rica. Five interviewers participated during the month of September 2000. [25]

Another five interviewers (not the same ones conducting the focus-group interviews) received special training on how to respond constructively to possible sensitive information given by the participants and possible feelings of embarrassment and shame. [26]

Ethnographic Observation

In 2000 two nightclubs were selected for ethnographic observation: Puro Placer and Elías[27]. Puro Placer is a club located near the Coca Cola Market in San Jose, Costa Rica. The area is part of San Jose’s red-light district. The observation took place on March 24, 2000 and was conducted by two ethnographers, one male and one female. They spent five hours in this bar. Elite is a similar club located in Paseo Colon, a more commercial section in the city of San Jose. The same ethnographers conducted the observation during May 26, 2000 from 10:30 pm to 1 o’clock in the morning.

The nightclubs have approximately from 20 to 40 female dancers and a clientele of approximately 100 to 200 men per night.  The bars are meeting places for prostitutes and their clients who, after several drinks, retire to nearby motels, private apartments or houses. The main activity in both places is dancing and drinking.