Regarding the bias of researchers, this article argues that all science is pervaded by researchers' values, as she notes that Weitzer himself is a supporter of indoor prostitution. She argues that her own perspective and hypotheses were clearly stated in her research, and the procedures for testing the hypotheses were made sufficiently explicit for others to replicate the study. The findings were not always as hypothesized. Regarding Weitzer's criticism of the author's methodology, the author notes that she and her follow researchers were conscientious in their methodology, given the impossibility of obtaining a random sample of people currently engaged in prostitution. She notes that they reported data from a large number of respondents in various countries who were engaged in various types of prostitution. The focus of this response to Weitzer, however, is on his criticism that the author and her colleagues failed to distinguish between the levels of violence experienced by "indoor" prostitutes compared with street prostitutes. The author challenges Weitzer's statement in 2004 that "Indoor prostitution typically involves much less exploitation, much less risk of violence, more control over working conditions, more job satisfaction, and higher self-esteem." The author cites research which shows that indoor prostitutes suffer from psychological abuse that significantly undermines self-esteem, and they test high on other psychological disorders. The author recommends more research on men's thinking about and demand for prostitution, particularly in the context of indoor prostitution. 26 references