The authors express regret that the article upon which Weitzer based his critique did not provide more information about their methodology, the reasons for its use, and the broad range of prostitution venues that were surveyed. The authors argue that their methodology provided a broader range of women in prostitution than is usually sampled and was not biased toward the most abused and disadvantaged of street prostitutes. The study sample included both women who had left and women who were still engaged in prostitution that represented a variety of venues, including escort services, strip clubs, and brothels. Thus, the sample was not limited to the worst cases. The authors argue that Weitzer himself has made premature conclusions about lower levels of violence and abuse within indoor prostitution compared with street prostitution. The authors advise that it is too early to reach conclusions about issues of violence within indoor prostitution venues in North America, since many of the studies that have shown low violence in indoor prostitution cited by Weitzer have been conducted in countries with varying degrees of legalization and regulation, making violence comparisons problematic.