Hey, Adult Lady, New York Knows Better Than You How You Should Live Your Life
Cathy Reisenwitz writes at reason that New York's "trafficking" court (and we're not talking about backed-up cars) turns sex workers into victims. It's good that they're looking to help sex slaves, but they are roping in sex workers along with them and forcing them into "treatment":
On Wednesday, Sept. 25, New York state's highest-ranking judge announced a first-of-its-kind initiative. In an effort to combat human trafficking and stop criminal courts from punishing victims of trafficking, New York will no longer treat sex workers as criminals. Instead of prison time, a special court will provide victims with social services, such as medical treatment and job training. However, the policy fails to distinguish between sex workers and sex slaves. This is a paternalistic perception that strips women of agency in an attempt to protect them from their own choices. "Saving" sex workers, after arresting and arraigning them, will not accomplish the court's goals.Federal law regarding human trafficking specifies that the difference between a worker and a slave is force or fraud, except in the case of sex. The law disregards the possibility that someone would choose to engage in prostitution. In doing so, it not only ignores sex workers, who must risk arrest and prison to earn a living, but fails the victims of force and fraud.
The message from our court system on respect for women's agency is clear. In 2006, a press release announcing an FBI, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and New York City Police Department prostitution sting called the story of the 31 arrests "Halting Human Trafficking," although there was no evidence presented that the sting uncovered any force, fraud or coercion, only prostitution.
Following the sting, FBI Special Agent Andrew Arena spoke at a press conference and the real target was obvious from his words: "The FBI is part of the apparatus in place to protect people, sometimes even from their own poor choices."
The first task of New York's new trafficking court is determining whether the arraigned persons are sex slaves or sex workers. This is a curious task, since trafficking law does not acknowledge the possibility of voluntary sex work, while prostitution law does not acknowledge the possibility of sex slavery. If every sex worker is considered a human trafficking victim, how could anyone be arrested for or charged with prostitution?
...There are genuine human trafficking victims in the U.S. Some arrive in the country through threats or fraud, and are then forced into sex slavery. But these are not the same people who have chosen sex work.Additionally, sex workers are potentially human trafficking's most effective foes, as they are ideally situated to identify sex slavery and alert the authorities. Or they would be if they did not risk arrest and prosecution for doing so.
Special courts allow the state to pretend it's doing something while not implementing the best solution: ending prohibition. Forcing people into treatment for "problems" like deciding to use drugs or engage in sex work creates new problems for them. A woman in state-mandated courses isn't earning money or taking care of her family. A man in a state-mandated drug-treatment program is likely to lose his job.
Retired call girl Maggie MacNeill writes about an experience she had at a dinner party:
Since there was a lady there I had never met and did not wish to risk offending, I merely joined in the discussion without bringing up my own profession. At least, that was my plan until the hostess suddenly spoke up."Maggie has a very interesting job," she said sweetly, "don't you, Maggie?" Since everyone else there already knew what I did, her intent was obviously to embarrass me in front of the lady I had just met, who was middle-aged and fairly proper.
"Oh, really, what do you do?" she asked me, expecting nothing shocking, I'm sure.
"I'm a whore," I replied matter-of-factly.
"Excuse me?" the lady asked, clearly believing she had misunderstood.
"A whore," I repeated. "A prostitute. A call girl. A harlot, a lady of the evening, a hooker, a strumpet, a doxy, a fille de joie. A demimondaine, a woman of questionable virtue." This was delivered with a straight face and no hint that I had said anything more unusual than "bank teller."
"Oh, how interesting," the poor dear said faintly. Our hostess turned scarlet and someone quickly introduced a new topic of conversation. I put up no fuss and simply continued on with the evening as though nothing had happened until the earliest polite opportunity to excuse ourselves and leave.
I introduce myself with this anecdote because it illustrates several points I would like to make right away, the most important of which is that this blog is in no way a confession. That would imply feelings of guilt, of which I have none. Somehow, neither my mother nor the nuns who taught me ever managed to instill in this little Catholic girl any sense that sex is dirty, bad, wrong or otherwise distasteful, and without that unhealthy concept imbedded in one's psyche prostitution is no different from any other service one might perform for hire.
I can almost hear some of my readers' protests: "Oh, I don't think sex is dirty, but it's so intimate. How could you do it with someone you don't know?" Therapists listen to intimate details of their patients' lives all the time and give them intimate advice on subjects they wouldn't discuss with their best friends. My gynecologist sticks her fingers into my vagina without a qualm, and nurses give very intimate care to bedridden patients. None of this seems to bother anyone.
Or this one: "Oh, but sex is special; it's for showing affection to someone you love." Well, there are many ways of showing affection. If a professional chef prepares a special meal for her husband, is that gesture lessened by the fact that she prepares meals for strangers every day? If a masseuse gives her man a massage, is he concerned that she has been rubbing other men's backs? If I dated an artist, would the picture he painted for me be any less a gift for his having painted many other women? Of course not.
I find it astonishingly sad that the poster equates her most intimate encounters with other commercial effort.
Perhaps I can better vocalize it this way:
"Tonight, dear, it's your turn."
Oh, boy!
Radwaste at October 5, 2013 10:50 AM
I object to the compulsion - anyone over the age of 21 should be able to opt in or out of the treatment program regardless of whether they get caught hooking, hustling, or escorting. Though I would be surprised if high-end escorts were caught in this net.
I'm married to a massage therapist, and without fail I am happy every time she tells me it's my turn. I've also gotten very good at giving massage to a massage therapist, because if anyone needs a strategically placed elbow at the end of the day, they do.
Michelle at October 5, 2013 1:36 PM
Radwaste, you really ought to read Maggie McNeill's blog to understand how she actually thinks before making such pronouncements.
Janet C at October 5, 2013 1:37 PM
Actually, Janet, I just haven't got there. If the excerpt doesn't thrill me, I just don't have the inclination to look further. I'm reading a hundred different things, page/glance.
I have asked my own daughter to explain how she or her guy can express how exceptional they are, when the convention is the "hookup", and they have several partners. I got a lot of hemming and hawing. Can you show success in general among adolescents in forming meaningful, long-lasting relationships? Can you deny that being in a line for a person's attention means that there are others on their mind? Can you state that commitment can be turned on like a switch, to be energized because now there are children to care for?
I think not, and if you walked into a room with your Significant Other and found that everyone there had had a taste, I suggest that while you might have something to talk about, you will not feel so special. Leopards, their spots, etc.
Radwaste at October 5, 2013 1:45 PM
"If a professional chef prepares a special meal for her husband, is that gesture lessened by the fact that she prepares meals for strangers every day?.... Of course not."
Of all the mornonic things....
No, the gesture isn't lessened but she can show even more affection for her husband by giving him a blow job.
The massage therapist can up the ante from special massage to sex.
If your view of sex is that it is no longer more meaningful or special than a homecooked meal then there is something definitely wrong with that!
Elle at October 5, 2013 1:50 PM
"The massage therapist can up the ante from special massage to sex."
So can the gynecologist, the therapist, and the chef. I think that's one of her points.
I've heard from a number of guys who say that they do not conflate sex with intimacy. Whether or not women generally do, I think MacNeill's point is well taken.
I've worked in office jobs where the emotional impact was profound enough to leave me shaken, or even harm my health. These jobs took a lot of time, had low pay and no benefits. If a person can do sex work in a way that moves her forward in life, more power to her or him.
In addition to being patronizing, compulsory victim services are less likely to be as useful as trade classes and the room and board needed to take advantage of them.
Michelle at October 5, 2013 5:09 PM
"So can the gynecologist, the therapist, and the chef. I think that's one of her points."
Right, but where does the happy sex worker go from there? There is no "This is something I share with just you," for someone who's a sex worker.
Now I don't think compulsory victim services are a good thing either, and I'm ambivalent on the matter of legalization of prostitution; but seriously - sex is not supposed to be the same thing as a homecooked meal or a shoulder rub.
Elle at October 5, 2013 6:07 PM
"A whore," I repeated. "A prostitute. A call girl. A harlot, a lady of the evening, a hooker, a strumpet, a doxy, a fille de joie. A demimondaine, a woman of questionable virtue."
I won't bother looking up "doxy" or "deminondaine" as I can guess from context their meaning; But, thanks Amy, you just expanded my vocabulary a bit today!
Although I do think she shouldn't have included the last one - afterall, Hillary and many other politicians of both sexes are "of questionable virtue"
Charles at October 5, 2013 6:36 PM
"but seriously - sex is not supposed to be the same thing as a homecooked meal or a shoulder rub."
Posted by: Elle at October 5, 2013 6:07 PM
I don't think modernity invented love, but I need look back only two generations to find a woman who stayed married to a philanderer and had children with him because *that was her job.* So said her mother when she tried to return home, seeking refuge for herself and her newborn.
I do find value in considering the ways in which over people's experiences can differ from my own. It is my ideal that sex have an emotional/ biochemical impact even more profound than a home cooked meal, but we're not all wired the same way.
Michelle at October 5, 2013 7:31 PM
the issue I take is with the equivalence of every job to every other, and to anything you might do.
sex is another ballgame for a reason, and that reason is powerful brain chemistry. If I do a job well at work, I feel accomplished... but that isn't an orgasm. Nor is the smell of someone that you like liable to do anything but make your brain light up.
so, when saying all that is the equivalent to flippin' burgers... you are bringing the entirety of human existence down.
Yes it may be an old profession, but that doesn't mean it's a general one. Not everyone can be so cavalier about how they feel inside. Those that can, do.
perhaps the difference lies there. between those that choose, and those who are forced.
In any case, the understanding that it will happen, while describing it as not a societal good, should be basic. For that reason the government should butt out, EXCEPT when coercion or health are at stake. The shame of it, just like the shame of being on the dole, would take care of regulation of supply.
HOWEVER. when you normalize everything... then it must be seen as a societal good. and then you simply get more of what you reward. as with seeing 4 generations on the dole
We should think long and hard about upsetting the balance of things like this. we may end up not where we wished to go.
SwissArmyD at October 5, 2013 10:46 PM
There is only one thing missing to make this reasonable.....it should include the men also....men should also be given all these services and free houses and everything. The whole concept of women are victims sucks and it should include men also as victims
Redrajesh at October 6, 2013 12:04 AM
Can you show success in general among adolescents in forming meaningful, long-lasting relationships?
Can you show such success in adults? My grandmother stayed with my grandfather for decades, despite his affairs and abuse, just cause a marriage looks successful doesnt mean it is fulfilling or meaningful.
No, the gesture isn't lessened but she can show even more affection for her husband by giving him a blow job.
There was a time when that wasnt something a 'lady' even did
If your view of sex is that it is no longer more meaningful or special than a homecooked meal then there is something definitely wrong with that!
I agree, but given its women generally witholding sex, they are the ones who are deciding sex isnt meaningful
I dont understand the objection to willing sex work. Most of the men and women who purchase such services do so because their significant other does not provide. Whether that be out right refusal, or because the person wanting refuses to push a conversation on the subject.
But if you refuse to touch your husband/wife, if sex is so unimportant to you, why would you care if the get it elsewhere?
lujlp at October 6, 2013 10:07 AM
"when the convention is the "hookup", and they have several partners"
I'm with lujlp.
People were married and while married most men fucked outside the marriage and if a woman was high enough status she could too.
Victorias had "petting parties", the greeks were super flaming homos, and in the 1920's hookup was in style.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun"
The reason marriage fails nowadays is because it's based on LOVE vs the old-fashioned way of a contract.
Ppen at October 6, 2013 3:29 PM
This is sadder still, in that the objections to points I raise all indicate a loss of value for intimacy. Some are worded as if it were inevitable, or necessary.
No. The unheralded sacrifice for another is still the most noble thing you can do, and having a partner who understands that, and who persistently puts you first because you do the same is a wonderment.
Radwaste at October 7, 2013 3:59 AM
Rad, there are people for whom sex is not intimate, and still others who while having sex can reveal or withhold that which is intimate and sacred.
We are not all wired the same way.
Michelle at October 7, 2013 8:08 AM
One of the things I've noticed about those who make other-than-mainstream choices for their sex lives is they want to believe everyone around them is shocked, aghast, ignorant, prudish, asexual, and most importantly, somehow upset and/or fascinated with them.
Mostly I'm just bored with whores, Burning Man STD distributors, housefrau fans of 50 Shades of Whatever, and Harley riders. They're all so eager to join the club of people who just won't join a club.
"You cagers, man, you just don't understand, man. We want to be free, man, free to ride our bikes, man."
zzzz
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 7, 2013 3:42 PM
But the fact is Gog, most people dont say 'I dont care' like you, they say 'That aught to be illegal'
lujlp at October 8, 2013 9:02 AM
Leave a comment