A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. – William Blake
Those who foolishly insist on viewing the world through the filter of dogma are blind to everything that dogma will not admit, even when the truth lies right before them. The ass who looks at prostitution with neofeminist blinkers on sees only what her driver wants her to see, and no more; prohibitionists are told that prostitution “victimizes” or “exploits” women, and their eyes remain so fixed on that false image that they can see neither the harm their policies do to prostitutes nor the dangerous precedent they set for women’s rights and the legal assumptions about women’s competence and right to self-determination. Those without those blinkers can turn their heads and look freely at all parts of a situation, and thus may see a very different picture from those blinded by the brainwashing.
I found an obvious case of this on Brandy Devereaux’s blog last Monday (February 14th); it led me to this article on MLive.com, a Michigan news website, and I was struck by the contrast between the clear sight of Darrell Dawsey (the journalist who wrote it) and the blindness of the officials who appear in it. I’m so impressed with the article, in fact, that I’m willing to overlook its truly annoying title in favor of its abstract: “A recent post-mortem of high-profile sex ring Miami Companions, which was broken up by federal agents last year, highlights the glaring inconsistency and imbalance in how we tackle the ‘crime’ of prostitution.”
On May 12, Gregory Carr, who prosecutors say masterminded Miami Companions, will be sentenced for running what the feds had dubbed one of the biggest sex rings in the country….But none of the 30,000-plus clients who paid as much as $500-an-hour for sex were ever outed. The so-called black book that contains their names remains in an FBI office in Tampa under tight security. And Barbara McQuade, U.S. attorney for southeast Michigan, said she has no plans to release the book — nor does she need it now that she has guilty pleas. “Our goal is not to stamp out prostitution. I don’t think we’ll ever do that,” she said. “But what we are concerned about is deterring criminal organizations from exploiting women as a commodity for profit.”
“Ring” is of course a dysph
emism for “suppressed business”. When the 18th amendment went into effect in 1920 liquor dealers suddenly became “bootlegging rings”, and when the 21st amendment ended Prohibition in 1933 those “rings” magically turned back into businesses. The word “ring” is a pejorative term intended to conjure up images of seedy gangsters meeting around tables in the back rooms of pool halls. And the reason the “black book” isn’t being released has nothing to do with guilty pleas and everything to do with the fact that a number of prominent citizens – including some of McQuade’s bosses – are listed in that book. “Ring” indeed. But McQuade goes from disingenuous to asinine in the last line, considering that every commercial employer in America exploits women (and men, too) as a “commodity for profit”. How is an escort service different from a theatrical agency or a temp agency, whose sole product is living humans of certain desired characteristics? It of course isn’t, unless you believe that sex is somehow intrinsically different from every other human activity.
Apparently, McQuade can tolerate prostitution as long as it remains a mom-and-pop endeavor. But grow that business from two girls on a street corner to a Web-based ring with international ties, then, suddenly, prostitution becomes deserving of federal wrath. She’s not so much interested in busting the men who pay for sex, she says. Or the women who provide it — as long they keep their sex ring small. Her problem seems to be less with the act than with the scale of it: “We’re not trying to be the morality police,” McQuade said. “We try to go after what we perceive to be more important offenders, those who are engaged in organized criminal activity.” But here’s the thing: As long as prostitution is illegal, it’s all “organized criminal activity.” Whether the sex workers are independent contractors or part of a larger group, they’re all providing pretty much the same service. Why is it suddenly worse because some middle manager is making flight arrangements or work schedules?
I wanted to stand up and clap when I read that last part, starting with “But here’s the thing.” McQuade claims her office isn’t trying to regulate morality, but of course that’s exactly what it’s doing whether she admits it or not.
.. McQuade’s stance [is] mired… in some common…perceptions about pimps…they can be abusive and low down…But there’s no evidence that Carr coerced any of these women…they worked when they wanted to and pursued other interests when they didn’t.
Miami Companions simply made it easier, and probably more lucrative, for them to do what they wanted to do…Carr’s worst crime, as far as I can tell, seems to be getting paid to serve as a middle man in the sex industry. Is he really substantively any worse than, say, Hugh Hefner? It seems a little disingenuous for McQuade to acknowledge that prostitution is an ineradicable trade on one hand, but then to declare it intolerable only when folks actually make money at it (which, of course, is the point of selling sex in the first place).
So what about sex workers who enjoy the trade and want the opportunity to earn more money and meet more clients? What about the women who get into the game of their own volition, independent “working girls” who tolerate no pimps but who still see the value in growing their network? How many clients can a “sex ring” have before McQuade determines that it’s become too big to succeed? Despite McQuade’s clear acknowledgment of the intractability of the world’s oldest profession, the feds’ message seems to be that our government is fine with prostitution — as long as you’re not too good at it.
I don’t have anything else to add. Thank you, Mr. Dawsey, both for your defense of women’s right to work in the profession of our choice and also for just being a rational human being.
Exceptionally cogent, well-thought out article.
Mr Darrell appears to be an interesting writer and reporter on other issues as well (he seems mostly interested in the workers’ movement, according to his list of recently published articles.
Among his articles, I found a couple that might also interest you and your readers, Maggie:
Let’s Not Confuse Child Porn With Adult Porn
Is It Time To Remove Tax-Exempt Status for Churches?
Hm, so a girl walking the streets at night isn’t worth going after, but a couple of dozen girls arranging to not have to walk the streets at night, now that has to be stopped, damn it!
I’m not sure how that makes sense, even if you are against prostitution, even if you are for it.
It doesn’t make sense at all, except to a neofeminist; remember, these are the same people who say that it’s better to let more women be raped than to allow prostitution and pornography. Their agenda is the suppression of male sexuality, NOT the elevation of women as they claim. 🙁
There is an inconsistency here, which points towards ongoing thought change in their midst. Ms McQuade seems to be someone who doesn’t want to condemn prostitution per se, only exploitation, pimps, etc.; she is apparently mistaken about where they are and how many (it would seem she believes if a prostitution business becomes big, then there have to be pimps involved — just well organized whores couldn’t possibly do that, now could they?). When compared to more backward positions (the ‘whore-as-monster’ cases you mentioned in your next post, Maggie), that may actually be a step in the right direction.
Such inconsistencies might be the beginning of change. Who knows? Here’s hoping.
I recall seeing a show on, I think, HBO, about strippers. One of the strippers was talking about people who want to eliminate stripping because it is “men exploiting women”. Her response? Men weren’t exploiting her, she was exploiting them; after all, at the end of the night, she walked away with their money, they walked away with nothing (but memories of looking at her). I thought she had a sensible attitude.
One thing has always baffled me about the very concept of “sex for money should be illegal”. I can call up a woman I know, and we can talk about our plans for the night. We’ll go to dinner, a club, and a late night movie, which will cost, say, $100 just for her share, all of which I will pay for, then we’ll go back to her place for sex. That’s legal to do, talk about, and plan. Very few people see this as prostitution, including the law. She’s getting something of value without paying for it: dinner, a trip to a club, and a movie. I am, in essence, paying for her to have sex with me by buying her these goods/services. The cash just went to someone other than her. But if the conversation is “hey honey, I’ll give you $100 to have sex with me”, it’s illegal. I wonder if, at the beginning of the night, if I handed her the $100 for her to use as she chooses on our night out, if we’ve then crossed the line into prostitution?
I like to use the above argument with guys who brag how “I’ve never paid for it”. Oh yes, you have. Unless every woman you’ve had sex with never spent social time with you, and you never paid for her expenses on a date, etc., we’ve ALL paid for it (see the phrase “zipless fuck”, from “The Fear of Flying”, for an example of someone actually “not paying for it”. But I think that in reality, that primarily only happens in the pages of Hustler).
One final thought, originating some years ago from an Orlando talk radio show. We all know good looking guys have no trouble getting sex. I’ve personally seen women throw themselves (pretty hard) at coworkers of mine. So this DJ asks, what about ugly guys? Shouldn’t they be able to have sex, too? If the ugly guy is willing to pay for it, and she’s willing to do it for cash, why not? Or are ugly guys just supposed to accept sexual frustration as their lot in life?
But as for how to change it? Vote Libertarian (www.lp.org). It is part of our party platform to re-legalize prostitution. And hopefully, we won’t make the mistake Germany did: they had to modify the unemployment laws (in a hurry) because unemployed women were losing their unemployment benefits because they were turning down job offers in the recently legalized sex trades. There is something delightfully ironic in the government inadvertently going from “you can’t sell sex”, to, “you have to sell sex or you’ll lose your unemployment benefits”.
Well, enough of my rambling. Keep up the good work, Maggie.
Everything you say above is absolutely right, and you’re welcome to come here and “ramble” that way as often as you like! I’ve covered the “dating vs. prostitution” subject in several columns, most notably July 12th, November 21st, December 8th and December 16th, and the “equal access to sex for unattractive guys” angle on October 17th.
And I have to admit I laughed about the unemployment thing in Germany when I first heard it! That’s government for you; it reminds me of the signs Arthur sees inside the ant mound in The Once and Future King which read “Everything not forbidden is compulsory” and “Everything not compulsory is forbidden.”
Yes, I think I will, but I’m going to play the partisan card too. Something like, “While you and other Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to preserve a woman’s right to choose under Roe v Wade…”
Still leaves open the question of “what are poor guys supposed to do?” Until the economy improves and we get this deficit under control, I don’t think the government is going to be handing out Sex Stamps.
Oh, that reminds me: I’ve got to write a letter to Harry Reid. I need a better opener than “What the hell do you think you’re doing?!”
You could ask him why he thinks adult women are incompetent to decide for ourselves why and with whom we want to have sex.
Sent the letter. Glad I read up on him first. Turns out he’s pro-life, so invoking Roe v Wade wasn’t a good idea. He’s a big labor supporter, so I invoked workers’ rights and the demonstrations in Wisconsin and Iowa. Here is the letter I sent:
Senator Reid, I realize that as a Texan I can vote neither for you nor against you. Living on a fixed income as I do, I may never even have the opportunity to visit Nevada, and if I do it’ll have to be a case of driving around to look at natural wonders and historic sites. Gaming, sporting events, prostitution, the Cirque du Soleil: all of these are beyond my means unless I win a lottery or something, and what are the odds of that?
Still, I wanted to write to you about something you recently stated to the Nevada State Legislature. And sir, I just don’t get it. With jobs being the biggest issue in most states, you want to throw legal, regulated, tax-paying prostitutes out of work, or else force them to work illegally. While Nevada’s prostitution laws are overly-restrictive, they are effective at harm reduction. No legal Nevada prostitute has ever come down with HIV/AIDS, and yet those who work illegally face a much higher risk. This is why I put “Health” under subject (“Prostitution” wasn’t an available tag).
As workers in Wisconsin and Iowa demonstrate for their rights, please consider that if anything, these honest working women in Nevada deserve more rights to determine the rules which govern their jobs, not less.
Again, this has no effect on me personally; I’m not a prostitute, have never hired one, and I don’t live in Nevada. It’s a freedom thing. Grown women are not children, and they should be able to decide for themselves if, with whom, and why to have sex.
Perhaps some of you here could send the Senate Majority Leader a similar letter?
Re: poor guys
You might as well ask what an ugly woman is supposed to do–either improve her “situation” or develop a damned fine personality (and not expect much).
I feel like doing it, Sailor Barsoom, but I’m afraid that as a non-citizen a letter from me just wouldn’t have much effect on an American politician. Is there something else I could do?
@zoltan
What an ugly woman can do is give it away. She’s going to have to be pretty damn ugly before she gets no men willing to take her up on her offer of free sex.
@Asehpe
Not sure what you can do. Writing to COYOTE or SWOP and letting them know that even outside the USA they have support might be more effective. Obviously if you can give those organizations money, it doesn’t matter if you’re from Timbuktu or Antarctica.* If decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution has worked in your country, and you have access to some detailed report proving it, you might send that to Sen. Reid..
* Timbuktu being a place where virgin teenagers once walked about the streets nude while prostitutes wore clothes, and Antarctica getting my vote for “Place Where I Would Least Want to be a Streetwalker.”
Apples and oranges. What a prostitute gets out of the transaction is money, not sex. An ugly woman might very well be able to give sex away, but she isn’t likely to get offers of money, support, marriage, etc.
The question of what a poor guy is supposed to do was compared to the question of what an ugly woman is supposed to do. If they are both looking for sex, my answer’s pretty good.
If they’re both looking for money, I guess the answer is “try to get a job where being good looking isn’t important.” This would also be good advice to both.
Unless the poor guy is really handsome, I guess. Then he should become an art model or a Chippendales dancer or something. Earn enough money to get a good education, then get an education-needing job before his looks fail.
That’s still apples and oranges; women don’t tend to put the same value in the physical act of sex as men do. Both ugly men and ugly women find it difficult to get the kind of sexual contact they want.
At this point I am going to back out of the conversation (re: poor men/ugly women) entirely.
There are women who pay for dinner/drinks on their dates. I was 1 of them when I saw others for sex only friendships. There were also times when the men I met paid for dinner/drinks. A lot of how it worked out depended on our financial situation at the time. There were also times when we just talked and didn’t drink anything but water so the date involved no cost. So these things don’t just happen in the pages of Hustler magazine. I did things this way on purpose for a lot of reasons.
What’s wrong with having sex just to enjoy it? I never WANTED any offer of marriage, money, support, etc., when I had my sex only friendships. I already had a relationship when I started seeing others and if I hadn’t I would have pursued that SEPARATELY from the sex only thing. I was very glad to have met a few men who actually had manners and truly wanted what I wanted: an ongoing sex only friendship. The stories they told me of being used, lied to, etc., made me resolve to keep doing things the way I did.
Nothing at all, but as you yourself have pointed out most women don’t think that way.
I wish there were more like me to be honest. But, also say thank God there’s even a few. That gives me hope and keeps me going and even if a few break the cycle of men being used, lied to, etc. that’s wonderful and needed. I was glad to bring to the men who I had ongoing friendships with no demands for dates, gifts, etc., and only to enjoy each other physically as long as they showed basic manners and courtesy to me and I did the same for them. I met some without manners, unfortunately, but did also meet a few who did care about those 2 things and am thankful. However, what was very sad to me and always will be is that too many of the men I met made their own problems and contributed to the bad reputation that men have overall. Again, thank God for the few I met that didn’t do this! Without them it would be easy to be cynical all the time.
Laura, I’m glad there aren’t more women like you; if there were women like me would have a much harder time making a living! 😉
The poor men could try personal ads. There ARE some REAL women who use them. When I say real what I’m getting at is there’s some who use them who don’t lie about anything and don’t want money, gifts, dinners/lunches, and also aren’t pulling any kind of scam, etc. I was 1 of them for a number of years. It takes some effort but the rewards are worth it. It took me a lot of effort to find a few men who had manners and truly wanted something ongoing.
The German unemployment thing was greatly exaggerated when English-speaking media picked it up from German media. No one was forced into prostitution or lost her unemployment. All that happened was that an unemployment office worker noticed that the regulation, if strictly interpreted, led to a ridiculous result. So he wrote a letter to the proper authorities saying this new situation is ridiculous, I won’t do it, and you’d better fix it – with a CC to the news media by way of encouraging those authorities.
That’s much better than the usual American practice of ignoring B.S. regulations – and thereby leaving them in place for someone else with no trace of common sense or common decency to misuse.
And you can bet that WOULD happen here, as all the “zero tolerance” horror stories prove.
zero tolerance = zero brains
By design.