I asked a close friend who isn’t a sex worker to be my safe call. Initially she agreed, but now suddenly she said she doesn’t want to hear about it, because she disapproves of my work and does not want to support it in any way. There’s no one else I trust enough, so I’m hurt and feeling let down by my friend. We’ve always been honest with and accepting of one another before, so why is this different?
Stigma is an awful thing; it tempts otherwise-good people to shun or mistreat the stigmatized individual, encourages the weak-minded to view her as subhuman, and provides an excuse for evil people to harm or even kill her. Perhaps at some point in our evolutionary history, “othering” fulfilled some useful function by allowing a band of proto-humans to exile or kill an individual who somehow imperiled the others’ survival, but nowadays the capacity for disconnecting one’s empathy and seeing another as a thing rather than as a brother or sister human is a dangerous atavism exploited by rulers as a tool for persecution of despised minorities. Once the hatemongers succeed in convincing the masses that some real or imaginary group – Jews, aboriginal people, black people, the mentally ill, immigrants, homosexuals, “addicts”, “witches”, sex workers, clients, “sex offenders”, etc – is a threat to Our Treasured Way of Life, the majority will support denying members of that group even the most elementary level of decent treatment. Though we all carry this nasty ability to dehumanize other humans in our brains, it’s far nearer the surface in some individuals; they’re the ones who can always be counted on to turn in their neighbors and family members to the secret police or Inquisition. I don’t think they’re necessarily bad people; they’re just extremely susceptible to suggestions that some individuals need to be ostracized or even “punished”, personal affection notwithstanding.
I suspect your friend may be one of those individuals; she has bought in to the lie that compensated sex is a Great Social Evil that Must Be Stopped (for the children!), and your willing participation in it marks you as a Them who doesn’t deserve to be treated with the basic consideration one gives one’s friends. She may believe that she’s demonstrating “tough love” by denying you safety, in the hopes that you’ll be scared out of what she views as unhealthy or “bad” behavior (despite the fact that you aren’t her minor child); if you get killed it’ll serve you right and teach your ghost a lesson, by golly!
Obviously, you can’t trust this friend to help you; I think you have every right to feel hurt and let down, and I wouldn’t blame you if you decided her friendship was insincere. But while you’re wrestling with that question (and believe me, I don’t envy you the struggle), you still have the practical concern of finding someone to monitor you while in session with clients. Are you friendly with any sex workers online? With modern technology there’s no real need for the two of you to be in the same city; after all, she wouldn’t go to investigate in person if you failed to call in, now would she? A lady in the UK, US, Australia or any other place could call for help just as easily as one in your own country, provided she was supplied with whatever emergency numbers you feel necessary. And you could even perform the same service for her in return.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
As usual your advice is eminently practical. And while it seems obvious now I’ve read it, the fact is I didn’t think of it despite giving this woman’s plight some consideration.
But I still wouldn’t have been so hasty to attribute motives to her friend. Doubtless her friend’s life is every bit as complicated and confused as ours and there may have been any of hundreds of reasons she felt she couldn’t help.
When I had friends who worked on the street I’d take down car number plates and be ready to seek help if I hadn’t heard from them by a certain time (fortunately it never came to having to decide whether to call the cops). But there’s plenty of places where that sort of behavior could get me arrested as a pimp now. I’d still do it, but I have no career or dependents so it’s not such a hard call.
There could be any of hundreds of reasons, sure, but I think it was made pretty obvious when “she said she doesn’t want to hear about it, because she disapproves of my work and does not want to support it in any way”. That’s not “I’m afraid I’ll be implicated” or “I’m too busy”.
Unless it’s a poorly written statement, it sounds as if this is what her friend actually SAID to her, and is not an inference.
You ask a friend to cover your back because you’re going to be doing something dangerous. The friend replies “No. I don’t approve of you doing it at all”.
Is that really the same as saying “I think you’re practicing a ‘Great Social Evil that Must Be Stopped (for the children!)’. You are now one of Them.”?
Basically what I’m objecting to here is the Bushism of “You’re either for Us or you’re with Them”. That’s the same sort of logic prohibitionists use when conflating sexual slavery with consensual sex work or claiming all their critics are part of The Great Pimp Conspiracy.
If you’re asking them to perform a service integral to your sex work, they (and others) might perceive it as participating in your business. They may love you and want you to be safe, but not want to get involved in your work, especially in places where sex work is illegal.
In jurisdictions where sex work is illegal, the safe call might risk criminal liability for aiding the sex worker in their trade. In jurisdictions with aggressive asset forfeiture practices, taking calls at home or in the car could jeopardize those assets. Even if the friend isn’t ultimately convicted, an overzealous prosecutor could make their life hell, and the costs of defending a criminal action could be ruinous.
If you’ll follow the link in the question, you’ll see the lady is in Finland, not the US. Prostitution is not illegal there, though there is stigma. Compare with an American friend asking you to pick him up a pack of cigarettes.
In fact, while selling/buying is not illegal in Finland, organized prostitution is. Her friend could be charged with pimping for helping her.
They also have a semi-Swedish law where the client is criminal if he buys from a coerced sex worker (even if he doesn’t know). In fact, I think Finland is very similar to Britain in terms of law.
While not like the US it’s enough to make people wary of associating with a sex worker. Even if the chances of getting charged for pimping are very remote, many people have plenty of reason to avoid police attention.
If the friend is not actively trying to ”save” her, then her reasons for not assisting her may have nothing to do with moral.
Sorry, but I’m a firm believer in the principle that “A friend is one who knows where the bodies are buried.” Anything less is a mere acquaintance.
Your aphorisms are irrelevant Maggie. It’s up to her to decide what qualifies someone as her friend.
We know nothing about the relationship between these two people beyond the fact the lady in question still calls her a friend and they’re likely going through a rough patch. But you can bet she knows far more about what’s going on in her friend’s head than any of us do.
You were asked for practical advice on a specific topic and gave it. Bravo. You were not asked what the friend was thinking nor whether she is really a friend.
I don’t think attributing nasty motives to someone you are clueless about is likely to be helpful to anyone.
The reply was to François, not Katja. To her I said, “I wouldn’t blame you if you decided her friendship was insincere…but…I don’t envy you the struggle”.
My point was just that the person could be afraid of the law, even in Finland. I used the word friend because that’s what she calls her. Even good friends have conflicts and I think true friends are the ones who can remain friends even when they don’t agree on something.
Good summary of the problem IMO.
Some of these people will also just be afraid and lose rationality over that. Well known effect. Of course you have to be susceptible for that as well. Currently there are buildings burning in Germany that were designated to house foreign refugees. The reasons seem to be that quite a bit of the political spectrum amplified fears of them. Interestingly, even the government is not willing to call this terrorism, when it pretty much is. At the same time, there is really no reason to fear these people. They just serve as scapegoats for incompetent politics.
The thing that can be learned here is that there is class of people that are very willing to see others as enemies when given just slight provocation. Encourage them, and you have a catastrophe in the making.
To the lady in question: This person is no friend of yours. She may have found “friendship” convenient, but I think it ends there. It is possible that she told somebody else and was strongly discouraged to help you.
Sometimes it is not the particular individual that holds the bigotry, it is their wider social circle including well-meaning but misinformed trusted confidents.
“Perhaps at some point in our evolutionary history, “othering” fulfilled some useful function by allowing a band of proto-humans to exile or kill an individual who somehow imperiled the others’ survival, but nowadays the capacity for disconnecting one’s empathy and seeing another as a thing rather than as a brother or sister human is a dangerous atavism exploited by rulers as a tool for persecution of despised minorities”
i would like to know where Maggie believes the capacity to see every other human being as a virtually sacred entity unto himself came from? That’s an ethical conception now woven into the very order of our (social) things, and i think we oughta be honest and admit that it didn’t come from nowhere, ie just “eeeeeeevoooooolve” (ooooh my brain is disconnected already)…
i think also “atavism” as an explanation for a ‘capacity’ is insufficient to say the least, but before Maggie gets mad and puts on her fiercest ‘Murkin voice and makes her ;whaddya you think this is, a 500-word blog or a philosophical investigation’ DISTINCTION, i’ll get outta here
thanks for your time…
“I’m your friend, I presumably love you or at least care about you, so I’m not going to help you put yourself in danger/what I believe is an ethically compromising position/whatever” is one thing, but “I’m you’re friend, I presumably love you or at least care about you, so I’m not going to help you when you’re in danger/what I believe is an ethically compromising position/whatever” is something entirely different. I have absolutely no idea how so many people get the two confused when it comes to sex work.
I think this is a more general problem: People think that in order to reduce behavior in others that they do not like, they just need to make it more dangerous, i.e. create fear. A classical authoritarian tactics and one that is completely irrational as it does not work. This idea pervades society though and few people have the mental independence to actually look at it and see it for the fallacy it is. The others happily apply this wrong tool and usually make things worse.
I do not think people confuse the two, I think most people are somehow unable to see the difference, striking and obvious as it is.