Letters to the Editor
meeneecat
Published Letters: 37 Editor's Choice: 1
-
because often, with hired sex, there is a victim.
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not all "paid for sex" is harmless and victimless. Human trafficking is a billion dollar business. The CIA estimates that around 50,000 women and children are trafficked here in the U.S. alone. Many men who frequent these services may not recognize that women can be held there against their will, or have been victims of kidnapping and forced prostitution to pay back certain "debts" to their pimps. Often the pimps will keep these women in servitude by threatening them or their families with bodily harm or death. If the women aren't victims of kidnapping still even more women are coerced into the job because they have no other way of supporting themselves and may have a drug problem or children to support. It's still coerced sex, and it's ignorant to think that just because you *think* it's consensual, doesn't mean there is no victim. Most transactions are set up by the pimps, or if they are not most of the money at least goes to these pimps, so, Glenn and others, how can you actually believe that these women or children are somehow not being exploited? I'm not saying that all sex workers are victims, but the majority of them are. Not to mention that many have violent pasts, filled with sexual abuse and assaults. It's actually common for victims of sexual assault or abuse to go through a period where "the sex just doesn't matter", where the victim could end up having sex with many people and just not care. I say this having spent many hours around victims in a rape crisis center. I have also talked to many people who have been part of the sex trade - they were all participants because they HAD to be, not because they chose to be.
All that said, I'm still not for arresting everyone involved. I say leave the women, who have been most likely exploited through coercion or against their will alone. Don't criminalize them, offer them health care and other help. Criminalize the johns, I have no problem with that - they are the ones who are driving the market.
So, just because something seems like a victimless and harmless act to you Glenn, (and others), doesn't mean it's not. You need to consider the environment and other possible factors. For a women who is being held against her will and threatened with beatings or death if she doesn't sell her body, should this be considered consensual? How about a kidnapped child (yes it happens in the U.S.) being beaten every day unless he or she provides sex for money, is this child really able to give consent? Is the absence of the ability to say "No" either because the person will be beaten and threatened, mean that the consent is okay and valid? I don't think so. And this is something that many johns don't consider. They think - oh, she wouldn't do this kind of job if she really didn't want to. Think again, because sometimes these women and children are not even given a choice, they don't have the ability to say "no" if they want to. And coercion or force is not the same as choice.
BTW, those "profiles" you see online with made up names like Candi and Mandi, telling you how Vixen has a degree in international relations and enjoys skiing, massage and fine wine - they are made up profiles, designed to entice. They are not real. One of my guy friends hired one of these services and refused to believe me when I told him that these profiles are made up. It never ceased to amaze me how johns will delude themselves (But MY prostitute is "classy" so I don't need to wear a condom, etc.) in order to make their smut seem less sleazy.
-
@ L.W.M
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um yes this girl was exploited - because Spitzer paid off a pimp first, thus it can be inferred that most of the money will go to him, not the girl, Second, the girl was unable to refuse the service on her terms. She wanted to use a condom and Spitzer didn't. She was still unable to refuse servicing him. In case you don't know this already - wanting to refuse service (or sex) is not the same as consent. No consent = exploitation thus you have a victim. This issue has everything to do with the sex industry because it focuses attention on the issues facing sex workers and the industry as a whole, including trafficking - which by the way also happened in this case (Spitzer transported someone over state lines for the purpose of paid sex) Furthermore, blogs and papers alike have been talking about the other aspects of the sex industry, the conversation has not just been limited to this specific incident as you claim, so it should show you that there are others besides me who feel that this incident raises questions about a whole slew of issues relating to the sex trade.