Archive for Sex+ Government
Perception, Profession, and Decriminalization
I have encountered a few things lately to which I have felt a pressing response from a perspective of supporting the decriminalization of prostitution (which I do). One of them was this letter to the editor in the New York Times in response to an article about proposed legalization of prostitution in the United States. (Note: I support decriminalization rather than legalization of prostitution — descriptions of the distinction may be found here).
Author of the letter Norma Ramos states in regard to prostitution:
”It is the world’s oldest oppression that stems from the world’s oldest inequality — that of women.”
When I read this the first response in me was, could it be that this is more about sex than about women? More on that in a bit.
The letter says later:
”By all accounts, the countries that have legalized prostitution have become magnets for human trafficking and other crimes.”
This is not backed up with evidence in the letter, and I would challenge it to be. Statistics may of course be skewed and biased and repeatedly have been in social research, so I myself hesitate to utilize them as prominent support for presenting the perspective in me, but I will point out that this assertion of “all accounts” seems erroneous to me. Further, it’s not as though strict criminalization laws around prostitution have been free of criticism.
In reference to the prostitution laws of “Sweden, Norway and most recently Iceland” the author says,
”Their law is premised on the recognition that women and girls are human beings and therefore cannot be bought or sold.”
In a prostitution exchange if one does choose to take the perspective that a body is being “sold,” its selling is relinquished upon the end of the exchange (which is why this description does not resonate with me). If one wants to claim that a body is “sold” for a certain period of time, that makes more sense to me, though the vernacular still doesn’t resonate particularly with me. The body is a part of what is being presented as the professional exchange of a service. How exactly is this different from the professional offerings/exchanges of actors, models, and athletes, for example?
Could it be, again, that this is about sex and certain underlying biases or associations we have with it?
I feel as though I would appreciate it if this were at least recognized. There seems to be an automatic “prostitution is bad, wrong, exploitative, harmful” perspective throughout virtually the entirety of society that seems to me to rest on little more than, “well, that’s just the way it is.” Why? Why is sex so much different from all the other myriad services that aren’t even blinked at when they are commodified and used in the context of (rampant) capitalism?
In response to accusations that prostitution has often been surrounded by “vice,” why does it not seem to occur to us that rather than somehow just inherently being surrounded by violence, crime, drugs (which by the way I see as something else associated with crime and an underground world because of its criminalized status rather than some given “attraction” it has to them), etc., prostitution has in modern times been surrounded by such things because it has been criminalized and thus pushed to an underground status in society where those partaking and participating in it are not apt to interact with law enforcement and other protective agencies in its context? Why is it that we assume these associations came first, so the practice was criminalized, rather than that perhaps the practice was criminalized for some other reason(s), and as it was ostracized into an illegal profession, crime and other facets of the underground society rose around it?
If one doesn’t feel comfortable with the idea of doing sex for a job, fine. It is not as though decriminalizing prostitution suddenly eliminates anyone’s right to not engage in it. I would not dream of saying that anyone who doesn’t want to have sex be a job for him or her should do so.
Which seques into the subject of sex trafficking. It seems to me that criminalizing prostitution does not seem at all a sensible way to help eradicate nonconsensual sex work; that indeed, criminalizing the whole trade simply forces it underground where it is even more difficult to examine and discern who is really in a situation of abuse and in need of assistance. How does outlawing consensual action help to more easily discover abusive activity within the same working area of action? It also calls for law enforcement to devote time and resources similarly to discovering and pursuing situations in which abuse is occurring and situations in which individuals are working freely and willingly since the law, due to the nature of the work being performed, conflates these two occurrences.
Interestingly, while human trafficking occurs in work areas other than prostitution, the focus has continued to seem almost exclusively on sex trafficking in the media and societal conversation. Why is this? Or more to the point at the moment, why are we not having a conversation threatening to outlaw all manual labor, farm/outdoor labor, and domestic work since these things have been found to be areas in which trafficking has occurred as well? Once again it seems fundamentally the question has to do with sex, sex work, and underlying perceptions about it rather than perhaps the seemingly obvious issue of the abhorrence of nonconsensual sex work.
None of that is said with any intention on my part to undermine what I see as the crushingly heartbreaking and appalling nature of sex trafficking (or indeed any human trafficking). The idea of not finding nonconsensual sex work or nonconsensual sex of any kind harrowing and abhorrent is unequivocally foreign to me.
In closing, it happens that the indefatigable Dr. Dick recently interviewed for his new series “Sex EDGE-U-cation” the Modern Hooker (whose identity remains anonymous since the profession in which she works is illegal). Modern Hooker’s description is not a glossed-over, glamorized account of prostitution — some of it is not pretty, indeed. It seemed to me a straightforward, open discussion about her work, and I deeply appreciated it as such. I had in fact appreciated this interview so much that I was wanting to mention it here anyway, and since it happens I am writing this post right now, this seems an exemplary opportunity to do so. Thank you again to both Dr. Dick and Modern Hooker for this beautiful offering.
Namaste.
Love,
Emerald
-Juliet November, in an article entitled “Hooking Without Crooking”
Reverence Where Reverence Is Due
I received a link this week to an editorial published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Sunday that concerns abstinence-only sex education. The article’s author, Stacie Murphy, decided to see what it took to become a Certified Abstinence Educator. Her article describes her experience taking — and passing — the online Certification Exam of the Abstinence Clearinghouse.
Among other things, the article reiterates information to which I have already been exposed as a longtime reproductive rights activist from studies that have concluded that abstinence-only sex education appears not only ineffective but can decrease safer sex practices among young people who have sex because of abstinence-only programs’ propensity to emphasize the failure rates (often inaccurately) of contraceptive methods. As Ms. Murphy writes:
It seems like it would take charts for me to comprehensively explain the things I find dismaying about government-sponsored abstinence-only sex education. Beyond the medical inaccuracies, blatant ideological and/or religious beliefs are also part of some of the curricula as well as gender stereotypes that are presented as casual understanding. And I’m going to stop there for now because I don’t have charts at the moment and want to address another specific aspect of this in this post.
“It makes sense. The assertion that premarital sex will condemn them to a life of poverty, degradation and disease does not align with their experience of a country where more than 95 percent of people have sex before they get married. And condoms? If they don’t work, why use them?”
Because beyond all the (numerous and significant) practical implications I find so disturbing about abstinence-only sex education, philosophically speaking there is a basic premise of the perspective and rhetoric that profoundly doesn’t resonate with me.
Frequently the focus/discussion is on “sex before you get married.” For quite a while I’ve found the “before you get married” part of this rhetoric notable. Before you get married — because, of course, you’re going to get married.
Um…what if you don’t get married (or legally can’t where you choose to live)? What if you don’t want to get married? What if that doesn’t feel like a prominent focus in your life at this time, and you’re not sure it ever will? Does that mean sex is just out of the question for you?
The assertion that these two things are exclusively connected actually makes me feel a bit queasy. The idea of taking something as fundamental, inherent, and personal as sexuality and forcing it into a rigid, in some ways arguably arbitrary as far as sex is concerned, social standard seems appalling to me. I am not arguing against marriage. I am not saying people shouldn’t get married, or that marriage is irrelevant, or aiming to denigrate it in any way. I am lamenting the idea that marriage, the social construct, should or would be the predecessor or controller of sexuality, an inextricable, wholly individualized, absolutely fundamental aspect of life itself.
The idea has long seemed comparable to me to an assertion that we may only eat during mealtimes. Do not pay attention to when you are hungry or develop any kind of intimacy or relationship with your body that attunes you to your appetite and guides you in a way that serves you — these are the mealtimes, and they are when you eat. That is what we have decided, and that is the way everyone is to do it.
I am not speaking snarkily or sarcastically; this conflation truly does disturb me. It feels viscerally inappropriate, intrusive, and misguided to me, and once again it seems to denigrate something that appears to me so obviously beautiful, luminous, awe-inspiring, and unspeakably sacred, which is sexuality. Seeing it undermined by simple virtue of not being recognized and appreciated as such — or only being appreciated within certain social and externally controlling confines — has been known to feel heartbreaking to me, and that is how it feels right now as I type this.
However, it occurs to me that part of “heartbreaking” is “heart,” and I just noticed I am feeling there right now. The joy, beauty, light, glory, love of all of us, that we all are, that is life, that sexuality is purely and luminously within.
…Whew. That all being said, today is a bustling day in erotica blogland — Erobintica is up on the Blow Hard Tour 2009, and today is Donna George Storey’s stop on the Swing! anthology blog tour!
Namaste and love to all.
Love,
Emerald
-Shawn Mullins “Shimmer”
Welcome to The Green Light District!
Welcome to my new author blog/site, and thanks for visiting! As is briefly stated in the sidebar to the right, this site is mainly an author site dedicated to publishing/writing news, but it also contains commentary on social/political/spiritual/other matters as related to sex (and really, what isn’t related to sex?). In particular, since I am a strong proponent as such, sex workers’ rights will likely come up from time to time.
On that note, though this site is brand new, I have uploaded the preivious blog posts from my MySpace page relevant to both writing and the aforementioned topics. Posts are labeled by categories listed on the left and have been back-posted under the dates they were originally posted on MySpace.
Commenting is open to anyone; as of yet, you do not need to register or provide your email address (we’ll see if that continues — i.e., how it goes in spamworld once the site is active), and you have the option of posting anonymously. Also, as the site is brand new, if you experience or observe any glitches, please feel free to email me and let me know.
Thanks again for coming by, and welcome anytime!
Xoxox,
Emerald
-Counting Crows “Round Here”
International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers
While I’m a little late in the day with this, I want to post an acknowledgment of the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which is today, December 17. As originally conceived by Annie Sprinkle in 2003, this day has been named so to commemorate sex workers who have experienced violence in their line of work or lost their lives as a result of it, especially amidst society’s woeful historic propensity to misunderstand such violence as either less tragic than violence against those who are not sex workers or something simply “to be expected” in such a line of work — a harshly erroneous conception. Correlatively, it is also a day to support the rights of sex workers as professionals and as people, both of which have historically been denied by various governments (and society).
I offer my support to my fellow professionals who work or have worked in all areas of the sex industry, thanking them for their service, acknowledging their rights, reiterating my advocation for the decriminalization of all areas of the industry, and deeply wishing for their health and safety.
With love and support for all,Emerald “We are outraged that those who provide [professional sexual] services . . . carry the burden of sexual shame and punishment in our society while the very people who use our services are creating and enforcing legislation that violates our human rights. . . . There is a great deal of expertise from our communities defining safe work environments, identifying abusive situations and establishing a culturally appropriate community-based response to these problems.”
-From the list of demands proposed by Sex Workers Outreach Project USA in a letter to President-Elect Obama, 2008
A Little Snippety About the News Lately…
It pains me to write this about something Bob Herbert wrote; it really does. I have historically vastly appreciated Mr. Herbert’s New York Times column and presentation of his perspective on a number of issues. I have noticed on the issue of sex work, however, our perspectives diverge. The column I read most recently from him (“Fantasies, Well Meant,” 9/11/07, which unfortunately is only available to TimesSelect subscribers) serves as a stark case in point, and much as I have revered numerous things Mr. Herbert has written in the past, my reading of this piece compels me to respond in dissent.
From the article, which proposes Mr. Herbert’s reasons for supporting the continued illegal status of prostitution:
“Real-world prostitution, in whatever guise, bears no resemblance at all to the empowerment fantasies of prostitution proponents.”
With all due respect, almost every movement of prostitution proponents of which I am aware consists by vast majority of actual sex workers, mostly whores. How this could bear “no resemblance at all” to “real-world prostitution” therefore seems, well, impossible to me.
“[M]ost so-called legal prostitutes have pimps — the state-sanctioned pimps who run the brothels and, in many cases, a second pimp who controls all other aspects of their lives (and takes the bulk of their legal earnings).”
Well, this is indeed one difference between “legalization” and “decriminalization.” Almost all of the sex workers’ rights activists of whom I know, including myself, advocate decriminalization rather than legalization. I think the most effective way I can describe the difference is by citing an example. Abortion was “legalized”—not decriminalized. “Decriminalized” implies dropping the association with criminality of the action in question, thus relegating it to a business like any other (of course having to follow OSHA codes, etc.). “Legalization” is when the government vigilantly deigns to allow the activity in question to be legal to some degree, but continues to hang over its shoulder, so to speak, making it obvious that the activity is still considered legally questionable according to its (the government’s) dictates. Thus, abortion was indeed legalized, but the government still pushes its way into this realm to try to control various circumstances around it and ultimately the action itself.
Such as it is with prostitution. The brothels in Nevada indeed operate under circumstances some would find constrictive — that is because where those brothels are, prostitution has been “legalized.” Decriminalization would call for the lifting of laws surrounding prostitution and letting the profession operate as any other profession without undue government interference.
“That a city, a state or any other governmental entity in the U.S. could legally sanction the sexual degradation of women and girls under any circumstances, much less those who are so extremely vulnerable, is an atrocity.”
No disagreement there. In fact, I quite appreciate the sentiment. Ironically, I find any anti-choice law that forbids or impedes a woman from acquiring birth control or obtaining a safe abortion to be sexual degradation, and that is legally sanctioned in all sorts of places throughout this country. I do not find allowing women the legal right to choose their vocation even if it involves selling sexual services a form of sexual degradation. On the contrary.
“And if you don’t think legalized prostitution is about degradation, consider the ‘date room’ at Sheri’s [Nevada brothel]. That’s a small room where a quiet dinner for two can be served. Beneath the tiny table is a couple of towels and a cushion for the woman to kneel on. The only one empowered in that situation is the john.”
Hmmm. I won’t get into too much detail here, but I will say that that seems to me to be quite a bold blanket statement about blow jobs….
“Legal prostitution tends to increase, not decrease, illegal prostitution, in part by creating a friendlier climate for demand.”
I’m really not sure exactly what he means by this and would request further clarification in regard to his statement about demand. But I would add here that “legal prostitution” can in some cases increase illegal prostitution because of the complications mentioned in the above-stated differentiation between legalization and decriminalization. With legalization can come any number of cumbersome, hindering, or outright absurd requirements and prerequisites for doing business (witness laws that have been proposed in some states such as Missouri stating that abortion clinics must pass the regulations of outpatient surgical centers, which is really a way to make things so difficult for the clinics to adhere to such a standard that they are forced to close). Thus emerges the case for decriminalization: Quite frankly, government, please feel free to remove yourself from this line of work to the degree that you do the majority of others. You do not belong here any more than you belong in construction, plumbing, real estate, or most other non-government professions.
“As a society, we should be offering help to the many thousands of women who would like to escape prostitution, and providing alternatives to those in danger of being pulled into it.”
Sure. Again, no disagreement here. Nobody should be prostituting who does not want and choose to be. One of the ways to do this is to stop condescending the female population with an attitude that implies that the capability to willingly aspire to sell sexual services somehow does not exist so that those who are indeed in trouble may be more easily identified as such and given access to the support that could be of use to them.
Mr. Herbert, at least, has basis for his perspective other than what society collectively postulates, which is more than I would say for most people (in my experience) who denigrate prostitution. I appreciate that. But perhaps as a journalist he is naturally seeing those who are exploited and under duress, as that is where the stories of journalists often seem to be in our society. There would not really be any reason perhaps for him to talk to the multitudes of prostitutes doing their jobs independently and indoors (“indoor prostitute” refers to those who work from their homes/studios or do outcall work as opposed to those who work on the street—the vast majority of whores in this country are indoor).
Sex trafficking, as I have said innumerable times, is to me a heinous, appalling phenomenon. The idea of it profoundly horrifies me. It seems obvious to me that in order to address it more effectively, recognition must be given to those who are not victims of trafficking and who do their jobs in the sex trade freely and willingly.
I appreciate the well-meaning, caring orientation of Mr. Herbert and others of similar opinion. But I cannot at this point condone the implication that women are inherently helpless victims when it comes to sexuality who are not capable of (or should not be allowed) self-determination and autonomy. Blanketing prostitution in a way such as Mr. Herbert portrays in his column seems to me to be a continuing way of doing just that.
Love,Emerald “It is acceptable for a woman to work, and it is generally acceptable, under certain circumstances, for a woman to have sex, but even the most liberal people are troubled by the idea that a woman might work at sex. We believe, in fact, that you can do all kinds of nasty things for money, all kinds of despicable things: poison the environment, build bombs, destroy tenements, raze forests for money. Just about anything but sex.”
-Sallie Tisdale Talk Dirty to Me p. 196 (First Anchor Books 1995)
Just Expressing My Perspective
Today I read an op-ed in the New York Times by graduate student in theology Eric Johnston about his political support of Rudy Giuliani and his reasons for optimism concerning Giuliani’s position on abortion rights and his own anti-choice position (“Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy,” 9/14/07). The response I present here is not actually a rebuttal of the premise of Mr. Johnston’s piece, which I found a rather thoughtful perspective on the subject. Nor is it really even related to reproductive rights, the subject of the most obvious difference between Mr. Johnston’s and my socially philosophical positions. Rather, it is a specific response to a few lines he puts forth (which he actually attributes to Rudy Giuliani) in a paragraph he is using to illustrate what he perceives as Mr. Giuliani’s politically philosophical view. Granted, the example he uses happened back in 1999, so it’s not as though the described example is even currently an issue…but the postulation surrounding it somehow claimed my attention so much that I find myself compelled to address it.
From the article:
“Social conservatives have reason to trust Mr. Giuliani’s instincts, however. In 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art exhibited a painting of the Virgin Mary spattered with elephant dung and surrounded by pictures from pornographic magazines. Mayor Giuliani tried to cut the museum’s city subsidies. . . . By all accounts, Mr. Giuliani is not a devout Catholic. His argument over the Virgin Mary painting was not, ‘You’re insulting me,’ but rather, ‘If you’re going to use taxpayers’ dollars, you have to be sensitive to the feelings of the public.’”
…Are you kidding? Seriously—is that a joke? The idea of being “sensitive to the feelings of the public” being a determinant of the use taxpayer dollars leaves me almost stupefied. I wonder if anyone would take seriously the notion that 1) this happens, and 2) that it should.
Here’s the first point of view I would offer: Perhaps the use of taxpayer dollars would suggest an adherence to the Constitution—specifically, say, the First Amendment, which right there at the beginning expressly grants the freedom of speech. (I don’t recall anything about a sensitivity to the feelings of the public anywhere in the text.)
Further, on a list I would denote of the things most impeding to creativity, the prerequisite of being “sensitive to the feelings of the public” is quite near the top. Especially for artists. I can hardly think of a more inhibiting premise to the creative process than postulating a requirement for the outcome to somehow adhere to said sensitivity.
In addition, if anyone could manage to specify just what “the feelings of the public” are so that sensitivity to them could be practiced, I would find that damn impressive. I have yet to discern what the overall feelings of the public are in any way that would seem to allow a universal sensitivity to them.
Lastly, I will discuss something I almost hesitate to even point out because it is so absurdly obvious. But I will do it anyway. Since the matter in question involves art, I really would think it would not need to be pointed out yet again that art is subjective. What some people may receive as offensive, others may not. I have not seen the work in question, but just the description of it elicits this possible response in me: I feel I could view such a piece as a portrayal, with the images of Mary surrounded by pornographic pictures, of the madonna/whore dichotomy (which is really a unity — similar to the yin yang symbol) existent in women, which I personally quite appreciate. The elephant dung could be interpreted to display the shit piled by society on either depiction of the human female (or on the dichotomy itself), which has, in my opinion, been evidenced throughout human history. Were this my interpretation of the piece, I would not find it offensive.*
To Mr. Johnston, of course, I extend all due respect. It simply felt important to me to present what I see as significant deviation from the postulation(s) implied by the statement(s) presented.
Love,Emerald *Of course, I have no idea how I would really interpret it or if I even would, since my historical experience has been that any real response to a work of art is contingent upon actually experiencing it, and since I have not experienced it I cannot really have any way of knowing how a response from me might be stirred. “I know what I have given you. I do not know what you have received.”
-Antonio Porchia, writer (1886-1968)
The Supreme Court and the World of Form
[Update 4/20/07: Here is a beautiful editorial on the subject at hand in yesterday's New York Times.]
The United States Supreme Court upheld today the federal abortion ban passed into law in 2003. To clarify, no, this does not mean that all abortion has been criminalized. What it does mean is that a medical procedure used to perform abortions after the first trimester has been outlawed. And it has been outlawed on a federal level, as a federal law, which is unprecedented in this country. Even before the well-known Roe v. Wade case was decided in 1973, abortion was not federally criminalized in the United States. Rather, states had the right to pass laws making abortion illegal, and almost all had done so. Roe v. Wade forbade them from doing this (there is more legal complexity that I will not get into here; this is only a nutshell view), thus making it disallowable for any state to criminalize abortion completely. (Note: It did not stop them from concocting or passing laws that impeded the right to obtain a legal abortion as safely and efficiently as possible, which numerous state legislatures have taken advantage of since.)
The Court today has upheld a law that federally criminalizes a medical procedure used in a wide range of abortions, regardless of risk to the woman’s health.
This, of course, is why pro-choice activists and citizens so emphasized the importance of the last presidential election in this country. President Bush’s re-election as such provided the opportunity for him to appoint Justices Roberts and Alito, and as we (activists) said then, these judges aren’t just there for a term or for the time Bush is in office. They have the Constitutional right now to be there for the rest of their lives.
Thus, this decision is not likely to be changed within the next few decades.
Socially speaking, this is disastrous to a degree that breaks my heart. For anyone who still believes that the ban addresses only a “rare procedure” or will only affect a few people, I can with comfortable assurance eliminate that notion for you now. Many medical experts testified in the court cases that preceded this Supreme Court case (and during the legislative process of the bill’s becoming law) that this ban was, for one thing, vague, so that they wouldn’t always be sure exactly what it covered (putting their medical and professional discretion at obvious risk), and for another thing, covered procedures that may be used as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy if the doctor determines it is the safest and/or most advantageous procedure to use.
How does the doctor determine this? I don’t know, because I’m not a doctor. And neither are the legislators that voted for this law’s passage, the president that signed it into law, or the justices who today allowed for it to be upheld.
In effect this country has just allowed the government to override doctors and medical professionals in making a health care decision which can be life-and-death or directly related to severe and significant health conditions for its female citizens. At this moment I utterly fail to see how that can be a service of a democracy.
I try to “trust something bigger” right now, as my spiritual teacher(s) has often invited us to do. I can tell I already am to a significant degree, as on a personal note I am receiving this news much differently than I would have a year ago. But a government policy has now presented a situation in which both doctors and women may be practically impeded in following an action that may stem from their innermost life energy in a safe and practical context. And it breaks my heart to observe that in this practical world of form in which we live.
With infinite love,
Emerald
-Everlast “What it’s Like”
Somewhere Between Frustration and Oneness
You know, there is sometimes an enormous amount of frustration generated in me by my perception of society’s and the media’s treatment of sex — or more specifically, their treatment of sex outside of the married pro-creational sex that is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) postulated to be “normal” and “natural,” often relegating sex that does not fit this description to…something else, apparently.
One of the most obvious subjects I see as made victim to this is prostitution. For some reason it is not allowable in America to sell sex. (Ironic, eh? One may use sex to sell almost anything one can think of, but as far as actually selling it itself, no no no!) Two recent news pieces have brought this topic to my attention the last couple days, and subsequent frustration has indeed been ignited in me.
The first:
“A federal appeals court ruled that the Bush administration can deny funding to nonprofit AIDS groups that do not publicly disavow prostitution and sex trafficking. [NOTE: This perpetual conflation of prostitution and sex trafficking as though they are the same thing is dangerous, counterproductive, and utterly inaccurate.]
Overturning a lower court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said Tuesday that the AIDS groups’ free speech rights would not be violated if the money was linked to a pledge to uphold government policy. . . .
‘The act does not compel DKT to advocate the government’s position on prostitution and sex trafficking; it requires only that if DKT wishes to receive funds it must communicate the message the government chooses to fund,’ [the judge] wrote in a 10-page decision reversing the lower court’s ruling.“ (emphasis mine)
Okay. Now I seriously fail to see the distinction here. At all. How is requiring it to “communicate the message” of the government different from “compelling it to advocate the government’s position”??
Indeed it has been evident to me that those in the White House have their little moralistic hang-ups about sex (naive and self-righteous as they may be), and I have historically noted and experienced dismay as a result of my perception of the puritanical social overtones regarding the same in this country, but that does not mean that I understand any of it. When I get to the next example I will talk more about the general idea of judgmentality in connection with sexuality, but in the above situation, at issue is a more practical matter of policy being put forth by those in a position of political power.
It’s fine that those in charge of U.S. policy consider prostitution immoral; it is certainly their prerogative to hold that opinion. When they coercively extend it to everyone living in certain countries on other continents in conditions most of us can’t even imagine and haven’t bothered trying to (myself included), it demonstrates an inappropriate invasion of their aforementioned opinion on people’s lives — and deaths, in this case. (At risk is funding for AIDS prevention programs in a number of countries around the world.)
And the second:
“Police are investigating an alleged brothel in an upscale neighborhood in Bedford Hills. . . .
This is a really rich upscale area but right underneath all the neighbors [sic] noses, police say there was a dominatrix operating out of one of the houses. . . .
[P]olice arrested the alleged dominatrix.
‘You wouldn’t expect this in Bedford Hills.’”
What exactly is it that one “wouldn’t expect”? People to be having sex? People to be having sex differently from the way you do? People to be making a living in a way different from the way you do? Any of this to be happening in a neighborhood that is “upscale”? It continues to astonish me how automatically people appear to dismiss, denigrate, and outright attack things of a sexual nature that they either know little about or simply assume must be “bad” or “wrong” because society postulates, either overtly or tacitly, some disapproval of them. What, exactly, is the argument against the practice of consensual activities between adults that is not causing harm to others?
In short, to those so concerned about the aforementioned activities of others that they force others to profess agreement with them in order to receive their assistance or condemn their neighbors for doing consensual things they themselves choose not to (or claim to choose not to), I say this gently but frankly: Get a life.
I say that without malice or sarcasm. Instead, I offer it sincerely, and what I mean by it is this: Find a focus in life that extends beyond the fear that leads you to condemn and condescend others who take part in consensual activities that you don’t find appealing. Direct your energy in a way that aims to serve you and the universe, rather than in a linear or downward fashion that actively seeks to condemn others and searches for reasons to aggressively focus outward in order to avoid whatever it is that is so constricting and frightening you internally.
Examine the attitudes about sex and sexuality that you have naturally absorbed from the mainstream culture and consider how you feel about them. If you find yourself feeling judgment, ask yourself why you believe you are in a position to judge what is right and wrong sexually and that others should act in accordance with those beliefs as well? I myself am personally quite familiar with the propensity to be judgmental, so I strongly empathize as you explore this phenomenon in yourself.
What if someone decided that something you consensually enjoy sexually was “wrong” and “indecent” and quite simply not allowed anymore? What if the way you choose to make a living was suddenly criminalized because someone else decided that it was “wrong,” and the idea caught on until society seemed quite firmly gripped by the mindset that your method of making a living was somehow just fundamentally and unquestionably not acceptable?
Some people don’t like the idea of prostitution, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they should not have to partake in it if they don’t want to. Some others are not uncomfortable at all with prostitution, and I have yet to be convinced just what it is that justifies their being legally prohibited from engaging in it. (Incidentally, I would add that the hypocrisy of such a policy in a country that lives and dies on capitalism is truly breathtaking to me.)
Almost all of us view the world through our personalities most of the time, and it is the fixation(s) of the personality that generates and manifests phenomena such as judgmentality, self-righteousness, and misdirected aggression. Even the frustration I feel as expressed above is a product of my personality. I struggle with these tendencies just as much as the next person, and I support us all in recognizing our habitual, unaware propensities and realizing the ultimate universal truth:
We are all One.
“Imagine there’s no heaven, it’s easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky, imagine all the people living for today…you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one, I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one…”-John Lennon “Imagine”
