While the rest of the world is desperately preoccupied with somehow surviving the various catastrophes predicted for 2012, not to say this recession that knows only how to grow worse each day, is it any surprise that here on the Rock of Sages the hot-button issue centers on whether or not to decriminalize prostitution?
Predictably, the concomitant public dialogue has focused on entrenched beliefs that have little to do with any reality, let alone life as we know it. No matter, let us begin our own civilized discourse with a question or two: What exactly do we mean by prostitution? On the one hand it is defined as “the practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment,” and on the other as the “the corrupt use of one’s talents for personal or financial gain.” (I’m still trying to figure out whether the accent here is on “corrupt”—who decides?—or on “personal or financial gain!”)
It’s a safe bet the ever radical, newly appointed independent senator Dr. Stephen King did not have the last-mentioned category in mind when—in the presumed best interests of the nation’s health—he suggested it was high time this society effectively abandoned at least one of its Christian principles in favor of a more tolerant disposition toward prostitution. Of course that is not to suggest the good doctor is altogether oblivious of the fallout from “the corrupt use of one’s talents,” sexual and otherwise. Since he had to start his clean-up campaign somewhere, why not at the low-fenced dirty front door of the “sex worker,” considered by even the talented corrupt as the scum of the earth and the real reason God had unleashed his biblical WMDs on Sodom and Gomorrah?
Why not, indeed? But then one might also ask: What precisely do we mean by “sex worker?” A participant in the production of X-rated movies, whether as script writers, fluffers, actors, producers or directors? Are all who together make up the multi-billion-dollar sex industry, from brothel keepers and pimps to the purveyors of porn and sex toys, to be considered sex workers—in the same way that mules, rogue cops, bent judges and so-called users are deemed denizens of the drug world? Strippers and go-go dancers, too? Or is the sex-worker designation reserved only for those who offer up their loins for a buyer’s allegedly perverse pleasure, whether on a short- or long-term contract? And what if such pleasure is dispensed only over the phone for the caller’s listening pleasure? What if a buyer is interested only in titillation of the pay-per-view variety? Would such long-distance activities still be yclept all by the name of prostitution as defined by Saint Lucia law, therefore to be considered criminal activity?
From all Dr. King has said about his latest project (see his article on page eight), the multi-layered Flavia Cherry, too, I’ve formed the impression that the dynamic duo are this time around concerned specifically with engagers in sex for bucks and not with those as engage in sex simply for the hellish thrill of it. Rest easy, all ye who copulate only in the name of friendship!
To hear Dr. King tell it, the decriminalizing of sex for reward will draw prostitutes and doctors ever closer for the good of mankind. And while I would not dare to contradict him, still I need to ask: When a woman or a man is diagnosed with HIV or other STDs, are they normally required to tell whether they have engaged in prostitution? Or are they expected only to rat on their unsuspecting partners? What difference does it make if an infected woman has transported thousands to Nirvana, but never for pay? If the problem has less to do with money than with exchanged bodily fluids, shouldn’t Dr. King’s attention be focused on the casual dispensers of free love juices rather than on those engaged in pleasure for profit?
In her own emotional plea for the decriminalization of prostitution, Flavia Cherry seems concerned with far more than just the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted woes. Listening to her on Newsspin earlier this week, she sounded as disgusted about the wall-to-wall opposition on religious grounds to Dr. King’s project as about what she referred to as the “hypocrisy surrounding this subject.” Which is not to say Ms Cherry was talking out of the back of her head. At one point she said she had on record “seven hundred and something” confessed sex workers, the majority of whom were Saint Lucian women whose regular clients included members of the clergy.
Imagine that! Priests pursuing poontang! Moreover, her “intelligence” had uncovered certain well-regarded citizens and their secret proclivities, details of which she threatened to make public, if only to teach the hypocrites a much-needed lesson. Alas, it remained unclear what any of this had to do with decriminalizing whore activity.
Were the hypocrites on Ms Cherry’s list fingered by diseased damsels in distress? She did not say what had led the tittle-tatlers to betray their tricks. Were the holy men she threatened to unfrock engaged in the Lord’s work when conceivably they were observed in the company of whores? After all, the world’s most famous preacher was reportedly not averse to hanging out with prostitutes. Indeed, one particular prostitute is legendary for having washed his feet and then wiped them dry with her hair before she anointed them with oil, doubtless holy.
Is the CAFRA president in a position to prove in court that there was more going on under
the priests’ cassocks than was ever demanded of the Lord’s shepherds? At this point only Ms Cherry knows for certain.
She cited several abuses supposedly suffered by women who make a living selling their bodies to not-so-gentle gentlemen. Some had taken their kicks and then refused to pay up, she said. Others had paid in advance for special services and then forcefully taken back their money. And then there were the unconscionable scoundrels who had enjoyed “sex-on-credit” and never honored their debts.
Run of the mill occupational hazards, you say? Ms Cherry seemed to be saying at times that but for the fact that whoring is a criminal activity, the abused sex workers would’ve sought justice through the court system, as might hotel workers similarly mistreated.
And Ms Cherry may have a point. But that point equally applies to all who engage in illegal activity not necessarily sexual. Seekers of equity must come with clean body parts. I’m thinking here about the thousands of jobless young who cannot all be accommodated by STEP or LEAP and who are left little choice but to pursue other avenues for a living, usually the drug trade. Some were rendered so desperate and frustrated when clients refused to honor their promises that they picked up guns, usually with deadly consequence to the double crossers and their family, the shooters themselves and their own unsuspecting relatives, not to mention innocent passersby. Might the decriminalizing of marijuana and cocaine avert all of this? Some say yes—but can they point to one nation where this has proved true?
Admittedly, in some countries prostitution is legal—Chile, Canada, Brazil, Austria, Singapore and Venezuela inter alia—even though buying a prostitute’s services is not. Where the law permits brothels, the related conditions, including locale, are often most discouraging. As for the impact of legalized prostitution on sexually transmitted diseases, well, it seems the jury is still out. One thing is certain, however: should the Kenny Anthony government decide to decriminalize prostitution as, say, it decriminalized certain abortions, Saint Lucia will be the first Caribbean territory to take that plunge.
I should add that when asked to comment on Dr. King’s initiative the ever-savvy Phillip LaCorbiniere revealed that the recently elected government was in no great haste to make life easier for sex workers. Conceivably the opposition-free administration is far more concerned about delivering on its election promise of jobs-jobs-jobs, and computers for
every school child, not forgetting their $500 pocket change.
Just for the record, this is what the U.S. State Department said in 2009 on the matter of flesh peddling in Saint Lucia: “Prostitution is illegal but is a growing problem. Some underground strip clubs are fronts for prostitution and reportedly owned by corrupt police officers. No arrests were made for the year. Many women who fled brothels were returned by the police.”
If the State Department is to be believed yet again, it would appear prostitutes are not prosecuted in this country largely because
cops operate existing brothels that feed off human trafficking by pimps in police uniform. Outrageous, you say? Maybe, but not nearly as bizarre as the notion that the spread of sexually transmitted diseases will be halted—and our unemployed sons and daughters deterred from cashing in on what their mamas gave them—simply by declaring prostitution a legitimate career protected by a labor code!
Comments are closed.