CARNAL NATION

Picture this seedy scene: an undercover cop pays to enter an establishment advertising itself as a spa. After a massage, the female attendant offers him a hand job. (Or if you're feeling coy, "simulate[s] a sex act with her right hand".) The officer declines, leaves, but later returns to arrest the woman and others at the spa for prostitution. A standard sting operation, no doubt—except for the fact that indoor prostitution in this state, Rhode Island, isn't illegal.

What, if anything, horrifies you about this scenario? Is it that offering or receiving a $20 hand job in the land of the free is usually grounds for arrest and possibly a permanent criminal record? That state police spent their time, money, and energy setting up a sting for something that wasn't even a crime? If you're an activist dedicated to keeping prostitution criminalized, then the real tragedy here is that those people arrested at the spa couldn't be prosecuted.

A hoisting of the trafficking flag inevitably followed the “think of the children” argument. You probably already know the “logic” here: police should be given increased power to arrest prostitutes as a way to bust brothels where trafficked women are held against their will.... The vilest rhetoric around prostitution regularly comes from those self-professed anti-trafficking activists; in this case, Donna M. Hughes and Edward Achorn.The logic used to justify the latter reaction is convoluted yet sadly predictable. Rhode Island recently introduced legislation to close the indoor prostitution loophole, and this move has brought forth many familiar, illogical tirades from those most vocal in supporting the bills. (The loophole, by the way, only began receiving public attention as a result of the police stings—not because of a massive influx of sex tourists, complaints from affected citizens, rise in STD rates, or increase in crime.)

First issue: the children. Governor Don Carcieri criticized the loophole by saying "the message we're sending to young women in terms of exploiting themselves for any kind of financial gain, I think, frankly, is disgusting." Reporters apparently failed to ask the Governor if he would next move to criminalize modeling, acting, Hooters waitressing, and stripping; or if living in an unrepentantly capitalist society that insists on valuing women primarily for their attractiveness didn't send more powerful messages to young women than the decisions of adult citizens working in private spaces. Nor, finally, did anyone take a moment to notify Governor Carcieri that men and transgendered people are just as capable of working as prostitutes—but then, males don't need the type of sheltering and protecting that females do.

A hoisting of the trafficking flag inevitably followed the "think of the children" argument. You probably already know the "logic" here: police should be given increased power to arrest prostitutes as a way to bust brothels where trafficked women are held against their will. (I've yet to encounter any article that cites statistics specific to Rhode Island about the number of trafficked women who are currently working at prostitutes, or indeed any real information at all.) The vilest rhetoric around prostitution regularly comes from those self-professed anti-trafficking activists, this time around, it's provided by Donna M. Hughes and Edward Achorn. Both were given space to publish hateful, confused editorials in The Providence Journal.

Achorn claims that, without a law abolishing indoor prostitution, it's essentially legal in Rhode Island to force foreign "teenage girls" to work as prostitutes—because apparently laws against child abuse, kidnapping, trafficking, (etc.) don't apply if the work itself is legal. (Why does anyone, anywhere, still endorse this incomprehensible argument? When trafficked persons are forced to work as domestic help or laborers, do we criminalize housecleaning and carpentry in response?) Achorn goes on to decry "toil […] in the fields of prostitution," apparently ignoring the fact that plenty of women (and men, the under-acknowledged victims of trafficking) who are literally forced to work in fields or factories aren't receiving the type of attention and concern lavished on these unsubstantiated child prostitutes. His love of emotional appeal is not for an instance supported with any facts, number, or reports, although he does cite Donna M. Hughes' dates of new spa/brothel openings—it's unexplained where this information came from.

Hughes herself wrote an op-ed in which she beat the prostituted children drum but focused most of her energy on personal attacks of those speaking out against the proposed bill. She disparaged certified sexologist Megan Andelloux as merely a "tattooed woman" and insinuated that Andelloux's stated credentials were titles she'd invented and bestowed upon herself arbitrarily; criticized a man who apparently owned one of the area's spas as a "pimp […] reeking of cigarette smoke" without providing a single valid counterpoint to any of what the man actually said; and repeatedly referred to working women by their ethnicity while attempting to discredit their testimony without any information as to why they should be disbelieved.

Finally, there's been a bizarre burst of outrage about the Senate bill's staggered approach to penalties, where a first conviction results only in a violation and fine. Michael Healy, spokesperson for Rhode Island's Attorney General, complained that this amounted to a "speeding ticket" and failed to "fully criminalize indoor prostitution." Senator Paul Jabour griped that prostitution should not be treated any differently than shoplifting, while state police official Brendan P. Doherty referred to solicitation and loitering, the offenses often related to prostitution arrests, as "reprehensible acts." Sen. Rhoad Perry claimed that the bill effectively addresses prostitution without "excessively" penalizing the prostitutes, indicating that of course some penalization is necessary—although there's been no explanation as to what's inherently state punishment-worthy about taking money in exchange for sex.

There's an unmistakable moral agenda here, and when it rears its ugly head, it's plainly incompatible with the professed concern for trafficked women. If the law exists only to "rescue" women who are forced to work, how does convicting them multiple times or putting them in jail for months improve their situation? Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU, explained his group's opposition to both the Senate and House versions of the bill by pointing out that "more women are at the (Adult Correctional Institutions) for prostitution-related offenses than any other crime," and that giving prostitutes a criminal record only penalizes them should they choose to pursue alternative employment.

Any law that criminalizes consensual, sexual adult interactions—sodomy, the sale of sex toys, prostitution—is never designed to protect to citizens but rather to shape private behavior to the morals of the state. A guest column in the Norwich Bulletin finally just comes out and admits it with the headline: Rhode Island gives approval to prostitution. Legal prostitution doesn't endanger Rhode Islanders, or imperil women. It doesn't pardon traffickers or child abusers. Keeping prostitution legal in Rhode Island simply allows an individual to charge money to engage sexually with another adult—which is apparently the greatest offense of all.