More On DSK

So apparently now DSK is being accused of attempted rape by another woman. From my understanding, DSK has a history of being accused of harassing (not raping) women - and while it is true that many people have false rumors started about them, when it comes to sexually mistreating women, I beleive that if there is enough smoke, there just may be fire. One accusation is much less suspicious than a history of accusations that can not be proved - especially since, when it comes to sexual harassment, it is often so hard to prove.

http://www.slate.com/id/2298425/

At the same time, there are now accusations that the maid in the hotel who accused DSK was turning tricks. First of all, acussing the accuser of being a slut is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and the reason for the introduction of rape sheild laws: A person's prior sexual history has no bearing on whether or not they were raped in this one sexual instance. It is possible for prostitutes to be raped - as a matter of fact, prostitutes often are raped, especially in countries where prostitution is illegal. The rapists know that this is a vulnerable group of people, that is discredited in the eyes of society, meaning few will beleive their claims. It also knows that the societal assumption is that all sexual acts that takes place between prostitute and client is consensual, whereas that is not always the case. Furthermore, in places where prostitution is illegal, filing a rape charge could mean risking imprisonment or monetary fines, if filing said charges would necessitate revealing one's profession.

The NY Post says the woman was promised money and didn't get any. While lying in such a case is immoral, I wonder: If a prostitute is stiffed by her customer, should that constitute third-degree rape? On the one hand, sexual intercourse happens under false pretexts all the time: False "I love you"s, lies about wanting a relationship, claiming one is separated from a spouse, or even that one has a better job than one does, are all common falsehoods that act as a basis for sexual transactions in our society. Claiming that prostitute-stiffing is some sort of rape, could therefore open a Pandora's box. In the fight for proper measures against harassment and rape, it is important to distinguish between immoral sex and illegal sex. If the law were to try to regulate the morality of sex, it would be arresting people constantly.*

On the other hand, in the case of prostitution, lying about giving money does seem closer to rape. Someone is being promised a tangible object, necessary to survival, in exchange for their body. Had they known they would not be paid, they would not have given their body. I think at the very least, this should constitute fraud. It is a business transaction undertaken under false pretenses, which resulted in monetary loss. I think sexual fraud (ie stiffing prostitutes) should carry an especially stringent sentence.**

One could argue that this too, opens a Pandora's box. However, I beleive that monetary fraud with regards to sex, as a limited category, is less open to interpretation. At a certain point, if one were to regulate less tangible fraud - ie, lying in everyday life, lying about one's emotions to get what one wants - then people would be arrested everyday - which is why the law was very careful to specifically define fraud. I am simply saying that these already set rules should be applied to the sexual marketplace, and that convictions in the sex market should carry harsher penalties, because of the physically invasive nature of the fraud in those cases, that constitutes harm to a person's body.

* I am here defining morality as "Honesty and trying not to consciously hurt oneself or others". By "hurt", I do not mean engaging in consensual whips and chains. I mean pressuring them into sexually painful acts, or harming them emotionally/psychologically. Obviously, hurt feelings occur in romance, but I diffrenciate between hurt that happens as an inevitable consequence of certain situations, and between one partner's trying to use sex and/or sexuality to hurt the other.


** There are arguments over whether or not prostitution constitutes rape in it and of itself. On the one hand, how much choice does a woman have if its food for sex, or starve and die? On the other hand a) there are woman who choose prostitution over other careers, even though it is usually because they need the money, and come from a disadvantaged background in which prostitution is the most profitable career they have open to them. B) Calling prostitution "rape" takes away the agency of prostitutes, thus objectifying them. I personally beleive the rape/not rape dichotomy is unhealthy, and instead, sex should be thought of in terms of agency, with rape on one end of the spectrum, complete freedom on the other, and most sexual activities falling somewhere in between the two. The question is, where on that line, at what point of limited agency, should the sex act become illegal? Prostitutes have more limited agency over their sex lives. Many factors (education, home background, kids relying on one for food, degree of poverty, fear of being evicted) are at work, and those factors determine how much agency the prostitute has. I do beleive if it is literally a life or death choice, or a life-of-the-prostitute-schild/death of the child choice, it may constitute rape.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_set_to_drop_charges_vs_dsk_RWftbQcr6Xw3clMsm6zNWJ