According to the Sun newspaper, British immigration officials have been granting visas to foreign nationals in exchange for sex. (Now updated with a link to the Sun’s original story – many thanks TheInkSlinger.)
I find it ironic that a newspaper which proudly advertises its daily topless photograph was the one to break a story about what is effectively a form of prostitution. My cynical guess is that the Sun was less concerned with the exploitation than with the anti-immigration potential of the story.
Pingback: feminist blogs
The Sun’s report is here.
Nick, You can find a link to the original Sun piece here.
My guess is that the Sun believed the sensational headline would move newspapers.
My somewhat less than cynical guess would be that the Sun figured that this kind of story would be exactly the kind that would appeal to their readers and help them sell more copies of their paper.
I was gonna say — this sounds exactly like the plot of a porn movie… right up the Sun’s alley.
Actually, I’d be more inclined to call it rape than prostitution.
RonF: agreed, but I don’t think they thought their readers were concerned with the exploitation of women, I think they thought their readers wanted proof that the immigration system is broken. Then again, maybe I’m overthinking and they just reasoned a juicy scandal would sell.
The reason the Sun’s concerned is that misfeasance is taking place. I’m surprised no-one has mentioned this.
Theophylact —
Why would you call it rape? If so, what’s the difference between rape and prostitution? I’m asking that as a serious question, since, though I consider myself a feminist, I’m not particularly well versed in feminist theory.
Is this the difference:
Prostitution would be “I’ll have sex with you if you give me a visa,”
while rape would be “if you want a visa you have to have sex with me.”
I’m still not sure why the second instance qualifies as rape. It’s appalling, but lots of appalling things aren’t rape.
I’m not speaking for theophylact, but I think the use of the word rape is gradually expanding from “sex without consent” to include instances where consent is given but illegitimately obtained. You can call various things rape depending on what “illegitimately obtained” means to you.
An interesting example I’ve found is in the UK’s 2003 Sexual Offences Act (76) which says that if two people have sex and the “defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to [sex] by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant” then the complainant is conclusively presumed not to have consented, the defendant is conclusively presumed to have known this – and therefore it is rape.
Whatever the merits of treating this as a crime are, it is quite far removed from the traditional idea of rape because of the way it treats consent obtained by deception as invalid.
“… because of the way it treats consent obtained by deception as invalid.”
Perhaps you mean, because traditionally rape only concerns the absence of consent, whereas this concerns consent obtained through deception?
I think you’re over-thinking this. Sex and public officials always makes a juicy story. We Americans have a recent example of this, but I’m old enough to remember the Profumo scandal, which if I recall correctly helped bring down the British government of the time. It’s probably seared into the memory of the Sun editorial staff.
I suppose. It’s hard to phrase it properly, particularly as the law says if the complainant consents because of deception then they’re conclusively presumed not to have consented(!?!). I know what they’re getting at, but they’re using the word “consent” in two different ways.
Thanks, Nik — that clears it up.
While that makes a lot of sense to me, I wonder how people outside of feminist circles would take to that definition. I also wonder what the payoff is for feminists. When feminists make the claim that there’s a lot more rape going on out there than people realize, then anti-feminists’ initial response always seems to be “that’s not really rape.”
OTOH, I have a friend who was raped by her boss during an office party. The only threat of force that was made was this: that she would have to tell her colleagues in the other room that her boss was trying to rape her. Then he’d deny it and she’d look like a fool. Surely this is rape, but when analyzing rape statistics, I could imagine many people making the argument that it wasn’t, since she “consented” to intercourse.
Back to the discussion at hand, without knowing the specific circumstances, it’s now seeming to me that it would be difficult to know whether these incidents were “rape” or “prostitution.” I had a friend who, as a graduate teaching assistant, gave one of his female students a “C” on a paper. She came to his office wearing a tight, low-cut outfit, leaned seductively over his desk, and asked if there was “anything she could do improve her grade.” He told her there wasn’t, but if he had consented to sex, I think few people would argue that this was an example of rape. OTOH, if he had been the one doing the asking, then it certainly might be a rape case.
Were these women approaching immigration authorities and offering sex, or were they told that sex was the way to get visas? I hadn’t realized before that the line between rape and prostitution was such a fine one.
I think the use of the word rape is gradually expanding from “sex without consent” to include instances where consent is given but illegitimately obtained
statutory rape is a key example of this; there’s the assumption that a minor can’t really judge the situation adequately, and thus can’t ever give consent. presumably somebody faced with exportation is in an even worse situation…
I hadn’t realized before that the line between rape and prostitution was such a fine one.
of course, dave, your wonderment derives in part from the assumption that prostitutes want to be doing what they’re doing — I think a more radical feminist analysis (or maybe not so radical) would argue that they have been systemically coerced into thinking that this is the only way that they can ensure their economic survival, and thus it is inherently an abusive situation. attempted seduction as a means to power in non-sexual realms is different, but it could also be argued that it’s an example of the powerlessness that those people feel, in that they’re reduced to thinking that this is their primary route to things that they want.
I wonder how people outside of feminist circles would take to that definition. I also wonder what the payoff is for feminists. When feminists make the claim that there’s a lot more rape going on out there than people realize, then anti-feminists’ initial response always seems to be “that’s not really rape.”
the “payoff for feminists” (ahem) doesn’t really come in the ability to claim higher rape statistics, but in the ability to show the ways that power and coercion are built into many aspects of the way that the world interacts with women — that our social milieu is inherently patriarchal and oppressive — whether it’s dismissing their abilities, reducing them to sex objects, forcing them to do degrading things in order to get through unrelated transactions, thinking of them in terms of only their bodily functions (sexual or reproductive), and on and on. this is helpful in that it helps us deal not only with specific instances, such as corrupt individuals in positions of power, but with underlying worldviews and assumptions that lead to recurrences of particular types of problems.
just my first reaction to the discussion.
I like the term “unethical sex” as a catch-all for all sex that can’t be described as forced directly by the more powerful participant, but which may not be called rape because there was some modicum of choice and consent, however small and corrupted. All types of prostitution definitely fall into this category, if only for the fact that prostitution is the purest form of exploitation there is and can be rape by third parties, so to speak (if the customer is officially unaware of force by the pimp). Also, sex under false pretenses, sex with putatively willing minors, and many more situations.
of course, dave, your wonderment derives in part from the assumption that prostitutes want to be doing what they’re doing … I think a more radical feminist analysis (or maybe not so radical) would argue that they have been systemically coerced into thinking that this is the only way that they can ensure their economic survival, and thus it is inherently an abusive situation.
In some cases the prostitute may have been coerced into thinking that this is the only way to insure their survival (say, for example, someone who is addicted to drugs and this is the only way to get money). But I would think that in a large number, maybe even the majority of cases (in the first world, at least), women are prostitues because it pays better for less work. That is, they could survive doing something else, but they could get a lot more money as a prostitute. If working as a prostitute is the only way to make $40,000 a year, but they could make $20,000 a year doing a menial job, I wouldn’t argue that they were “coerced.”
of course, dave, your wonderment derives in part from the assumption that prostitutes want to be doing what they’re doing
Actually, I wasn’t assuming that; to me forced prostitution is one of the most heinous imaginable crimes, and one shouldn’t need to redefine it as “rape” in order to establish its significance.
I was thinking more along the lines of the original scenario, where we can come up with a nearly infinite series of gradations between “rape” and “prostitution.” I just hadn’t thought of it that way before.
the “payoff for feminists” (ahem) doesn’t really come in the ability to claim higher rape statistics
Sorry if my phrasing was a little awkward there, but what I was trying to get at is the the problem of anti-feminists misconstruing feminist arguments as deceptive. Since anti-feminists clearly have such a powerful voice in the establishment, I’m wondering whether it makes sense for feminists to build awareness of feminist issues by trying to broaden the social construct of “rape.”
OTOH, I’m not sure what I think of Elena’s term “unethical sex.” That sounds more like sleeping with your best friend’s girlfriend, not exploiting women immigrants / abusing govermental authority.
Dave-
point taken, that “unethical sex” can sound too mild. But it’s a handy term to use when debating the legality or morality of prostitution or sex with minors who give consent. I don’t think there is a way to argue that these activities are ethical, no matter what spin people put on it.
This probably gets farther into semantics than I usually care to go, but don’t some people object to the term “sex” to describe rape, incest, and the like? Again, I’m at a loss for a substitute. I suppose you could say “illicit intercourse,” but that’s awfully clinical.
How about “exploitative sex”?
I work in IND at Croydon and have done for about 15 years, There are always people who behave unethically. people who will offer favours for sex and people who will offer sex for favours. People who will do things for money, and people who will offer money for doing things. I shall await the result of the enquiry with interest, because I do not , personally believe that it is as common as this man would have us believe. He did after all offer favours for money to the Sun and had those favours accepted . There is a well known system for whistle blowing, set up after previous debacles.
There is dubious morality all aroud
After all, deception is considered reason to signed contracts set aside, on the grounds that if all the facts were known consent to the contract would not have been obtained.
It seems fair enough to extend deception as grounds to negate consent to rape law when there is plenty of precedent for deception as grounds in other areas of law, no?