As mentioned in a previous blog, I was interviewed by a producer for Last week Tonight with John Oliver for a possible segment on sex work. Well, last night, John Oliver aired that segment about why sex work should be decriminalized, and as one advocate commented on my blog, “they nailed it.” The segment, which you can watch for free here on youtube, was based on interviews with many researchers, sex workers and advocates, and it doesn’t mince words.
John Oliver began the segment by saying that “everything about the way we regulate sex work in this country is confusing and counterproductive. It is often either is demonizing, patronizing or just plain wrong.” He pointed out that while consensual sex for money on camera is legal porn, consensual sex for money off camera is considered illegal, which is the height of hypocrisy to say the least. He also noted that sex work is a job and people do it for many of the same reasons they do any other job.
Oliver not only talked about how criminalizing sex work makes it far more dangerous for sex workers to do their jobs, but it makes it difficult for them to move out of the profession if they so choose. It was gratifying to see that many of the points Oliver touched on in this segment were ones that I had discussed with his producer and elaborated on in my 2015 book, Getting Screwed: Sex Workers and the Law and subsequent blogs.
Oliver even managed to squeeze in a quick discussion of why the hybrid legalization-decriminalization model that New Zealand has put in place for sex work is the most effective approach, mainly because it provides sex workers with fundamental rights. As he noted, “the people writing the laws [in New Zealand] got it right and that’s because they consulted sex workers.” He finished by saying that’s the direction we should strive towards, which is exactly what I conclude in my book. Huzzah, huzzah John Oliver!
Postscript to my blog on Inventing Anna: I finally finished the Netflix series on Anna Sorokin, the fake German heiress who was convicted of embezzling money from New York high society and several banks. The later episodes reveal Anna more fully as a troubled sociopath who wants only to be respected for her business acumen and fashion style. What remains most disquieting about this show, however, is its depiction of Vivian, the magazine writer whose article about Anna makes her an international celebrity. In the later episodes, Vivian abandons any pretense at journalistic impartiality, telling Anna during a visit to Rikers island, “I’m the only one on your side,” and encouraging Anna’s lawyer by saying, “We could win this.” No principled journalist would say things like that and I remain astonished that the real-life writer, New York magazine writer Jessica Pressler, upon whom Vivian’s character is based, didn’t object to the way Vivian is portrayed.
Some might say, well, this is Hollywood; they always make things up. The problem with that attitude is that too many people form their impression of journalism by watching TV shows and movies, and this kind of inaccurate depiction only makes people more distrustful of journalists. Is it any wonder that attitudes toward the press have been tanking in recent polls? That does not augur well for maintaining the kind of informed citizenry that is crucial to a healthy democracy. I hope you’re listening, Shonda Rimes!
This blog is also posted on medium.com.
