The Blowfish Blog

The Pro Circuit: Sex and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

An officer at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, recently admitted to working as an escort. She faces administrative discharge for conduct unbecoming an officer, despite the fact that she’s protected from non-administrative punishment — in other words, a court martial — because she confessed, by testifying against her former Madam.

Lt. Commander Rebecca C. Dickinson was the manager of food services for the Naval Academy from September 2004 and May 2007. During part of that time, she was also serving, apparently somewhat unhappily, as an escort run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey — the “D.C. Madam.” Palfrey’s clients included the military strategist who invented “shock and awe,” as well as a Deputy Secretary of State, a Senator, and more.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun, found via sex work blog Bound, Not Gagged, the 38-year-old Dickinson testified against Palfrey under a grant of immunity, which means that she can’t be court martialed or prosecuted under federal law. But, at 19 years into her Naval service, Lt. Cmdr. Dickinson faces administrative discharge — which means the loss of her pension.

The reason? While Dickson testified that she did not always have sex with her clients, and when they did, “it was mutual,” the Navy, along with most of the world, regards being an escort as prostitution. The idea goes like this: Pay a woman for her time, and of course you must be paying her for sex. It also goes like this: A woman would not voluntarily have sex with a guy she doesn’t know. Prostitution is forbidden under the Uniform Code of Miliary Justice (UCMJ), as is “sexual misconduct” in many other avatars. If Dickinson she hadn’t gotten immunity, she’d face court martial; with immunity, she’s likely to lose her pension and benefits.

You might ask what working a second job, even as an escort, has to do with being an officer in the navy. Or you might just cut to the chase and ask why officers are forbidden sexual misconduct or prostutitution, which would be a reasonable question. Would you also be surprised to know that US military officers can be court martialed for all sorts of sexual misconduct?

In fact, the military’s attitude toward sexual misconduct and its related behaviors is nothing short of fascinating. Start digging and you see all sorts of weird prohibitions. For instance, the following language occurred in Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) until October 1, 2007:

Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Yes, yes, that is two-thousand-freakin-SEVEN, not 1907: rape your wife, apparently, and it’s not problem, Cap’n — but I digress.

On October 1, 2007, Congress came up with a revised Article 120 that is like 10 times as long as the old Article 120. covered sexual misconduct in agonizing detail, with a medieval Demonologist’s fascination. The new 120 specifically details its applicability to such nasties as date rape, roofie rape, child molestation. It also contains some really bizarre language; “wrongful sexual conduct,” for instance, requires in cases of sexual contact without another person’s consent, “That the accused had no legal justification or lawful authorization for that sexual contact,” which makes it sound like you can get a court order to commit rape, but I’m sure that’s not what they had in mind.

Dickinson probably didn’t run afoul, or didn’t just run afoul, of Article 120, but also of Article 134, which covers prostitution. You can also be court martialed for committing a felony, even if you admit to it, which probably covers Dickinson. But the prohibitions go on — Article 134 also covers adultery; that’s right, you can be court martialed for committing adultery. From watching JAG, I had always thought that prohibition was about fucking another officer’s spouse, but apparently adultery proper is included, provided “the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

Article 134 also covers indecent assault, but only if “the acts were done with the intent to gratify the lust or sexual desires of the accused,” which is kind of a weird requirement for prosecuting indecent assault. Apparently, if you hump your buddy’s leg as part of a hazing ceremony, no problem, but if you enjoy it, it’s the brig for you, sailor.

The new Article 120 also specifically amended a particular offense from Article 134 — this one boggles the mind. Here our Congressional friends are discussing “indecent language communicated to another,” meaning that someone faces court martial under Article 120 if the following can be established:

1. That the accused orally or in writing communicated to another person certain language;
2. That such language was indecent; and
3. That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Those of you who have sleazed around on Yahoo chat may know already that such messenger services are one of the few types of sexual interaction that deployed servicemembers have access to, and one that they utilize with gusto. Congress does not want.

But I want to get back to Lt. Cmdr. Dickinson, because she’s the one who’s really getting screwed here. Know how much she made per encounter? Well, of the $275 fee for her services, $145 went to the agency, and she kept $130. She says she did it because she needed the money, which could seem like an apologist’s argument except that Dickinson stopped shortly before she declared bankruptcy.

As a patriot and a civil libertarian, I have no problem with the idea that military personnel might turn tricks because they want the money, but I find it pretty royally fucked up that a Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy would be turning tricks because she needed the money. I don’t mean that the government should pay our officers more; I think the situation Dickinson found herself in probably speaks to the broader structure of capitalism and the fact that even a pretty well-paid working person can find her or himself in some pretty dicey financial straits. But shouldn’t a USN officer have had access to financial information, counseling and assistance to keep her head above water? Apparently not. Non sibi sed patriae indeed.

Like many women who do sex work, Dickinson was doing it out of necessity, hoping no one would find out; now in order to secure immunity she’s a witness at somebody else’s trial and a news item in somebody else’s blog. And she might find herself at 38 without a pension after 19 years of service because the Navy thinks getting paid to have sex with someone is conduct unbecoming. Smells like bilge water to me, sailor.

Thomas S. Roche is the Public Relations Manager at , the author, editor or coeditor of 10 books plus a bunch under pseudonyms, and a member of the training staff at San Francisco Sex Information. He blogs about funky shit at www.thomasroche.com.

Share This

This entry was posted on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Industry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.