your opinion that monogamy is not in our nature and has to be tought,
interesting points of views here
-- Modified on 8/10/2004 9:09:30 PM
I'm interested in opinions from both men and women on the subject of sex work and feminism:
Women do you feel as if sex work has brought you more of a sense of empowerment or has it made you feel worse about yourself?
I've found that going into sex work has been empowering for me on many levels and improved my self esteem on some physical issues. The only negative effects that I can see for myself in this profession is just that I have a difficult time sometimes seperating love from sex with certain guys who are regulars and I'm sure they have the same problem. Other than that I've only had positive repercussions because of it.
I 've also thought that the degradation of sex workers in this society is mostly meant as a mean of keeping women in line and not giving them an upper hand on men financially.
A friend pointed me to some quotes by Tracy Quon _author of *Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl* that i found of extremely intellectually stimulating, perhaps you will also and then comment:
"On feminism: "There are feminists who argue that sex work is degrading, while others say it is empowering and means working on the front line, fighting the patriarchy. Either way, prostitution is much older than feminism, and feminism needs to justify itself to prostitution — not the other way around. Is feminism good for the prostitute? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Show me how. These other people are worrying about whether prostitution is good for feminism. They've got their priorities backward."
On 'living a double life': "We lie because we want our partners to treat us a certain way. We want a conventional romance. People lie to carve out privacy, to make someone happy, to maintain an upper hand. Prostitutes often lie to their boyfriends but so do many other people. Now, some people assume that there is an authentic self, a person you "truly are" hiding behind the public image. I think that's naïve. You can minimize one aspect of yourself in order to play up another.
If you are a prostitute, you learn to be versatile. But if you get found out, you may be accused of moral turpitude. Many jobs require confidentiality. The denial that hookers practice can be viewed as a form of confidentiality. If you run into a client at a party and say hello, it's a lot safer when the world doesn't know you are a hooker! If the world knows, he will run to another corner of the room. And everybody will look at him oddly.
I used to hide my profession when I was hanging out with another call girl. I would go undercover with her friends, even though I was being very open with mine. This is a valuable skill. Information is a resource. What you do with it says a lot about your intelligence, integrity and agility. It's more important to be trustworthy than to be honest.""
A long time ago, I posted about the sources of male and female power. Despite all the progress women have made, female power continues to be based on sex and the influence it has, and male power continues to be based around money and the influence it buys. Keeping prostitution illegal keeps the female power base intact. As a result, there will always be strong opposition to legalizing commercial sex work, and that opposition will come from women- not men.
To further respond to your point about whether CSW is empowering to women, I've dated a couple providers on a long term basis. One of them felt very empowered (an accomplished, well-educated woman) and the other felt victimized (primarily due to finances and lack of options). What differentiated them was the matter of choice and the circumstances upon which that choice was based. Is it her choice to do CSW, or is it her only choice? Does she love what she's doing, or does she feel she has no alternatives to survive etc. These are just two examples, but they illustrate the importance of an individual's mindset, personal perceptions, and circumstances in determining how she will feel about her life in commercial sex work.
As for the premise that sex work being illegal is empowering to men, I would maintain just the opposite is true. If we look at this issue on a society level, rather than an individual level, sex work has historically been illegal to control men, not women. It is men's carnal nature and uncontrolled sex drive that society sought to control.
Further, prostitution has been made illegal to protect the institution of marriage, or so the thinking goes. And I'll be the first to point out, this "thinking" evolved in the 19th century in this country, and earlier elsewhere, so it's a little dated. Even back then, however, the mayor and most other pillars of the community could be counted upon to be the local brothel's best customers.
The basic assumption has always been that men wouldn't get married if they had easy access to sex elsewhere. Marriage is considered a civilizing force in society and it is the women, not the men, that perpetrate the institution. Marriage has always been about providing security to women and maintaining the stability of the family. So it is women, not men, that will always keep prostitution illegal in order to protect their own security and power over men. In the old days, issues of paternity and inheritance were also of extreme importance, and marriage made the record keeping clear. Now we don't care as much about those things, but the subtext to society's attitude towards men, sex and prostitution hasn't changed.
Most people still believe men, the great hunters, would pursue "tail" without ever bothering to get married resulting in a less stable society. They also assume there would be a lot of children running around without fathers or support (OK, that part happened, but not because of CSW). Again, these ideas are all traceable back through history and haven't changed despite the fact we have birth control, sex is available outside marriage, women have careers and can support themselves etc. But if we look at the situation as it stands today, commercial sex work continues to be iillegal to control, not empower men (and their carnal nature).
It's why few societies will ever change the official laws governing prostitution, even if most people feel prostitution is victimless and deep-down support it. We all just look the other way and live with the hypocrisy of presidents, senators and priests getting it on the side, while we point to our moral laws and say something to the equivalent of "do what I say, not what I do." We pretend we don't masturbate, we pretend we don't watch porn, we pretend we don't have sex drives- at least when the public is watching. And the public is always watching when the laws governing sex are drafted and voted upon.
I've personally always supported de-criminalization of prostitution because I don't subscribe to the victimization mantra that feminists, wives and society in general try to place on prostitutes. I've seen women of free will chose to be commercial sex workers and be happy. I've experienced their company in positive and fulfilling ways. Nobody was hurt, and we both benefitted. Everybody on TER has similar stories to tell.
But we also know that there are others in CSW who are being victimized, exploited and maybe even abused. This is the only side of the issue which society choses to see since it supports their preconceived ideas.
Sadly, the hardest thing to do in life is to change people's minds, and when it comes to prostitution, most of those minds remain firmly stuck in a Victorian era ethos.
-- Modified on 8/10/2004 2:17:43 PM
"The basic assumption has always been that men wouldn't get married if they had easy access to sex elsewhere. "
Does this mean that men only get married to have regular sex easily?
and since men can get sex easily nowadays and there are many women who agree with CSW? why is it still so difficult to legalize it?
-- Modified on 8/10/2004 3:24:16 PM
Men are the vast majority of law makers, and I think they are afraid of how they would appear to their constituents of women, family, and friends if they voted for legalization. The safe thing to do politically is nothing, and continue to be a hobbiest on the side if they wish.
I think that legalization will flood the market place with women who have no pride in their work... in sex work as you call it, a winning attitude is part of the price that is paid ( or am I the only one who thinks so). I feel your point of view about the empowerment and no, I think marriage is at its shaky best is a lifestyle choice more than anything. If not for sex, certainly, I think children deserve the stability of two persons ( I am not opposed to alternative unions). So we may never compromise on this as a society, but in the meantime, please no legislation as it relates to me paying for entertainment.
If there's one thing to be said, marriage is pretty good for raising children.
And there's also the ease of familiarity.
Why is it so difficult to legalize? Look no further than the Bible, where the prophets rage on against prostitutes for page after page.
And then there's the Koran.
That's why it's so difficult to legalize. The propoganda against it in our religions is just that powerful.
/Zin
First, your claim that illegalizing prostitution in the 19th century was meant to control men and not women. There is a presumption behind this: that you could control the men by controlling the women. Why would this be easier, becaus of the unfortunate historical fact that control of the women was already presumed. And the general attitude was that the effect on them could be ignored. For a woman to be arrested for prostitution in the 19th was ruinous, and perhaps even fatal. You were controlling men at a cost of destroying a lot of women.
Moreover, when you go back only to the 19th century, you don't have enough of a historical perspective on it. Prostitution has always gone through cycles of open practice, illegality, and decriminalized tolerance.
Furthermore, you've ignored the role of the Christian Churches. If society was trying to promote marriage in the 19th century, it was because the Christian faith had declined, but its influence trained into the population had not. Only because of that decline in influence were people even considering sex in marriage to be encouraging. And Christianity definitely saw women as the tools of Satan, and a class of people to be controlled and denigrated. Only now, with other cultrural influences, has it changed, but not very much.
Finally, married, and purportedly monogamous women may be the immediate political force against legalization, but this does not tell nearly the full story. Monogamy is marketed to women in this society from a very early age. In children's stories "They lived happily ever after" is the cliche, with assumption that once you've established monogamy, nothing else needs to be done. In families, when they reach sexual maturity, it is generally treated as a disruption to the family, and a potential disaster. The learn to deny themselves early, and for this we promise them that they will marry prince charming and live happily ever after. These are a few examples, of how we market this to women. There are many more. Romance novels are nothing but monogamy propaganda, if not for that, they'd be simple pornography. I could go into other examples of how this is done.
So, the woman who buy into this most usually have put a lot of sacrifice and self-restraint into behaving and getting married. They will resent those who aren't towing the line.
I won't say that all women are whores underneath, but almost all of them, like men, polygamous to some degree. To restrain it, they need to have it trained out of them.
If housewives see prostitutes as beneath their status, most men do as well, and, unlike housewives who have no contact, they do exploit that. Also, many can't help but remind prostitutes that they are a few rungs lower.
/Zin
your opinion that monogamy is not in our nature and has to be tought,
interesting points of views here
-- Modified on 8/10/2004 9:09:30 PM
too much as it is. Sure, the scope of the issue is more like 2,000 years rather than two centuries. And English law flows into American law, which is preceded by Biblical law. There is a broad historical sweep to this entire issue, but you've got to set some parameters to make the discussion manageable. I assumed we were talking about the US and chose to stop with the 19th century since most of our laws can be traced to that period- or at least to the thinking from that period.
And of course, who can forget the contributions of the Church, those wonderful, fun loving lads who brought us the Dark Ages (well, me apparently, since I don't believe in religion) in their attempt to control all aspects of European life for centuries. I delberately left them out to avoid making a controversial subject more controversial. Since politics nearly killed this board six months ago, I didn't think religion should be introduced if the subject could be addressed in other ways.
And to the comments of other posters-- yes, there are personal stories that are exceptions to every generalization. But expanding personal experience or bias to make a rule about the general case is a risky business, and not recommended. I used to manage the marketing research and strategy functions for two major corporations as part of my duties in a past career. Making this mistake is one of the most common ways peole get to the wrong answer. It's human nature to look for and support opinions that are in agreement with your own preconceptions, and then selectively filter and reject those that disagree with them. I've seen presidents of giant corporations make that mistake, and you can also read this thread for further evidence of that phenomenon.
And we weren't talking about other cultures, we were talking about our culture, or so I thought. But if you want to talk about other cultures, I've been to Asia a total of 37 times and could write several threads about them.
In Korea, for example, even today, you don't officially exist if you're illegitimate, and that goes double if you're mixed race. No inheritance, no place in the family tree. If you're mixed race, you can't even serve in the army (service is mandatory), which will follow you throughout your entire life. Yes, paternity is extremely important to them, as it was in England and Europe for the last 1200 years.
And as we all know, they have their own forms of prostitution with varying degrees of status- both real and percieved. And then there's the Western view (usually highly romantisized) of what we think their culture is like, but that' s another story. I will say, though, that being a prostitute in Korea is another quick way to be a "nonperson." If you're "outed" your chance at a normal life (by Korean standards) is over- no husband or family for you.
Japan has their share of interesting behaviors also. For instance, you can be a Toyota executive who never goes home to his family, spends all his time fucking his favorite pros in Nagoya, and still be considered a good father as long as you send home enough of your paycheck to support your dutiful little wife in Tokyo. I've sat in their offices and joked with them about it when one of the wives visited friends in Nagoya, but didn't even bother to visit her husband whom she hadn't seen for a month. Now where's the Church Lady when you really need her?
And yes, geishas have status as long as they stay in their own world. But don't expect them to be accepted into mainstream society or be invited over for tea once everybody has said their goodbyes and gone home for the evening. Then their status plummets, as it does in most parts of the world. But we should also distinguish between gieshas, most of whom are now in their 50's and 60's and trainded in traditional ceremonies, and prostitutes who are younger and offer the same services as elsewhere. The two may have been synoymous in the past, but are no longer.
In Korea, I "partied" with the Chairman of the Board of one of Korea's top 3 chaebols (I won't be more specific), met his prostitute GF of a dozen years, and wished him well as I took my girl for the evening back to the hotel, and he went off in another room to fuck his mammasan GF all night. But she has absolutely no status or respect in society once he steps outside her door. She only has status in her establishment, otherwise she goes back to being the bottom rung on the social ladder. Meanwhile, the "do-gooders" are trying to get the Mayor of Seoul to shut her down- just like in the US. So much for enlightened Eastern culture.
But that wasn't the subject of this thread, even though the basic patterns are the same. I tried to present a case that summarized the essential elements in a logical and orderly manner. But if you really want me to write a book on the subject, well, I've already got that in my files from 1996. Just let me know and I'll publish the excerpts like our buddy with all the issues about father/daughters relationships.
-- Modified on 8/11/2004 1:42:41 PM
The status of a prostitute in almost all modern societies is usually close to, if not at, the bottom rung. There have been exceptions, but those are made informally. Courtesans gained their status through their connections, and sometimes so many of them had those connections that it was formalized in the term. When the Christian Churches praise Mary Magdalen, it is never to praise prostitutes generally, it is to make an exception, and everybody knows that's how she is to be regarded.
In some ancient cultures this wasn't true. The Sumerians. Babylonians and perhaps the Egyptians had temple prostitutes. It gave them high status, but it also made them a political force to be resented and contended against. Much of the polemics in the prophet books of the Bible are a expressions of that resentment.
Obviously, there is a tension in any nation-state between reproductive effort, such as, the conceiving, birthing and raising of children, and sexual satisfaction, which acts as a stabilizing and energizing influence. In any organized society, all the way down to the tribal level, reproductive effort has been a priority. It is always in the collective interest to out-reproduce the other nation/tribe, and to produce competent children. Women who do this, as opposed to serving excess desires, were taken more seriously, namely: wives.
However, now that might now be shifting. In an overpopulated world, with failed states and weapons of mass destruction, the social emphasis might well be shifting under stress from reproduction to stabilization. In which case, the status of prostitutes can be expected to rise.
I know it's not that simple. It does assume among other things, that human beings are that adaptable. And if it does rise, it will generate its own resistance. But it will be interesting to see how it breaks.
/Zin
can't we do anything to push that movement along a lil faster?
i find this subject, your opinions and stories of ut most interest and is teaching me alot and helping me to develop a broader perspective on my chosen career
My offense was responding to an ISO post (off line) for information on a delisted provider.
If and when my moderated status is lifted, I may decide to participate on this board again, but don't hold your breath. I have always tried to post intelligent, informative or entertaining things and be an asset to this community, but this has happened to me twice before and I decided if it ever happened again I wouldn't waste any more time on this site.
BTW, you will probably never see this, but I wanted to thank you for your nice comments anyway.
-- Modified on 8/11/2004 1:02:42 AM
Many of the assertions made are provincial or parochial in the extreme. They are made from a myopic western perspective void of many eastern or non-western cultural realities.
Many, many societies have historically decriminalized or totally legalized the oldest profession. Japan had it's geishas for instance.
MEN make the laws, not women. So, on the face of it the assertion that women have been the ones to make it illegal is patently wrong. I suppose you could assert the wifes of the legislators made them pass the laws, but you would be hard pressed to prove that.
Now if you had pointed out that facilitating or trafficking in prostitution is a felony whereas the actual act is usually a misdemeanor in almost ALL states then you could have made a better case. But that argument still falls flat because that law is NOT gender specific, though most were written when pimps were for the most part male.
It really isn't about controlling one gender ot the other. it's about control...period.
You should check "oout" the laws in Canada, especially BC, right now. 
TET
yes this is what I have always thought as well, since men make the laws, they control the power, so it's empowering to them to regulate prostitution and women's bodies in general (i.e. abortion)
...by giving them control of the sexual reins. Keeping it illegal helps sustain the monopoly of non-providing women on providing sexual services to men, helps ensure men stick around to help raise the kids and so on. That's why non-providers take such a dim view to adultery. Same thing. They see it as a threat. If anything, men are dis-empowered by non-provider women. My thought is that the coming uqibuity of Viagra and proliferation of health/fitness consciousness is more empowering to men. It'll fundamentally change society. But that's another thread entirely. Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Vicki.
Check out "Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality" by Jared Diamond.
DVB
already in many communities, because the laws against it are not vigorously enforced.
I'll make the point, there's not too much difference between consensual sex for pay and consensual sex. In a relatively free society, everybody knows that enforcing the prostitution laws too strictly would mean that the government can regulate sex. Not that many people want to go that far about it. But societies have gone that far about it before. However, in the US, it would feel like death.
/Zin
in my community it is definitely enforced and in many others as well , it should be officially decriminilized so that sex workers do not have to hide their work and live in fear of prosecution
"Empowerment" is a popular buzzword of our society. It has nothing to do with legalities. It is all about *economics*.
"Empowerment" of men vs women, or "empowerment" of any one in general is a new (historically) speaking concept that exists only in societies that have the economic luxury to think in such terms. In fact the mere existence of buzzwords implies luxury.
Most places in the world people don't have the luxury to even think up buzzwords like "empowerment", much less to contemplate the concept. They are too busy with a much more fundamental concept. It's called "survival".
Go to Russia sometime. Prostitution is legal there, at least in most places. I think Moscow has changed that mainly because of the nuisance factor of large numbers of streetwalkers, plus it makes it easier to control who gets the money when the police can harrass the ones that are not on their bankroll.
But in St Petersburg it is completely unregulated. The legality has nothing to do with empowerment. Some women cater to the New Russians and Westerners. They are probably "empowered" by that - in the only terms that really mean much to them - economically. Others in the same city are forced into prostitution because of dire poverty. Certainly not an "empowered" situation.
The laws have nothing to do with it. It's economics.
Be thankful (be very thankful!) you all have the *luxury* to even debate this subject ...
yes i am very very lthankful for all my luxuries, intelligence and the fact that we are able to debate
Peculiar arguments you're making here. So because some people are too poor to think about this, those better off shouldn't? And if we do, we should waste some mental energy being thankful or feeling guilty about it?
Granted, depending upon your circumstance, this might be more or less important depending upon your circumstance, but how is that even relevant once the issue is open? If the poor and deprived can't think about it, and the rich and powerful won't, am I to believe it's because of deference and respect to the poor and deprived?
"Empowerment" may be a buzzword, but the concept behind it: status, is not. I used the word "status" rather than empowerment. Status is a very important biological concept, and all social animals perceive its consequences. It *is* a concept central to survival. Your status falls too low, you will not survive. If it's not high enough, you will not thrive.
So, the debate was whether men in general, gained in status by keeping prostitutes, in general, at such a low rung. And I believe they do.
/Zin
In general, yes, criminalizing sex work disempowers female providers. However some providers thrive in the nonlegal environment. If it was legalized, many more women would become providers and would be able to advertise easier. Prices would fall. Some providers would benefit in the new environment, other would not, depending on their ability to adapt.