Archive for October 10th, 2010

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. –  Mark Twain

Though I suppose I should be used to it after all these years, I am still astonished by the incredibly stupid statements which are habitually made by opponents of prostitution.  Everyone makes stupid statements from time to time (and this writer is by no means an exception), but prohibitionists repeatedly and vociferously repeat the same asinine arguments over and over again, as though they were completely unaware of how ridiculous they sound.  Anyone’s brain can slip out of gear for long enough to make an embarrassing declaration, but the whore-burning crowd’s constant repetition of these same idiotic assertions indicates that they honestly feel them to be both valid and persuasive. Today I’d like to look at a few of them, in no particular order.

The act of exchanging money for sex is inherently degrading.

Why?  What portion of the act generates the degradation?  Is it the act of having sex with men at all?  Because if that’s the case you had best just shut up now before somebody points out that you’re naked.  Or is it the act of having sex with people to whom one is not married, in which case why aren’t you out promoting laws against infidelity, singles bars, gay bars and swinger clubs, or advocating for “abstinence-only” sex education and campaigning against “no-fault” divorce?  Or perhaps you believe that any personal service for pay should be illegal, in which case where’s all your anger and bile against masseuses, hairdressers, manicurists, physical therapists and cosmetologists?  Perhaps you believe that wives need to be protected by prohibiting anyone from providing traditional wifely services for pay; good plan!  So when do you start your campaign to criminalize chefs, tailors, nannies, maids and day care centers?  No?  It must just be that you’re against capitalism, then; good luck selling that one, considering that even the Russians and Chinese have embraced it.

Because you are too romantic, shy, introverted, conventional, prissy, prudish, narcissistic, lazy, fearful or misandrous to sell sexual services, why does that mean I can’t?  I have too much sense to believe I can get all of my moral answers from a 2000+ year old book and too much decency to promote warfare between large groups of society so as to give me a chance to grab power, but you don’t see me trying to prohibit you from doing those things.

Prostitution is unacceptably dangerous to women.

Who determines what level of danger is unacceptable, you?  Who decided that an adult woman who can drive, vote, drink alcohol, own a firearm, see X-rated movies, enter into binding legal contracts and even run for political office is somehow incompetent to determine whom she wants to have sex with and on what terms?  And having decided that I was incompetent, who the hell declared you my legal guardian?  What other activities carry an “unacceptable” level of risk?  How about joining the military?  Construction work?  Driving?  Walking on public streets without a male escort?  Going outside without niqab and chador, thus risking rape due to male lust?  What country are you from again?  And since you’re so concerned about prostitutes’ safety, can you please explain why you think the best way to help us is to make our jobs more dangerous?

No little girl plans to grow up to be a prostitute.

Yes, I’ve actually had morons fling this one at me.  Assuming for a moment that by “little girl” you actually mean one old enough to comprehend what a prostitute does for a living, you’re still wrong; as I discussed in my column of July 30th I had a secret admiration for prostitutes from my early teens and the only reason I didn’t embrace the idea wholeheartedly was due to brainwashing that an intellectual career was somehow “better” than one as an entertainer.  Lots of teenage girls dream of being actresses or singers, who are nothing but glorified whores who make a living with the same body parts as we do; if our trade was not illegal and suppressed who knows how many girls might indeed want to be hookers?

But even that isn’t the point.  No little girl plans to grow up to be a sales clerk, cashier, middle manager, real estate agent or maid either, so should we ban those professions?  And do you honestly imagine little boys dream of growing up to be accountants, insurance salesmen, bus drivers, coal miners and pipefitters?  If everyone grew up to be what he or she wanted to be in childhood we would have a workforce made up almost entirely of firemen, ballerinas, astronauts, teachers, cowboys and nurses.

Nine out of ten prostitutes would leave the trade if they could.

I totally believe this, but so would nine out of ten accountants, lawyers, doctors, secretaries, shopkeepers, clerks, waitresses, construction workers, teachers, farmers, plumbers, cubicle workers, factory workers, etc, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum; in fact, for some of those professions I’m sure it’s more like ninety-nine out of a hundred.  There’s a reason people get paid to do work, you know; it’s an incentive to get them to do something they wouldn’t freaking do if they were independently freaking wealthy!  Those of us who didn’t have the good fortune to inherit large portions of major corporations do indeed have to spend large portions of our time doing things we would rather not do with people we might not otherwise care to be around. But as I said two sections up, if you’re so concerned about the difficulty of our jobs, why are you so dedicated to making them even more difficult?

X% (insert random large number here) of prostitutes are coerced (or abused, or addicted, or “trafficked”, or underage, or whatever).

I’m not even going to comment on the arbitrary nature of these numbers because it should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that it’s impossible to make any reasonable estimate of what percentage of practitioners of a repressed and largely-invisible group are blonde, poor, left-handed, green-eyed, uneducated, diabetic or anything else.  The important thing is that even if some percentage of any given profession is affected by a condition which removes free choice or invalidates judgment, what the hell does that have to do with those who are not so affected?  85% of cops have anger management problems, sadistic impulses or self-esteem issues; 72% of lawyers are addicted to cocaine; 99.7% of politicians are moral retards; 54% of doctors are only in it for the money; 95% of agricultural workers live below the poverty line; 113% of neofeminists are certifiably bat-shit crazy and 62.85% of statistics are made up on the spot, so why don’t you go pick on them for a change and just leave us to the Bible Beaters?

Prostitution is a manifestation of patriarchal dominance over women.

Wow, really?  Then how come we were respected priestesses in the old goddess-centered cultures, and our status slowly declined in the patriarchal ones?  And why is it that (at least until the invention of feminism) the most patriarchal cultures are those in which prostitutes are most brutally repressed?  If the “patriarchy” likes prostitution so damned much, why the hell wasn’t it universally legalized centuries ago?  This argument is as ludicrous as the neofeminist claim that sexy clothes are symptomatic of “sexist oppression” despite the fact that oppressive, rigidly patriarchal cultures invariably force women to cover up more in public.

Prostitutes are anti-feminist because they earn a living by being subservient to men.

Anyone who has ever actually prostituted herself, hired a prostitute or observed the transaction will recognize this as easily the most idiotic statement in this column.  The male client is required to essentially beg and bribe a prostitute for sex by jumping through whatever hoops she declares he must and paying her whatever fee she demands, however absurd and unfair; if he displeases her beyond the point she is willing to tolerate she may simply cut him off and leave, and he has little recourse other than physical violence (to which normal men are not willing to resort).  Prostitution is evidence of one gender’s dominance over the other, all right, but it’s the opposite way around from the sick fantasies of neofeminists; why do you think maladjusted men hate us so consistently?  It’s because our very existence is a constant reminder of the male sexual dependence on women (and our ability to manipulate men to get what we want by means of that dependence) that bitter men are so obsessed with controlling or eradicating us and sociopathic men so often murder us.

Perhaps academic feminists, few of whom have ever had to achieve anything resembling real-world results in order to earn their pay, intentionally confuse “subservience” with the normal necessity of any service provider to please her customer?  If a female barber was rude to her male customers and did a bad job cutting their hair, she wouldn’t last too long in her profession.  Not even neofeminists are not so addle-brained as to pretend that other female service professionals are “anti-feminist” merely because of the way in which they earn their living; that distinction is reserved for whores.  Like every other example on this page, this last stupid statement can more truthfully summed up in one phrase: “It’s different because it involves sex.”

Read Full Post »