Slavery still exists, but now it applies only to women and its name is prostitution. – Victor Hugo, Les Miserables
It seems that in the past few years, and especially this year, the gap between those who want the US to join the developed world on prostitution and those who want us to align ourselves with theocracies and totalitarian states has dramatically increased; while most Americans used to sit on the fence on this issue, debate now seems to have become polarized between those in favor of decriminalization and those who support increased demonization and prohibition. Nearly every week now I read an article like this one in which an intelligent, informed person calls for an end to prohibition and the ensuing waste of public funds which results from the completely ineffective attempts to enforce the unenforceable. This particular story is about the newest “strategy” employed by the city of Arlington, Texas – an electronic billboard on which the mug shots of men arrested in prostitution stings are posted. The author rightfully compares the tactic to the stocks used by the Puritans, and even includes a link to my column of November 23rd (for which I am very grateful). Arlington, as you may recall from that column, is also the city which is trying to scare touring escorts away by sending them booga-booga emails like this one:
From: youneverknow@arlingtontx.gov
Hello. You are hereby informed that your escort service posting on (insert website here) is in violation of Arlington’s Sexually Orientated [sic] Business Ordinance and other laws. In order to operate as an escort in the City of Arlington, you are required to obtain a license and present that license upon request. If you are caught operating without that license, you may be arrested and fined an amount up to $2000.00. For further information, please contact the Arlington Police Department Vice Unit.
Judging by these tactics (designed to hinder prostitutes without arresting them) and the crucifixion of clients without due process, it seems as though the Nordic Model infection has spread to northeast Texas. The vector for this sickness is of course “trafficking” hysteria, and it isn’t limited to the cops; take a look at the response (in the linked article) from one Jeff Kladec, who writes (among other drivel): “Prostitution is typically ONE consenting adult (the john) and one slave. Most women in prostitution (even where it is legal, so legalizing it doesn’t help) are forced through physical violence to give the money to their pimps, not allowed (through violence or threats to their families) to leave the lifestyle, and want to get out…Prostitution is not a “choice” for women, and more often than not, is a way for some evil people to kidnap children as young as 12 (in the US they are 12, in other countries, 5 or younger); they drug these children, and they are forced into this lifestyle…Prostitution is not a profession, or a lifestyle, or a choice; it is slavery. Do some research.”
The “all whores are slaves” propaganda also permeates this column from a recent issue of The New York Times; thanks to regular reader Maria for calling it to my attention. The writer, Nicholas Kristof, apparently spends a great deal of his time working to “rescue sex slaves”; obviously I don’t know his motivations and so can make no accusation, but the phrase “reaction formation” leaps unbidden to my mind. The column is careful to avoid most of the usual prohibitionist claims, but subtly implies that sex worker activists such as myself are being less than truthful: He says of an enslaved Chinese prostitute, “Those who think that commercial sex in this country is invariably voluntary — and especially men who pay for sex — should listen to her story.” No sane person claims that commercial sex is “invariably” voluntary; Kristof certainly knows that as well as we do, but by implying otherwise he make those who support prostitutes’ rights look either ignorant or dishonest. I’ll use his words to make a much more honest statement: “Those who think that commercial sex in this country is invariably involuntary — and especially men who support witch hunts against prostitutes — should listen to my story.” I’ll make a deal with you, Mr. Kristof; for every horror story you give me to read, I’ll give you a “happy hooker” story to read. But you won’t take that deal, because facts which do not conform to your sex fantasy must be discarded. All pretense is dropped in the concluding paragraph, however, which clearly reveals its “Nordic Model” underpinnings: “There are no silver bullets, but the critical step is for the police and prosecutors to focus more on customers (to reduce demand) and, above all, on pimps. Prostitutes tend to be arrested because they are easy to catch, while pimping is a far harder crime to prosecute…Nearly 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, it’s time to wipe out the remnants of slavery in this country.”
The “anti-trafficking” movement has largely absorbed the propaganda of the “Nordic Model” because it allows prohibitionists to attack our livelihood and suppress our profession without openly attacking us and thereby revealing their misogyny. But the “Nordic Model” is even more misogynistic than traditional abolitionism; established prostitution law at least presumes that women are capable of moral choice and should be held accountable for our actions, but the “Nordic Model” is based on the astonishingly sexist premise that women are psychologically and morally incompetent to make our own sexual choices. To “Nordic model” proponents in general and trafficking fanatics in particular, all women are eternal children who are psychologically unable to consent to sex for any reason but a childish, fairy-tale version of “love”, and therefore any prostitute must be the victim of evil “pimps”. This sort of belief system is very appealing to crypto-sexists who secretly believe women are inferior to men, yet cannot say it out loud nowadays except by disguising it in neofeminist rhetoric. Female proponents of this system are so blinded by their hatred of men and sex that they cannot see the dangerous precedent it establishes, but those male proponents who are not driven by reaction formation are almost certainly drawn to the propaganda because it allows them a socially acceptable venue for their paternalism.
Male trafficking fetishists are also, more importantly, seeking a defense against the frightening truth that the vast majority of women are fully in control of their own sexuality, and therefore male sexuality. As described in my column of July 20th, insecure men have a deep and abiding need to believe that sex is not under female control; one way to maintain this belief is the Myth of the Wanton, which holds that women (or at least sexual women) have a male-like sex drive, but another is to hide (as Victorians like Victor Hugo did) in a belief system which teaches the exact opposite. The male trafficking fetishist immerses himself in a lurid, exciting and adolescent fantasy that female sexuality is always controlled by men (pimps and customers), and that all heterosexual women who are not owned by husbands are instead owned by “pimps” and “traffickers”. If they simply used this fantasy to masturbate or in sessions with professionals it would be harmless, but unfortunately they project it outward and insist society accept it as fact and proceed accordingly. To men such as Mr. Kladec and Mr. Kristof, I have this to say: You aren’t fooling us, so I suggest you buy yourself the complete set of Gor novels, enjoy them in the privacy of your own home, and stop trying to force the rest of us to indulge your sexual fantasies without paying for the privilege.
LOL! I posted, indirectly, about that same NYT opinion piece.
Here is my characterization of the sad story:
…an unsubstantiated tale told by a college-educated Chinese woman who, with the support of her family, contracted with criminal smugglers to illegally short circuit U.S. immigration laws, but wound up working in a New York brothel instead. The article then goes on to make further generalizations which are protected from challenge with the standard no-one-knows-for-sure disclaimer.
I don’t mean to imply she got what she deserved, but the story is certainly one-sided and the woman clearly and willing chose to get involved with criminal elements as a shortcut to advance her own goals. She wasn’t destitute, alone, or ignorant, so it’s not like that path was the only one open to her. In other words, she falls far short of exemplifying the innocent victim.
In its zeal to rightfully attack society’s traditional “blame the victim” approach to sex crime, feminism has largely gone to the other extreme of claiming that women never bear any sexual responsibility whatsoever. Case in point “date rape”; if a man drugs a woman or forces her the fact that they were on a date is immaterial, and it’s just plain rape. But if they were both drunk, or she changed her mind after consenting to penetration, or went alone to a frat party and then got blasted out of her mind, doesn’t she bear some responsibility for the predictable consequences of her actions? To claim otherwise is to cast women as children who cannot be expected to know better and are therefore not accountable for their behavior.
If you leave the keys to your car on the hood you shouldn’t be surprised if it gets stolen, and if you deal with gangsters you shouldn’t be too surprised if they do something criminal to you. 🙁
I don’t buy the complete feminist package, of course. However I do think there is a kernel of value buried in there. Take your example of the car keys.
On the hand of prudence, well of course. You shouldn’t be surprised if your car gets stolen.
On the hand of criminal justice though — if it does get stolen the police will probably give you a funny look when you report it, but they *will* process the stolen-car report. Your stupidity doesn’t give the thief a free pass.
But when that teen girl in Maryville MO got blitzed at a “party” with a HS football jock she was crushing on and then got raped, in Jan 2013, the police wouldn’t even listen to the report of her rape. Fingers in ears, la-la-la. It wasn’t until the Kansas City Star ran an expose, almost a year later, that the legal system even began to look into it.
As far as the local officials were concerned, her being blitzed *did* give the rapist a free pass. In their tiny little minds, they seemed to be thinking something like this: “If you get so drunk that you can’t give consent, then as far as we’re concerned you *have* given him your consent to do any damned thing to you that he decides he wants to do.”
I think that this is somewhat akin to the notorious advice of that Toronto cop gave to a group of high school girls, to the effect of, “Don’t dress like a slut.”
Really? If she “dresses like a slut,” does that mean that that guy gets a free pass when he rapes her? Really?
If he rapes her … then it’s rape. If she’s so blitzed that she can’t give her consent, and he rapes her … then it’s rape. And law enforcement should process it as-such.
It is certainly prudent to take reasonable measures to avoid getting yourself into a bad situation. But if you make a mistake and things turn bad, the legal system shouldn’t give the people who assault you a free pass.
I don’t call that “absolving the victim of her share of responsibility.” I call it, “making sure that the perpetrator *does* get hit with *his* share of responsibility.”
Which didn’t really happen in Maryville, even after the legal system “looked into it.”
But at least Missouri’s statue on rape was modified in Aug 2013 to add language saying, in effect, “if she’s too blitzed to know what she’s doing then you don’t get to have a free ride inside her.”
It couldn’t be applied retroactively to Jan 2013, of course. But in Missouri law, that now *is* rape.
And that change in law just continues the whole problem. Drunken woman are used by drunken rapist men. Another one sided law that paints women as perpetual victims.
A guy that does something stupid drunk is a horrible person that should be behind bars. A woman who does something stupid while being drunk should be protected.
And disregarding that strange split between drunk men and women. I think it is a bit dangerous when the law gets changed because of one rare (but tragic) incident. Men now must have magical powers to know is a woman is to drunk to consent. Going for working girls seems the wiser solution for young men, sure a bit more expensive, but less legal and std risk.
Your name wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with the year 70,000 BC, would it? Or perhaps electronic music?
“Men now must have magical powers to know is a woman is to drunk to consent.” Really? “Magical powers?” Really??
In my experience, a guy who’s looking for a quick lay needs no magical powers to find the girl who’s too drunk to consent.
Sure, there may be a few iffy cases. In law, there are always some. But your logic has been used all-too-many times to absolve men who have raped women who were passed out from booze or drugs.
Sure, women are responsible for their actions. But we men are responsible for *our* actions, too. Even when we’re horny.
The sex slave fantasy is easy enough to understand: if I have my own personal sex slave, I can get laid whenever I like. I don’t have to wine her and dine her, I don’t have to convince her or impress her, I don’t have to ask if she’s in the mood. Nope, I own her, so bend over and grab your ankles, because whether you’re in the mood or not, I am, and I’m the boss.
Which is fine, as a fantasy. I remember fantasizing that I was Tarzan of the Apes, too, but I had enough sense not to actually fight a lion.
And being a sex slave is a good fantasy for lots of women, too; some even like to play at the reality with a lifestyle BDSM arrangement. But that’s a far cry from being abducted to another country and being threatened with police, or being nailed in a closet and fed ramen noodles every second day.
Ramen noodles. Yeah, I’m checking those out after all this time.
But yes, the only reason even the rare sex slaves can exist is because of prohibition. Why would anybody hire a slave (slavery would still be illegal) if they can get the same service all nice and legal?
Well, even if prostitution were fully decriminalized there would still be traffic in underage girls and boys. There is no way to eliminate crime entirely, but if we stopped criminalizing consensual behaviors the cops could concentrate on actual criminals and the prisons would have lots of room to lock them up in.
I can believe anyone could possibly be satisfied with only one fantasy sex slave.
And I blame society for laying a guilt trip on us to the point where we have to cook up elaborate schemes by which we are literally forced to have sex slaves (an entire city of them in my case) who are, of course, grateful for the opportunity to be sex slaves and worship our very existence. As harmless as fantasies are, we are indoctrinated with the need to respect the rights even of those people we create in our minds.
And I think I’m eminently typical.
Dave, I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about!
I’ve read some of the Gorean novels. The university professor who wrote them should have gotten his tenure revoked, both because of his immaturity and his bad writing style. I could write a better Gorean novel with one brain tied behind my back.
LOL! 😀
Some of the earlier ones aren’t bad as erotic fantasy, but as sword & sorcery they’re terribly derivative and as philosophy they’re morally bankrupt; the Gorean treatment of women is just the same old Madonna-whore duality writ large.
Gorean. That’s a good word.
There were a couple of those Gor books in my High School library. I often thought about reading them, since I liked Sword & Sorcery, but I never got around to it. I’m really glad now that I didn’t. I’ve always found any kind of slavery to be highly repugnant, and I don’t know if I could stomach a book that promotes it, even in a fantasy setting.
I’ve never been able to comprehend the appeal of any kind of S&M or bondage. I try not to judge those who do like it, since I know that my own weird turn-ons would infuriate a lot of people.
Your high school library had Gor books? Somebody wasn’t paying attention. Sort of like my teacher who decided it would be a good idea to take all the seven-year-olds to see that new cartoon, Fantastic Planet.
I understand of course that you are under no obligation to tell us about your weirdly infuriating turn-ons, but I’m going to guess that they don’t involve egg-laying.
When I was just 20 my boy friend asked if I would love the idea of being his sex slave for the night. My pussy got very wet and my nipples grew hard. Well I was in heaven when I was to serve a party of 8 nude men.
This is an old post, but as a huge fan of the Gor novels who enjoys playing Second Life Gor, I concur: Gor makes a great fantasy, but as a reality, it would suck big time. And I also agree: a lot of sex slavery opponents are driven by sex slavery fantasies which they dare not enjoy in and of themselves, for what they are, so they justify their constant thinking about sex slavery by opposing it. Interestingly, in a movie based on the Gor novels, entitled “Gor,” Tarl Cabot is transformed from a might master of slave girls to a freedom fighter opposed to all the hot sex slavery you see throughout the movie.