I describe my look as a blend of Mother Goose, Cinderella, and the local hooker! – Dolly Parton
We recently discussed contacting celebrities to support the cause of decriminalization, and I couldn’t help thinking about Dolly Parton, who turns 65 today. Dolly has never hidden her admiration for prostitutes, and in fact has said on multiple occasions that she patterned her look on the dress and grooming of the hookers of her small Tennessee hometown. She has even stated that her first crush was on one of these professional ladies: “I thought she was beautiful. She had more hair, more color, more everything.”
The look perhaps succeeded too well at first; as Dolly explained to David Letterman in an April 2009 appearance on his show, she and a friend were mistaken for streetwalkers on her second visit to New York in 1968. “We booked into this hotel near 42nd, that’s where all the prostitutes run and they ran in pairs for safety and we looked like we might be them. I still had the big hair, looking trashy like I do.” While walking near Times Square, the girls were approached by a man who refused to be denied, thus provoking a confrontation: “We were just country girls and our daddies had given us both a gun when we left home… I said, ‘Look, if you touch me one more time, I’m going to shoot you.'” But even after the would-be client had given up, the hotel staff continued the harassment: “They had locked us out of our room. They thought we were turning tricks. Our luggage was in the hall…It was a bad, bad experience. I didn’t come back here for years and years.”
The bad experience didn’t move her to change her look, though, nor did it discourage her from playing the part of Madam Mona Stangley in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, nor from making several pro-prostitution comments during promotional appearances for the film (which ridicules moralists who start a crusade to close down an established and well-respected brothel). In addition to these specifically pro-whore comments she often says that she doesn’t believe in judging anyone for the way they live their lives, and though she’s never posed nude she doesn’t see a problem in accentuating her own amazing anatomy or even appearing on the cover of Playboy in a bunny costume. And then there were these comments she made to a British reporter four years ago:
As she opened a children’s library, the Nine to Five superstar dropped a tantalising hint that she enjoyed an open marriage with her husband Carl Dean. Miss Parton, 61, claimed it was “very good for both of us” if she or her spouse cheated on each other. And she also admitted she looked like a “hooker” and admired the way prostitutes dressed when she was a teenager.
When asked if her marriage of 41 years was open, Miss Parton replied: “If we cheat we don’t know it, so if we do cheat, it’s very good for both us. “I don’t want to know it, if he’s cheating on me. If I’m cheating on him, he wouldn’t want to know it. And if we do, if that’s what’s making it work, then that’s fine too.”
As if all that weren’t enough, she’s an avid supporter of gay rights and came out in favor of gay marriage just over a year ago: “I’m not a poster child for gay rights by any means,” Parton says. “But I have so many gay and lesbian friends and they’re just so pure and so true. That’s not politics to me. That’s human rights.” Considering how much that sounds like our slogan, “Sex worker rights are human rights,” perhaps it’s time for a delegation to approach the Queen of Country about speaking out in our favor. She’s never shied away from speaking her mind about anything before, so I can’t imagine why she should start now.
I don’t listen to a lot of country music, but when I do, Dolly Parton is at or near the top of the list of who I want to listen to. For all the boob jokes, she is a remarkable talent, both as a singer and as a writer. When she appears on television with other country performers, the attitude they show towards Dolly is little short of worship.
I don’t know if she would do pro-prostitution TV spots or not, or do interviews on the subject, etc. But I’ll tell you this: you could do a lot worse, and might not do better in a month of Sundays.
Sounds like a good idea. Should it be something official, by one of the sex workers’ organizations, or just an informal conteact?
Thank you, my dear, for bringing back a memory for me. THAT was the very first issue of Playboy I ever saw. Guess who’s father was/is borderline obsessed with Dolly Parton.
I found it in his underwear drawer, quite innocently…I was helping put away the clean laundry and found myself wandering back in that drawer from time to time after that.
I wonder…where did my appreciation for well endowed women begin…nature or nurture…who the fuck cares?
She was of course only interviewed in that Playboy, but to be honest, I loved her from the day I was able to actually sit down and read the interview.
I’ve often thought Dolly said the things everyone believed but felt pressured to never say because it was seen as too delicate.
She is and always has been an amazing and wonderful woman.
oh, please ignore the fact that I can’t use the proper grammer regarding “who’s” or “whose” in my post. It’s early.
I totally agree; I’ve always felt a sense of kinship with her in the regard that she’s not afraid to speak her mind. 🙂
Another ‘celebrity’ – Whoopi Goldberg on legalizing prostitution.
Interesting. Is this the beginning of a trend?
Well, she’s advocating legalization,which we definitely DON’T want. But at least it isn’t condemnation.
Yes, that’s what I thought. At least it’s going beyond the prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold as the only positive representation of protitutes in mainstream discourse.
You’ve got to keep in mind that she’s talking to the general public, and to a lot of the general public, the difference between legalization and decriminalization is sort of, “huh?”
I’m still working it out myself. I mean, if prostitution is going to be a business you don’t get arrested, it will have to follow rules just like any other business you don’t get arrested over. And… that sounds like “legalized” to me.
The difference is that “legalization” forces the practitioner into a special set of legal requirements others do not have to endure. To sell insurance, cook at a restaurant or be a belly-dancer you don’t need to have your name published in a special register, endure intrusive health examinations every week, work for other people and be barred from ever starting your own business.
Divinity33372 at YouTube describes legalization as “the situation in which prostitutes are treated like the other vice industries — they’re taxed and regulated like a bottle of alcohol, i.e. as a possible danger to society.”
I suppose the problem is the moment people talk about making prostitution legal, their first instinct (still from stereotypes) is “we have to be very careful, or else this thing could become dangerous! Exploitation! STDs! Victimization! Let’s make the rules so strict that Bad Things don’t ever happen!”
There may be some rules that would actually be good for prostitutes, though. “Intrusive health examinations every week” are clearly an exaggeration, but since there are some health risks maybe regular, non-invasive exams of the kind e.g. porn actors have? I mean, it is possible to imagine regulation that isn’t stifling.
It is a different matter to wonder if non-stifling regulation could be successfully proposed and adopted, though. With all the stigma and stereotypes, if prostitution becomes legal at all, it probably will go through a ‘strict regulation’ legalization phase before it gets fully decriminalized. Even if people end up admitting that prostitution shouldn’t be a crime, they’ll probably still stick to a “handle with the utmost care!” tag for a while.
Well yes, that would be the next worst thing to illegal. The restaurant example is probably a good one: they serve the public, there are legitimate health concerns, they do have to follow regulations. They aren’t regulated extra-extra just to discourage them from operating, or because they are seen as innately wicked. Prostitution should probably face a similar degree of regulation as the food service industry.
What are the regulations like for a strip club which also serves food? That’s legal, and society hasn’t collapsed. Well, I can look that up.
The problem with that is one does NOT lead to the other; in fact it’s usually the opposite. New Zealand went straight to decriminalization, and they’re doing just fine.
Maybe it’s an American thing then — look about how the Health Care bill ends up changed in all kinds of ways to please all kinds of political and economic interests. A corresponding bill on prostitution would probably end up including all kinds of stupid regulations to placate this or that sector of the American electorate, submitted by politicians who want to please their constituency. Then there will be the many independent battles to slowly and painfully get rid of all the stupidities.
I suppose at least possible health concerns will have to be addressed, in the spirit of the restaurant regulations that Sailor Barsoon mentions. I only hope against hope that this will be done on the basis of accurate data on real risks rather than on assumed “commonsensical” knowledge.
http://blog.dk.sg/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/common-sense.jpg
Restaurants have periodic health inspections; the employees in them don’t. And I can hire any cook I like without her having to have a special license or bogus “health checks”.
In the United States, we just don’t eat fugu. In Japan, they do, and you have to have a license to prepare it for the public (the emporor is forbidden to eat it at all). Why? Because fugu is deathly poisonous if you don’t prepare it just exactly right.
Both prostitutes and their customers are potential disease vectors. It isn’t unreasonable that some sort of regulation be in place to minimize this risk. A full inspection every day or every week? No, of course not. No inspection at all? Also, of course not.
A health check need not be bogus. The woman could, for instance, use her own doctor (so long as that doctor is a licensed physician of course) and the check could be a part of her regular medical care, which involves check-ups and the like already. Every six months or so (which is how often check-ups are recommended already) should do fine. As you’ve pointed out, prostitutes have lower STD rates than promiscuous women who aren’t doing it as a job.
There would be no reason for a legal prostitute with a clean bill of health to have any special license, unless she’s also serving fugu, of course.
The health check IS bogus. By your logic, since promiscuous women are at a greater risk of being a potential disease vector than prostitutes, then the government should oversee promiscuous women’s sexual history and force them to have health checks every six months. To further extend your poor reasoning, gay males–being the most promiscuous of sexual populations–should also be forced to have health checks every six months, being the most likely to be potential disease vectors.
It’s this weak kind of “well, we should just be careful” hemming-and-hawing that leads to unnecessary government intrusion into privacy. You literally invalidated your own argument.
People who prepare fugu at home don’t need a license; it’s only needed if you’re serving it to the public.
I don’t have to put up with inspections of my kitchen, because I’m not serving the public. I start selling food out of my kitchen, I suddenly have more rules to follow.
I have a car that I only drive on my own personal track? Not many rules. I want to drive on the public roads? I have to have the car inspected. I start a limousine service? More rules.
I want to stick it into any woman or man I can get to say yes, and I’ve got a knack for getting members of both sexes to say yes? You don’t pay your money and you takes your chances. I start selling sex, it isn’t unreasonable that I follow some extra rules. Not so many rules that it’s impossible to do my job, and not a bunch of extra rules put there in the hopes that I’ll throw up my hands and find another line of work, but some.
But prostitution isn’t like preparing fugu. Cooking, yes;preparing fugu, no. And I can hire anyone I like to cook for me with no rules whatsoever.
You can hire whoever you like to cook you a meal in your own home, but if you want to open a restaurant or a catering service, you have regulations.
The advantage of being in a business which is illegal is that you don’t have to follow any regulations. The only regulation is “don’t do it!” and if you don’t follow that one, then you are regulation-free. Of course, there is the whole getting arrested thing, and the can’t-go-to-the-police-for-help thing.
The advantage of being in a business which is NOT illegal is that you don’t get arrested and you can call the cops if somebody tries to rob, rape, beat, etc. you or vandalize your property. Of course, then you have to follow regulations like everybody else.
I don’t know that you can have it both ways. Why should you when nobody else can?
Restaurant = brothel
Catering service = escort service
Me hiring whoever the hell I want to cook for me = a man hiring whoever the hell he wants to fuck him.
A bit off-topic, but why not go the other way, and just ditch all regulation altogether? Sailor Barsoom does have a point about not knowing that you can have it both ways. Take catering service vs. Restaurants? I can be harmed just as easily from eating food from a catering service as I can from a restaurant. I can be harmed by a private cook just as well. The whole idea behind government regulations is that people can’t be trusted to do the right thing without a law dictating exactly how he (or she) goes about his job. Personally I think it’s bullshit.
For one thing, it isn’t in the interests of anyone running a business or service to produce a substandard or harmful product. Not in the long run. Another issue is that regulations that tell you that you must do something in a specific way prevents individuals from figuring out things on their own, in a way unique to their context. No, instead the government must fit a one size fits all approach to public health!
If individuals or companies screw up and cause harm to anyone, then they should sue them. The individuals and companies should be free to figure safety and cleanliness for themselves, and the same goes for hookers. I trust individuals more than the government, anyways.
“Not in the long run.”
In the short run, people are dropping dead.
You can’t run a business, or live your life, without taking into account the long run. Lets suppose we got rid of regulation and some restaurant decided to slack off on food safety and made a bunch of people sick. Those people won’t want to eat at that restaurant anymore, and will tell all their friends about their experience, so they won’t eat there again. Should the food poisoning require hospitalization or cause death, then the restaurant should be held liable. What I am against is this retarded regulation culture where bureaucrats dictate EVERYTHING, and create a one-size-fits-all scheme which may or may not fit the context of a particular business or individual. I say let people figure it out for themselves, they are a hell of a lot smarter than any bureaucrat, and if they do act negligent and cause harm then by all means take them to court.
I think prostitutes, and restaurant owners, are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves how best to conduct their business. If they screw up and make people sick, then fine, go after them. But leave the majority which DOES do the right thing alone.
Personally, I think a lot of the retarded and immoral shit that people try to pull would go away if our so-called moral authorities would give up the lie that it isn’t in your self interest to have integrity, to be honest and to treat others with diginity. But whatever, I’m a minority that isn’t in fashion right now.
[…] The first is hearing Dolly Parton on the radio when I was 7 or 8 years old, talking about how she modeled her signature look after a prostitute in her Tennessee hometown: the hair, nails, and flashy dresses. For some reason, a reason I […]
I think “legalization” and “decriminalization” are more buzzwords than actual legal terms. Many law dictionaries either don’t have them or simply define them as “not criminal”.
They’re not “buzzwords”; they’re terms used in discussion of a particular subject which is largely undiscussed in American law for the past hundred years. Talk to an Australian, Canadian or British attorney who’s dealing with the subject and ask if he thinks they’re “buzzwords”.
This post made me think about Monica Bellucci. She played a prostitute at numerous movies, and she was never ashamed about it. On the contrary, she doesn’t have the one-sided negative view on prostitution. She recognises that prostitution is not a homogeneous phenomenon, and that women go in prositution for different reasons. Her frankness and independent thinking has always surprised me, in a positive way.