Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2011

Regular readers know that once per month I publish a little tale about a heroic whore; if you like this one you might also enjoy the others linked here.

Wanda checked her makeup, hair and watch; the client would be there in about 15 minutes.  That really wasn’t time to do much of anything other than catch up on the news, and though that meant ink on her hands she could wash them quickly enough; one advantage to her clientele was that they tended to be either punctual to a fault, or extremely late.  Since the latter circumstances occurred about every fourth date or so, Wanda never scheduled more than one appointment in a given night; she could never get used to the worry when they were late, but the pay was excellent and she really felt she was performing a vital service not merely to her gentlemen, but also to society at large.  Besides, she never got tired of their stories.

The newspaper lay untouched and unread on the table as her mind wandered back a few years to that night she had her first special customer; it was a warm night like this one and she had the French doors open so she could enjoy her spectacular view of the skyline.  Even on an expensive call girl’s income a high-rise penthouse would have been a strain on the budget, but the building’s owner was one of her patrons and it amused him to trade rent for services.  At first she had been wary that he might demand too much of her per week or attempt to take other unwelcome liberties, but he was very busy and couldn’t afford the time even if he had been that sort of man…which as it turned out he wasn’t.

It had been a quiet night; her only scheduled appointment had cancelled due to a last-minute change of plans, and since she knew he’d make it good later she was just enjoying a drink on the terrace while listening to her transistor radio.  Absolutely nothing could have prepared her for the abrupt appearance of a well-known public figure on a private rooftop forty-five floors above the street, and had she been the panicky type she would surely have screamed.  Her immediate reaction was to assume her landlord had finally decided to violate her privacy in order to play out some sort of ridiculous fantasy, but as soon as her visitor started to speak she knew he was the real McCoy.

“I apologize for this unforgivably rude intrusion, Miss Danton, but I’m in need of help and a friend of mine spoke very highly of you.”

Wanda was speechless for a moment; “What kind of help could someone like you possibly need from someone like me?”

“The same sort as any other man, Miss.  More so, in fact; there aren’t many people I can trust, and women…”

“You’re wary that women might want to be with you because of your celebrity rather than because of who you are as a person.”

He seemed visibly relieved.  “Yes, that’s it exactly.  But I still have the same needs as any other man, and you have a reputation for discretion.”

She smiled.  “Your visit does me honor, even if your approach is a bit unorthodox.  Would you like a drink?”

And that was how it started.  After that first night he phoned for appointments like everyone else, always booked multiple hours and paid twice her normal rate so she would leave her calendar clear for the evening just in case he was held up by an “unexpected business meeting.”  He laughed every time she referred to his delays thus, but he appreciated the fact that she treated their arrangement just that nonchalantly.  Inside, Wanda still felt a strange mixture of excitement and fear whenever he arrived for a date, but she never let her face show anything more than the pleasure any other call girl would show at the arrival of a favored client.  Certainly, he could’ve visited any girl incognito, but he seemed to need to be able to unburden himself about the unusual pressures of his life to someone who would listen without judging and give him simple human tenderness without the expectation of some sort of spectacular performance in return.

It went on that way for the better part of a year, then one night he asked if she minded if he referred her to a friend.  “I don’t mind at all,” she said, “but may I ask if your friend is in the same line of work?”

He smiled.  “Yes, he’s noticed I was much more relaxed in the past few months and asked the cause.  And since he is a friend I couldn’t very well deny him the opportunity to get to know you as I have.”

One referral led to another, and by the time another year had come and gone Wanda had decided to specialize.  With rare exception, she had referred all of her regular customers elsewhere and now catered specifically to her exclusive, appreciative and generous “special” clientele.  Except for their shared commitment to the cause which united them, they were as different from one another as any other men, so her work never became boring; even their means of payment varied considerably from plain cash to gold or jewels or deposits into her Swiss bank account.  Since it was rare that one wished to visit her in the daytime she became a night owl herself and it was not at all unusual that dawn found her just kissing her evening’s visitor goodbye.  Some were easy to please, some difficult; some were men of few words, and others wanted to talk for hours.  But she considered all of them good customers, and wouldn’t have wanted to lose a one of them; that was why she worried so when they were late.  Though it had never yet happened, she knew it was inevitable that one night an overdue date would never arrive, and then she would have to endure the weary hours until the morning newspaper or news broadcast told her of his fate along with the rest of the city.

It was all worth it; though nobody outside a very select group knew the part she played, that didn’t matter one bit.  She knew, and they knew, and that was enough.  And as that thought crossed her mind, she heard a soft whoosh on her terrace and went out to meet her date, kissing him hello as his powerful arms encircled her and his cape billowed about her in the evening breeze.

Read Full Post »

I had no shoes and complained, until I met a man who had no feet. –  Arab proverb

Ever read one of those news stories where try as you might, you just can’t sympathize with the writer or subject of the story?  I encountered two of those this morning, both of which inspired me to say “welcome to my world”.  Both involved rhetoric the writer seems to feel is unfairly directed against her subject, and in both cases that rhetoric is startlingly similar to the crap whores have to listen to every damned day.  So please, ladies, if you want my sympathy you might try considering life without feet before bitching about your shoes.

The first was a criticism published in Fleshbot of this article about porn in The Atlantic:

Was it too much to hope that The Atlantic—a relatively open minded, liberal publication—might approach the topic of adult entertainment with a fair and balanced perspective?  Probably, but a girl can dream.  Sadly, my dreams of reading an informed, insightful piece on the way today’s porn industry interfaces with American sexuality were pretty much shot by the end of the third paragraph, in which author Natasha Vargas-Cooper declares double anal to be “a fixture on any well-trafficked site.”  I should have given up at that point, but I soldiered on, working my way through what has to be the most pretentious published piece ever to discuss double anal.  As I finished the piece, I felt nothing but disgust.  And it wasn’t simply Ms. Vargas-Cooper’s ignorance about her subject matter that disappointed me, nor was it the fact that she apparently confuses name dropping with creating a well-crafted argument.  No, it was her dismal view of human—particularly male—nature, her broad generalizations about human sexuality, and—most troublingly of all—her apparent inability to separate fantasy from reality that left me frustrated and disappointed.

Vargas-Cooper’s thesis seems nebulously based on her own experience as a consumer of internet porn and a sexually active female, combined with a handful of statistics, some high minded citations, and an overlong analysis of Last Tango in Paris—hardly a firm basis from which to paint male sexuality with so broad a brush.  At no point does Vargas-Cooper engage anyone from the adult industry—or, for that matter, any male consumers of porn—a strange omission for a piece that seeks to prove that porn offers irrefutable evidence that men are brutes and women weak, passive, and desperate to please.

There are also plenty that offer a very different view on sexuality, one that hardly squares with her idea of debased, ravaged women undone by aggressive male sexuality…[most] directors bear little resemblance to the vicious, manipulative pornographers imagined in Vargas-Cooper’s article (which is, of course, probably why she neglected to include much discussion of almost any actual porn)…But even if all porn were as Vargas-Cooper suggests, it would hardly be proof that men are as fundamentally contemptuous of women as she seems to believe.

Though it’s wonderful to see a publication like The Atlantic taking interest in the world of pornography (and, by extension, human sexuality), it would be even more wonderful if they’d actually present a fact-based analysis, instead of one that trades in tired tropes about beast-like men and victimized women.  I know I wasn’t the only one disappointed with The Atlantic‘s choice to run this piece.  I can only hope that, if more people speak up and express disappointment, that they’ll actually take note—and maybe, in a future issue, run a piece that actually tackles the topic in an informed, respectful manner.

Sound familiar?  I wouldn’t have to change this by more than 30% to have an article about the garbage which passes in the mainstream media for information about prostitution.  Like the Atlantic article she critiques, prostitution articles even in soi-disant “liberal” publications like Huffington Post and The New York Times are nearly always pretentious, ignorant propaganda written by a woman whose “credentials” on the subject consist of a journalism or “women’s studies” degree and a 30-hour-a-week television habit; they almost never contain real statistics, interviews with real prostitutes above the streetwalker level or even the opinions of bona fide sex researchers, and their writers are apparently unable to tell fantasy from reality.  The most striking point of similarity:  “a piece that seeks to prove…that men are brutes and women weak, passive, and desperate to please…it would be even more wonderful if they’d actually present a fact-based analysis, instead of one that trades in tired tropes about beast-like men and victimized women.”  Welcome to our world.

A nine-month couple call.

Then there was this article by Irin Carmon bemoaning the fact that surrogate motherhood is illegal in Australia; please pardon me for not giving a shit.  If it’s supposedly so “degrading” to be a substitute wife for money, how the hell can it NOT be degrading to be a substitute mother for pay?  If renting a pussy for an hour is “inherently exploitative”, how can renting a uterus for nine months not be?  And if you think the term “gestational carrier” is ugly, try “prostituted woman.”  Yes, I understand that prostitution is legal in Australia while surrogate motherhood isn’t; my point is the reaction of the American writer, whose arguments would all be better directed toward a repressive law which affects a large segment of the population rather than one which only inconveniences infertile rich people.

The issue of “commodifying” women and children [as surrogacy was called by Australian Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney] was addressed here in the U.S. in Melanie Thernstom’s recent Times magazine piece about having two children through two gestational carriers and an egg donor… “Many people talked as if the mere fact of being compensated negated the generosity of the gestational carriers and the egg donor and asked if they were doing it “for the money,” as if they couldn’t want to help and want to be paid.  Would you be less grateful to a beloved teacher, nanny or fertility doctor because they were paid?  We wanted to pay, because it made the relationship feel more reciprocal.”

Do I need to comment on this?  I wonder if Melanie Thernstom writes this passionately about decriminalization of prostitution, or if her logic only applies to things she wants herself?

“Several readers express the belief that surrogacy is ‘rich women exploiting lower-class women.’  The notion of surrogates as lower-class women relies on a faulty stereotype and is offensive to surrogates in several ways.  Many surrogates…are middle-class professional women with families who want to help someone experience…joy…Surrogates, regardless of their income and occupation, are proud of what they do and of the happiness they help bring into the world – you have only to read postings on Web sites like surromomsonline.com to see how true this is.  To insist they are being exploited is to discount their own will and their self-reported feelings about the process.”  [Thernstom is]…right about the condescension inherent in the assumption that these women couldn’t possibly understand their choices to be pregnant for someone else, or the risks thereof.

There’s no evidence that [those who hire surrogates] viewed their carrier as a “disposable uterus.”  The natural extension of this thinking, which assumes that all women consider pregnancy the same way, is that even adoption is dehumanizing.  While ensuring there are legal controls against actual exploitation, we should stick to letting these women define their body’s experiences for themselves.

Change “surrogate” to “prostitute” and adapt a few other terms as needed, and I wonder if Carmon and Thernstom would still agree with it?  Because the argument is exactly the same.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact. –  Marlene Dietrich

A collection of short, only tangentially related articles from elsewhere on the internet.

Actually, This Is Good News

The Dutch government has announced that it plans to start collecting sales and income taxes on prostitution.  And while some Dutch whores are unhappy about it, they’re not looking at the big picture.  Taxation is a drug to government; once it becomes used to a “fix” of a certain level it will not under any circumstances voluntarily sever that income stream.  Nevada realizes this, which is why it has steadfastly refused to tax legal prostitution in its state. Once a government becomes addicted to the revenue generated by harlotry, prohibitionists can kiss any chance of recriminalization goodbye, so they are the staunchest opponents of taxing prostitutes and we should be among the staunchest proponents of it.

Doublethink in Modesto

Brandy Devereaux recently reported on a police “sting” of streetwalkers’ clients in Modesto, California in which 26 men were arrested.  But Modesto is apparently affected by a strange kind of doublethink, because the story contains the following paragraph:

Prostitution is a victimless crime; the charges and fines are often minor.  “What are you doing tonight,”  but what these women see from the men they meet behind closed doors can be revealing.  And, strangely enough the prostitutes become valuable crime fighting tools.  “They’ll get the license plate on these individuals.  And, when we end up running them we come to find out their sexual predators, violent sexual offenders and they’re not supposed to be around any of this,” says Deputy Marc Nuno during a brief break from patrol.

If this attitude is the norm in the Modesto police department, why the hell was public money spent on a sting?  If Deputy Nuno isn’t just stating his own opinion and Modesto cops recognize that hookers can help them catch sexual predators, why on Earth are they harassing these women and trying to hurt their business?  Why not grant them amnesty and ask for their help?

Sex Workers Against Trafficking

This short advertisement from SWOP Chicago was recently disseminated on SWOP, Bound, Not Gagged and a number of other sites.  This isn’t news to any of my regular readers, but I think it deserves as widespread exposure as possible in answer to the trafficking fanatics who constantly classify all sex workers as either enslaved victims or enslaving “pimps”.

I Really Shouldn’t Even LOOK At an Issue of Cosmopolitan

No, I don’t read it.  But sometimes one finds oneself waiting in a slow line at Wal-Mart, or for the nurse to call one’s name for a doctor’s appointment, or for one’s nails to dry, and the only other magazines available are Sports Illustrated, People and a copy of Highlights for Children one has already read.  At that point, if your name is Maggie McNeill you sigh and open up the nearby issue of Cosmo…and immediately begin to chuckle, roll your eyes, say “yeah, right!” or even laugh out loud at the magazine’s juvenile, absurd and often ass-backward ideas on sex advice.  Over the years I’ve discovered that Cosmo’s “sex tricks” tend to fall into five main categories:

1)  The completely bloody obvious;
2)  Basic stuff I’ve known since I was 16;
3)  Retreads of things they’ve suggested 6,234 times before;
4)  Things far too complicated to be remotely practical; and
5)  Things that would have no worthwhile effect on 90% of men.

And then there’s the “advice” whose stupidity defies analysis, like the one I remember from the early ’90s in which the writer claimed one could have sex with a man without letting him see one’s behind.  Yes, she clearly believed it was not only possible but desirable; the mind boggles.  I’m not going to go into detail about the cover collection linked above, but I am compelled to comment on two language issues:  First, the term is “buck naked”, not “butt naked”; and second, if I ever see the term “va-jay-jays” on a magazine cover again I shall not be responsible for my actions.

Raise Your Hand if You’re Tired of Hearing About Silvio Berlusconi

Talk about “Dog Bites Man”; he’s an Italian politician, yet everyone keeps acting surprised that he has a history of consorting with hookers.  Am I missing something?  Fellow whores, seriously; do any of you girls find this any less of a yawn-fest than I do?

Why Would You Want To?

OK, I understand nobody wants to be fired.  And maybe I’m prejudiced because I’ve never had any trouble getting jobs.  But honestly, would you want to work at a place that didn’t want you?  My mind boggles at the concept of trying to force an employer to keep me on rather than just going someplace else, especially if the employer had a certain “look” it was trying to maintain and I violated that look.  Perhaps it’s pride, but this is just too much like begging for me to be comfortable with it.  I reckon it’s part of the Cult of Victimhood, but I just can’t imagine wanting to be known as someone who got fired from a strip club for being too old.  Why not just go to a regular restaurant?  This rather reminds me of the guys who try to get jobs as “Hooters girls”.

Sweden’s Ultra-progressive Views on Women

We’ve talked before about the various asinine ways in which cops and prosecutors imagine they can infallibly determine which women are prostitutes, and we’ve also discussed the manner in which the Swedish Pimpocracy uses women while proclaiming its support for our rights.  So it may interest you to know that two Swedish footballers were recently convicted of paying for sex on the grounds that they “should” have known the girls were prostitutes “on account of their clothing and make-up and the fact that they spoke English with a thick accent.”  If I didn’t know that Sweden is such a champion of women’s rights, I might be tempted to call that…well, misogynistic.  Good thing I know better.

Read Full Post »

Men may change their climate, but they cannot change their nature. A man that goes out a fool cannot ride or sail himself into common sense. –  Joseph Addison

The human character is the product of both heredity and environment, but much of the 20th century was spent arguing about which was the stronger.  By the middle of the century most liberal thinkers outside of psychology (and many inside it) insisted that Nurture was stronger than Nature; to believe the opposite required an uncomfortable admission of our animal natures that many humans a century after Darwin still preferred to deny, and the Nurture-over-Nature folk failed to recognize that in denying humans have an innate nature which transcends socialization they were in fact espousing something far more demeaning to the human spirit.  To recognize the pre-eminence of Nature over Nurture is to recognize that humans are animals, but to place Nurture over Nature is to believe we are machines to be programmed as society sees fit.

This idea of course appeals to social engineers because it feeds into their sick belief that society can and should be remade along whatever lines their “elite” leadership demands.  The neofeminists are a perfect example; by pretending that all gender differences are “socially constructed”, they deny that most gendered behavior is innate and thereby clear the way for their plan to masculinize girls and feminize boys so as to artificially create a mechanistic eunuch-culture which can be ruled by one law.  Luckily, these claims have in the past two decades fallen into disrepute; neurological discoveries, an increased understanding of endocrinology and cross-cultural and cross-species studies all show that when it comes to gender Nature is vastly stronger than Nurture.  Except in the ghettos of “women’s studies” and “queer theory” it would be difficult to find any educated person with any knowledge of the subject who still believes that the majority of male or female behaviors derive from social learning rather than hormones and brain architecture.

This does not, of course, disprove that some behaviors we associate with one sex or the other result from socialization rather than birth.  In fact, few educated people would be so dogmatic as to make the claim that ALL gendered behaviors derive from nature.  I predict that the struggle over the next few decades will be to determine which are which; those with a unisex agenda will of course try to prove that as many behaviors as possible are learned, and social conservatives will try to prove the opposite, while serious researchers attempt to remain as scientifically detached as possible so as to learn the truth.  Generally speaking, if a given behavior is linked to known hormonal, neurological or somatic mechanisms and is consistent across many cultures and primate species, it almost certainly derives from Nature, and if it has no known biological mechanism and appears inconsistently across cultures and species it very likely derives from Nurture.

Well, considering that a certain female behavior discussed frequently in this blog appears in every known human culture throughout history and also in chimpanzees, is it possible that it derives from Nature?  In other words, could it be that whores are born rather than made?  In her column of January 14th, Amanda Brooks suggests that this might indeed be the case:

Not every sex worker in the world enters the work because she has always felt a pull towards it. Many have. I know a number of women who have felt the interest from a young age, including myself (and this was before I even had a clear idea of what sex was). Conversations with these women reveal that we all say the same things about our early interest, we all became interested right before entering puberty and common myths about prostitution were not enough to dissuade us from desiring that life-path.  This is a very small sampling and it’s highly unscientific. Given what we know about genes and hard-wired behaviors — it seems more than plausible. Just as homosexual people are born, I am convinced prostitutes are born too.

My inspiration came last year after reading a US-based survey about attitudes toward gay people. The discovery of “gay genes” seems to have really turned the tide in popular thinking and acceptance of homosexuality. It sounds like an argument of convenience for prostitution. But if the range of human sexual orientation is, in fact, genetic; then how come prostitution — an extremely common sexual behavior — supposedly isn’t? What if prostitution isn’t merely a sexual behavior but is actually a sexual orientation? Why has prostitution always been viewed as a deviant behavior? How come people aren’t willing to examine the idea that a prostitute is a perfectly natural occurrence and that it’s society which has formed the deviant behavior around the prostitute?

If being a prostitute is a natural tendency for a percentage of women, then how can laws be made against who they are?

It’s quite an interesting idea, and her column is well worth reading.  The theory is of course the exact opposite of that espoused by neofeminists, who claim that all prostitutes are sexually and psychologically damaged victims who are warped into pursuing prostitution by sexual abuse.  And just as they deny evidence of biological origin of sex-based behaviors, so they deny the possibility that most women choose prostitution freely.  Those who deny any history of sexual abuse are claimed to be “in denial” or suffering from “repressed memories”; the neofeminist “theory” flies in the face of reality and so requires that reality be denied if it is to be believed.  But Amanda’s theory requires no such denial; in fact it is supported by the case-histories of many working girls I have known, who feel no sense of shame or discomfort in our profession whatsoever and indeed were fascinated by the subject from a young age – often before we even knew what sex was.  The theory certainly fits my story, which I related in my columns of July 28th, 29th and 30th.  Could there really be a “hooker gene”?  Only time and research will tell.

Read Full Post »

Once victim, always victim—that’s the law! –  Thomas Hardy

The concept of a victimless crime is a theoretical absurdity; to be sure there are thousands of such crimes on the law-books of every jurisdiction in the world, but generally governments defeat arguments against such laws by defining the victim as some vague collective entity such as “the crown”, “the state”, “the peace” or my personal favorite, “public decency”.  But since the Cult of Victimhood has become supreme in the United States (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) it has become less popular to define such entities as the victims; more often nowadays they are replaced with less vague (though equally collective) entities such as “children”, “women”, various minorities, etc.  In my column of January 9th we talked about the shift from blaming prostitutes for leading innocent men astray to the Swedish Model’s blaming of men for exploiting poor helpless prostitutes; we pointed out that the two ideas are both equally absurd because both presume one malevolent criminal and one helpless victim when in actuality prostitution is a private arrangement in which no government has any legitimate interest.  The attempt to define any phenomenon in inapplicable terms always creates such absurdities; if a mad dictator established a law that all moving entities on a farm are to be considered animals, how would you define tractors, irrigation booms and hay-balers?  Incorrect assumptions inevitably engender nonsensical classification.

In general, governments love the Cult of Victimhood because it trains the sheeple to think of themselves as faceless members of some docile herd which can expect nothing but slaughter.  This not only makes them more tractable, it also gives individual demagogues ready-made campaign rhetoric.  All a politician need do is find a herd he feels comfortable with (women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, child cultists, religious fundamentalists, the poor, etc), adopt their rhetoric wholesale, and promise them whatever it is they want to hear.  Once he gets in power he can then push for cosmetic changes which convince his followers he’s on “their side” but actually change nothing, and he’s in business for life.  But sometimes, reality gets in the way and such a politician’s promises of action are revealed as nothing but sand castles.  What happens then?  If you are a politician who has promised something which is literally impossible to deliver due to economics (“a chicken in every pot”), human nature (“an end to all prejudice against gay people”) or the physical laws of the universe (“protection of all citizens from natural disasters”), you might succeed in lying your way through an entire career but then again, you might not.  Sooner or later the pigeons will come home to roost, and if you’re still above ground when they do, how can you keep them from pooping all over your roof?

The answer, of course, is to lie some more.  But when an elephant has made itself at home in one’s parlor, no mere garden-variety lie will do; it’s time for a really BIG lie.  One classic dodge in such circumstances is to blame some unpopular “them” (such as communists, Jews, “illegal aliens”, etc) for the problems and then declare war on that group.  If the opposing political party has recently made some high-profile blunder they are natural scapegoats, but the best choice for this strategy is a group which by its very nature is secret (or better yet, nonexistent) so that one can accuse anyone who opposes the crusade as being a member of it.  The problem with this strategy is that pedophiles and terrorists can only be blamed for so much; not even the stupidest voter is going to believe that Satanists are responsible for every mugging.  So when politicians are confronted with a problem too large to be ignored and too widespread to be blamed on any one group, they resort to the biggest lie of all: redefinition.

In the 1980s the US Congress recognized that there simply wasn’t enough money to support the vast number of mental patients under state care any longer.  So government-employed and government-subsidized psychologists were pressured to invent the new and improved doctrine of “de-institutionalization”; in other words the government paid them to lie and say it was better for mental patients to be let loose on the streets than to be confined in state institutions.  So they were released, and the enormous population of “mental patients” was redefined practically overnight as “homeless people”.  The insoluble federal government problem was thus redefined as a local social problem, and Pilate declared his hands clean.  Similarly, “broken homes” were considered a major problem in the ‘60s and ‘70s, so we just redefined them as “single-parent homes” and declared them to be a good thing.  Presto!  The problem disappears.  Only like a stage magician making some large thing vanish, it’s really still there; you just can’t see it any more.

As I said at the beginning of today’s column, the government sometimes finds it convenient to define people as victims who are not so as to justify the enforcement of laws against consensual crimes.  But sometimes, it does the opposite; when faced with potential embarrassment over the inability to decrease crime rates, a government may define crime victims as not being victims at all.  While some governments and agencies are busy defining voluntary adult prostitutes as a kind of rape victim, other governments and agencies have been equally busy defining rape victims as voluntary participants in sex.  It has become clear that police departments in cities all over the United States, including but by no means limited to Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, St. Louis, St. Paul and Virginia Beach, routinely classify rape reports as “unfounded” after cops pressure women to recant via intimidation, accusations of lying and threats to “investigate” every aspect of the victim’s personal lives.  Some of this behavior may be due to misogyny, good ol’ boy attitudes or just plain epidemic laziness, but most of it seems to be motivated by pressure from above to make it seem as though the police are actually doing their jobs (“see, the rape rates have decreased; vote for me!”)

Far be it from a silly whore to tell these heroic crime-fighting professionals how to do their jobs, but I do have one teensy suggestion:  if police departments in all these cities would reassign their vice squads to rape duty, and spend the money they waste on “stings” to investigate rapes instead, they might be able to REALLY reduce the rape rate instead of pretending to.  I realize protecting women probably isn’t as much fun for these big heroes as victimizing them, but maybe it’s time to start requiring cops to produce results for their pay like everybody else.

Read Full Post »

There’s no way to rule innocent men.  The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What’s there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. –  Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

In my column of August 9th I defined my own coinage “lawhead” as “one who believes that man-made laws are actually based in objective reality like physical laws; he is unable to comprehend that the majority of laws are completely arbitrary, and therefore views a violation of a ‘vice law’ with the same horror that normal people reserve for rains of toads or spontaneous human combustion.  Though lawheads are a minority of the population they are disproportionately represented in positions of power, with the result that once a law is on the books it cannot usually be removed by any means short of armed insurrection.”  Lawheads are most dangerous when they work in close association with control freaks, those who know very well that laws are arbitrary but enact them anyway so as to have more excuses to threaten, intimidate, arrest, fine and imprison the citizenry.

These laws are usually designed with sufficiently diabolical cleverness so as to fool the Great Unwashed into thinking they do indeed have a basis in reality, especially when enacted in conjunction with a moral panic (such as “national security”, “child welfare” or the like). But even when they aren’t, there are sufficient numbers of lawheads around to ensure that these tyrannical laws are rarely, if ever removed.  And even when they are, for every repressive statute which is struck down ten more have been enacted in the meantime.  Governments don’t care HOW universal criminality is achieved, so long as it is; if it isn’t accomplished by prohibiting drinking it will be by banning smoking, and if not by forbidding homosexuality and abortion it’ll be by denying privacy and the right to self-defense.  And as we’re seeing in many places, control freaks are equally happy demonizing our clients as they ever were demonizing whores.  The important thing is to define as many people as possible as criminals, thereby inducing a social autoimmune disorder for which government can be touted as the cure though it is actually the cause.

One example of this were the Jim Crow laws designed to control free blacks in the latter half of the 19th century; all manner of things were made illegal for black people so that governments would have the excuse to monitor, harass and persecute them.  But after the successes of the civil rights movement in the middle of the 20th century, government somehow succeeded in casting itself as the great savior of black Americans even though it was government which had created the laws which criminalized them in the first place.  The Jim Crow laws were a clumsy attempt at control because they directly targeted one obvious segment of the population and thus A) did not intimidate everyone; and B) disallowed those in the targeted group any illusion of escape through “correct” behavior.  By comparison, the anti-prostitution laws which proliferated a generation after the first Jim Crow laws affected almost 10% of women and 70% of men and were thus far more effective means off social control; a generation after that alcohol prohibition was even more efficient at creating criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.

At the stroke of a pen, the 18th Amendment magically transformed tens of millions of ordinary Americans, no different from their neighbors, into criminals, and many millions of others lost respect for all law and authority due to the rigor with which the asinine prohibition law was enforced.  Deprived of legal sources of alcohol Americans turned to those who could supply it, thus enriching true criminals (gangsters and smugglers) and enticing many who might not otherwise ever have crossed the line into the now-lucrative bootlegging market.  Hundreds of thousands were blinded, paralyzed, and killed by poisonous moonshine or industrial alcohol because there was no longer supervision of product contents.  Official corruption ran rampant, courts and prisons were clogged with people who were not considered criminals a few years earlier, federal police powers were dangerously expanded and civil liberties were bulldozed in order to enforce a law which was unjust and unenforceable to begin with, and billions were wasted on enforcement while billions more were lost in tax revenues.

This was, of course, utterly incomprehensible to lawheads; those who made statements on the subject in 1920 predicted that the law would magically remove the desire for liquor from the American mind.  The Internal Revenue Service predicted that the law would be instantly effective, but that it would take six years for all existing private liquor supplies to be used up.  And Prohibitionists both inside and outside the government questioned neither the ability to legislate state-defined morality into existence nor the rectitude of attempting to do so.  And the fact that the so-called “Noble Experiment” failed miserably in less than a decade (calls for its repeal were widespread and vocal by 1929) did absolutely nothing to penetrate the thick skulls of lawheads and control freaks, who have in the intervening 80 years continued to support other prohibitionist bans and even foisted upon us a host of new ones.

Each of these bans – from marijuana to prostitution to pseudoephedrine – have had exactly the same effects:  None of them have affected demand one iota, nor hampered those who wish to partake.  All of them have enriched criminals and increased true crime and bloodshed.  All of them have enticed millions who might not otherwise have committed crimes into participating in the lucrative black markets created by their prohibition.  All have increased the danger to users or sellers of the banned product or service (and even to innocent bystanders), often to fatal levels.  All have given rise to rampant corruption, overwhelmed court and prison systems, dangerously expanded governmental powers, negated civil liberties and billions wasted on enforcement and lost in tax revenues.  And each has admirably accomplished what it was enacted to accomplish:  the redefinition of large segments of the population from citizens to criminals, thus allowing government yet another excuse to deprive them of their rights, goods and freedoms.

Read Full Post »

What’s the buzz?  Tell me what’s happening! –  Tim Rice, from Jesus Christ Superstar

Sleeping cuddled up next to a man with the flu can have only one probable outcome, so when my husband came back from his recent business trip with such a “bug” it was inevitable that I would catch it as well.  But his body and mine appear to have different strategies for dealing with such infections; he slowly gets sicker over a course of days, then suffers for a few days but can mostly still do sedentary work on his computer (albeit at shorter hours), then slowly recovers over a few more days.  My body, on the other hand, opts for the all-or-nothing approach; I was perfectly fine Tuesday afternoon, had chills and a minor cough Tuesday night, then woke up Wednesday morning at Death’s door.  I took some medicine, returned to bed directly after breakfast and slept/rested until 3 PM, at which time I briefly emerged from the blankets to post my column, fix dinner and then crawl back into bed until 10 PM, when I got up to have some tea and homemade fruitcake and watch a couple of episodes of South Park.  By 11:45 I was drugged up and back in bed again. Yesterday I felt much better and mostly played catch-up, though I did give a telephone interview to a television reporter from Dallas who is doing a story debunking the “Super Bowl as prostitution Mecca” myth; he said it will air Super Bowl week so as soon as he gives me the go-ahead I’ll let y’all know the time and channel (readers outside the Dallas area, including myself, will have to see it on their website).

Late last night I felt much better, and slept like a doped-up baby, but that meant I was left without a column for today.  So, I’ve decided to call my readers’ attention to some recent posts on other blogs which are deeply interconnected with some things I discussed on December 22nd and 27th.  The first appeared in Bound, Not Gagged on Christmas Day; the commentary after the article is definitely the most interesting part.  While that commentary thread was still growing, Amanda Brooks published this column on January 1st, the same day I published this one.  I swear it was completely coincidental; Amanda and I really aren’t in cahoots any more than any other two women of similar viewpoints might be.  Of course, Camille Paglia wrote “Women are in league with each other, a secret conspiracy of hearts and pheromones.”  But sometimes, the conspiracy is even secret from us.

When you read Amanda’s brilliant article, make sure you also read the commentary, and then you may want to go on to Furrygirl’s comments about it on January 6th and Kelly James’ on the 10th, then Douglas Fox in Harlot’s Parlour on the 11th.  It’s funny how all this seems to have started with what I considered a simple statement of fact in this blog post on BNG; mind you, I’m not claiming to have set this fire on purpose because I’m just not that fiendishly clever.  However, it does my subversive little heart good to think that the spark which set off this powder keg came from the shoe of my horse.  But no matter where it started, Amanda gave it a name:  what we’re hearing in all these interlocked posts is the voice of the invisible majority of sex workers.

The invisible majority I’m talking about are the lower to middle-class independent online providers all over the US.  They are the majority population of sex workers in the US (strippers would be the next most-populous category, I think).  Most do not live in San Francisco or NYC (because there is a lot more to the US than those two cities).  The slight majority are white (because the majority of the US population is white), but an almost equal number are non-Caucasian — the overall split is very nearly 50/50.  A higher percentage are mothers than in the movement.  Their politics span the gamut but they usually have very definite liberal views on sex work!

They’re generally an open-minded bunch: they have almost zero tolerance for racism, understand the discrimination gay people face and most are cautiously open to transgenders.  The most unfortunate thing about them is a widespread adherence to the sex work-hierarchy and their profound dislike of street workers.  This is something that a little education and mind-opening personal interaction could change.

One thing they do feel is excluded, and rightly so.  They are.  The Internet has allowed the invisible majority to connect and share ideas.  They’re reinventing the wheel by trying to start activist groups because (surprise!) they want the laws to change and they want a voice in that change.  There is energy.  There is also a sad lack of information and leadership skills because they’ve been excluded from the movement for so long.  They, like I used to, don’t see many in the movement they can identify with.

The ultra-PC concerns the movement spends so much energy on is foreign to the majority…So many people in the movement have internalized their stigmatization by mainstream society they lash out at anyone who appears to represent mainstream society.  Activists deliberately ignore the reality of the bell curve.  The movement forgets that sex workers do not live and work in a vacuum.  Sex workers are the girl next door.  They cannot live and work anywhere else.

I know exactly what Amanda means, and judging by the responses to her post I’m not remotely alone.  In the musical number linked at the top of this column Judas attacks Mary Magdalene (portrayed in this show as a prostitute) with the words “It’s not that I object to her profession/But she doesn’t fit in well with what you teach and say/It doesn’t help us if you’re inconsistent;/They only need a small excuse to put us all away.”  Those words could well be directed from the movement at the “invisible majority”; obviously they don’t “object to [our] profession” because they share it.  But because we don’t “fit in well with what [they] teach and say” they want us to shut up, sit down, do as we’re told and refrain from contributing in any meaningful way.

Read Full Post »

The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. –  Emma Goldman

My column of January 9th spawned a lively debate about male infidelity among several escorts and other interested parties; the central issues seemed to be whether a husband’s infidelity is different whether he sees a whore or has an affair, and whether it bothers us that we facilitate that infidelity.  Those of you who read that thread probably noticed that, with the exception of the factual issues of comparative frequency, I largely stayed out of the discussion; that was a conscious choice on my part.  When new reader Joyce made her very passionate post, I suspected it would inspire strong and interesting responses and so I decided to keep my big mouth shut for a change and let things develop without my influence.  I was gratified to notice that, despite personal variations on the details, all the prostitutes who contributed were largely on the same page as I am, and I think that’s a good thing for reasons which will soon become clear.

Suppress prostitution, and capricious lusts will overthrow society. – St. Augustine (354-430)

“Harm reduction” is the modern name given to an ancient idea:  Since neither the world nor human beings are perfect, there will always be evil and misfortune, and all we can hope for is to reduce the level of harm caused by those negative factors.  In my column of November 26th I pointed out that the Catholic Church “recognized that human beings are imperfect and incapable of total adherence to any code of behavior.  So rather than setting up impossible standards which many if not most people would often fail to meet (as we do today), the Church fathers recognized the need for safety valves which would allow people to blow off steam and thereby avoid great wrongs and mortal sins by tolerating lesser wrongs and venial sins.”  This pragmatic view fell into disfavor after the Reformation, when Protestant views on “progress” and the perfectibility of man first appeared; those views, reinforced by the many scientific discoveries and technological innovations of the period, gained in popularity throughout the Age of Reason and by the 19th century practically constituted a cultic belief that tomorrow would always be better than today and that mankind and society could be “perfected” just as scientific theories or technological devices could be.  Tolerance for prostitution, alcohol and other “vices” were replaced by a rigid, punitive belief that these “social ills” could be eliminated entirely, and governments (which never pass up an excuse for repression) responded to the popular belief by prohibiting just about every “vice” imaginable and empowering police and courts to harass, arrest and imprison people for behaviors which were previously considered outside the purview of government.

So widespread did this belief-system become that the First World War was commonly referred to as “The War to End All Wars”; many people actually believed that it would purge the very desire for war out of mankind and result in a new world order of peace and prosperity.  Clearly, that did not happen, and many intellectuals realized it even before the war was over.  Throughout the 1920s and 1930s a growing number of people realized that just as the Great War had not eliminated armed conflict, and just as Prohibition had not ended the demand for alcohol, so the war against prostitution had not curtailed it in the least.  And out of that philosophical soil eventually grew the doctrine of “harm reduction”, the realization that our ancestors had it right in the first place:  Human beings are not perfectible and attempts to threaten and beat vice out of them do vastly more harm than good.  The philosophy of harm reduction was further bolstered by the growing popularity of cultural pluralism:  If people have the right to differing ideas, beliefs and political views, what is the moral basis for banning behaviors which harm nobody else and are not even viewed as vices in some cultures?

Those mired in the traditional Protestant or secular authoritarian mindsets argue that harm reduction is defeatist; while they usually admit that neither humanity nor society is perfectible, they argue that giving up on restricting vices “sends the wrong message” and actively encourages such behaviors.  I’m not going to address this position’s underlying assumption that the prevailing idea of rectitude is the correct one, nor the abhorrent notion that any government has the right to enforce its ideas of “correct” behavior on citizens who do not harm others; either of those would be a full column in itself. Instead, I would like to call the reader’s attention to an aspect of game theory called “conditions of victory”; though this may sound esoteric it refers to the simple concept that the participants in any contest may have different criteria for winning that contest.  In a child’s game of tag, the condition of victory for “it” is to tag someone, and the condition of victory for everyone else is to escape being tagged.  More complex games such as war have much more complex differences; King Leonidas knew he could not possibly defeat the vastly larger Persian force at Thermopylae, so he did not try to do so.  His strategy was intended to delay Xerxes, not to stop him, and in that he succeeded.  Thus, though the Greeks lost the battle they won the game; the limited resources which would not allow victory under one set of conditions did allow it under another.  The United States has defined victory in its “Drug War” as the total elimination of all recreational drugs; under these unrealistic conditions victory is completely impossible.  But if those conditions were changed to “reduce the social and economic impact of recreational drugs below x level”, victory is not only possible but can be achieved at a very reasonable cost and in a fairly short time.

Because men are biologically programmed to seek sexual variety, most men will do so; at least two-thirds of married men will at least occasionally seek extramarital sex.  No woman has any way of knowing whether the man she chooses will be a member of the minority who is able to resist temptation, so if she defines a “successful marriage” as one in which her husband never strays she is playing Russian Roulette with at least four bullets.  But if she defines it as one in which her husband’s probable infidelities cause no overt damage, difficulty or social consequences, all she need do is keep him from getting involved with amateurs.  As I wrote in my column of July 21st, whores allow men to cheat in a managed fashion and thereby minimize harm to their wives and children.  Far from being a “social evil” as it usually referred to in the United States, prostitution is a positive good because it provides a controlled outlet for male sexual impulses which might otherwise cause tremendous problems, including (but by no means limited to) rape and broken marriages.  While it’s true that for a wife to discover her husband has been patronizing whores might damage their marriage, would an affair or constant pressure for unwanted sex do any less?  Prostitution is not a panacea for the differing sexual needs between the sexes, but it does greatly reduce the problems; it is the definitive example of the principle of harm reduction.

Read Full Post »

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization. –  Ralph Waldo Emerson

An autoimmune disease is one in which the body’s protective systems turn from attacking pathogens and other invaders to attack some portion of its own tissues instead.  As you might expect, most such disorders are fatal; what you may not realize is that women are disproportionately affected.  Women are ten times as likely as men to be affected by such disorders; about 75% of those with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and 85% of those with multiple sclerosis are female, and autoimmune diseases are among the leading causes of death for all women below the age of 65.  The bodies of societies sometimes also develop such syndromes; the systems which were meant to protect society from invaders or other troublesome organisms are instead turned against some of its own systems, sometimes even vital systems.  And just as in biological autoimmune disorders, those who are affected most are usually women.  I don’t think I need to give many examples of this; the witch hysteria of the 16th and 17th centuries is one, as is the wholesale rape practiced by armies in African civil wars.  But the one I wish to concentrate on today is the continuing persecution of prostitutes in England and the United States, despite the obvious social function we serve.

This social autoimmune disorder has been prevalent in modern cultures since it first evolved in the late 19th century, but many countries, including some who suffered from very advanced cases of it, have recovered or at least acknowledged they had a problem and sought treatment for it.  Taiwan, for example, long permitted prostitution but in the ‘90s caved in to US pressure and the influence of American “rescue groups” and descended into a particularly acute case of repression; fortunately Taiwan’s prostitutes were well-organized and refused to kowtow to American-style prohibition.  They formed the Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters to fight the new persecution, and Taiwan will legalize prostitution in November of this year.  While the proposed system of red-light districts and permits allows for far more abuse than decriminalization, it’s vastly superior to the pathological American system or the deeply sick English system.

As I reported on January 3rd, “the Association of Chief Police Officers has called for a debate over prostitution laws so as to change them to protect prostitutes from violence.  While some local jurisdictions in England (such as Liverpool and  Merseyside) have adopted a progressive approach to reducing violence by tolerating prostitution, others (such as Blackpool and Bradford) prefer American-style antics which endanger women by forcing them onto the street; decriminalization (or at least law reform) would put an end to such irresponsible and asinine behavior by prohibiting it from above.”  The term “American-style antics” was not chosen lightly; remember this article in which we read about the Detroit police seizing people’s cars for the “crime” of parking near a club they suspected of “facilitating prostitution”?  Well, Bradford police are now doing something similar:  taking the license plate numbers of cars parked in the red-light district, looking them up in the database and then sending out letters accusing them of “kerb crawling”, i.e. trolling for streetwalkers.  And while the letters do not constitute official criminal charges, they are sent indiscriminately to the owner’s home or work address (if a company car) and remain on public record unless the victim wins a lawsuit to have them removed.  In other words, the accused are assumed guilty until proven innocent…because they legally parked in a place the police decided was “suspicious”.  While the Detroit police department’s stealing cars and holding them for ransom constitutes sheer Chinese banditry, it is surpassed in evil by Bradford’s quiet, cheap Orwellian surveillance resulting in a permanent cloud of publicly-recorded suspicion.

Meanwhile, here in the Colonies, the FBI has apparently decided to attempt to trump numerous court decisions by threatening escort advertising websites with charges of “facilitating prostitution” and “money laundering”; according to an article posted on the website of the Adult Video Network on Saturday (January 8th):

This year’s Arthur Schwartz Legal Seminar featured some of the country’s top First Amendment attorneys giving attendees the low-down on the latest threats facing the adult industry, as well as some of the victories scored over the past year.  [The first speaker was]… Paul Cambria [a prominent 1st amendment attorney who]…warned of a new threat: Targeting websites that accept ads for adult services.  Cambria spoke specifically of the recent bust of Escorts.com, whose offices were raided by over 100 Philadelphia police and FBI agents in October, although no federal indictments have yet been issued, and Cambria’s own sources have indicated that the Justice Department has no interest in the case.  “It’s really new [legal] ground,” Cambria said of the raid, observing that courts around the country have held that advertisements posted on a host website are merely “republished” material, with the host having no responsibility for the ads’ contents.  However, he noted, the FBI has taken the position that allowing such ads to be posted on the sites amounts to “facilitating prostitution,” and that the web host could be charged with criminal facilitation and even money laundering—both very serious federal felonies.

The article then goes on to discuss the ongoing attempts by rubber fetishists to force the entire porn industry to cater to their peculiar perversion:

Porn actress, AHF style

Attorney Karen Tynan, who represents the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation (AIM) spoke next, summarizing the several meetings held by Cal/OSHA regarding forcing adult producers to force their performers to use “barrier protections” (condoms, dental dams, goggles, face shields) during sex scenes. She traced the beginnings of the controversy…and spoke of the pressures put on the Los Angeles Department of Public Health by such groups as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Pink Cross Foundation and the UCLA Reproductive Health Interest Group.  Tynan noted that Cal/OSHA has never won a court case against a company not following state health regulations, and urged performers and producers to get involved in the issue and attend the Cal/OSHA meetings, the next one scheduled for February 8 in Oakland.  “You can have a voice in these meetings,” she stated.

[Seminar moderator Jeffrey] Douglas added that the fight is on two fronts: Free Speech is attempting to create workable health regulations for the industry, since the current ones were developed for high-risk hospital personnel, as well as to help companies push back against OSHA inspectors who, he said, will cheat and lie to get the “cooperation” they want.

So while other countries work to eliminate this “social autoimmune disorder”, the countries which pioneered the concept of civil rights – England and the United States – prefer to wallow in sickness.  In the UK there is hope if reformist forces win out over those who almost succeeded in establishing the Swedish Model there last year, but in the US governments not only refuse to fight the prohibitionist disease but actually cater to groups either inside or outside the government who want to hasten its progress.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »