Faith prefers the absurd to the plausible. – Mason Cooley
There’s a strong temptation to accuse those who hold different beliefs from oneself of mental deficiency; one sees the behavior quite often, particularly among those who hold socially liberal positions. The adjective “stupid” or some variation on it is probably the most common ad hominem leveled against those who support censorship or intolerance, oppose civil rights, etc, so I’m loath to use such a criticism against those who believe (for whatever reason) that my profession should be suppressed. But sometimes I read arguments or articles whose irrationality, stunning ignorance or total absurdity force me conclude that their authors suffer from, if not plain stupidity, some form of cognitive impairment which I’m not qualified to diagnose. In my column of October 10th I examined a number of these sorts of arguments, but today I want to look at a few specific examples.
Every WordPress blog has a “site stats” page which reveals, among other things, websites from which people have followed links to reach the blog; one can click on the address of one of these referrals to follow it backwards to the site whence it originated and thus reveal sites which have linked to one’s own. Well, two weeks ago I noticed a link from this guest blog on a feminist website and was delighted to see that no less a person than Belle de Jour (upon whose blog the hit TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl was based) had linked my column of February 9th. Unfortunately, that delight was short-lived when I saw some of the vicious, propaganda-filled comments from disciples of Farley, Dworkin and company which followed and the disgusting way in which the blog’s administration distanced itself from its invited guest in order to kiss the arses of hatemongers.
One of these (calling herself M. Smith) was a pretty typical “trafficking” robot, while another one (Robin) was a lot like “Bedelia“, an unhappy former streetwalker apparently programmed by the prohibitionists to “reframe her experiences” and to spew out bogus statistics and patronizing “prostituted women” misogyny. But these were just stooges or “true believers”; the ones with the apparent cognitive disorder are called “JTM” and “Geneva”. These two made a great many comments (including a number of ad hominems against regular readers Sina and Laura Agustín) whose entire basis seems to be that all women are merely the three-dimensional projections of a single hydra-like gestalt entity floating in hyperspace, or the practical equivalent of it anyway. The upshot of this is that any single woman’s sexual activities performed in private magically affect all women throughout the world as though we were one huge set of Corsican sisters, and therefore all women must submit to whatever limitations are imposed on our sexuality by our rightful leaders, the neofeminists. I am not making this up; take a look at the thread for yourself. Several people point out how bizarre this viewpoint is, and their objections are either sidestepped or answered with some variation of “you just don’t understand” or “you’re naïve” or “stop selling my sexuality, it’s not yours to sell.” My pointing out that these same arguments could be used to restrict abortion rights was, unsurprisingly, ignored. Judging by their writing these women aren’t stupid or insane, so I’m at a loss to understand how they can believe something so wholly ridiculous unless they’re suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance deriving from a deep-seated aversion to sex or men manifesting itself in this fantastic mythology of feminine interconnectedness.
But my other example couldn’t be explained that way because it was written by a man; it appeared on March 12th on the user-generated news site Gather. Now, since these are not professional writers one doesn’t expect proper fact-checking or healthy skepticism, and in this case one would be correct; the article contains the usual exaggerated and unsupported claims about “the growing incidents [sic] of children being pimped for sex acts.” But it also contains a glaring contradiction that one would think would be obvious even to someone gullible enough to swallow whatever filth the police shovel into his mouth: though the article goes on and on about “young children…forced into sex trafficking,” the story actually talks about the deception and arrest of six voluntary prostitutes, one a minor, with nary a mention of “pimps” or “traffickers” to be seen!
…The women arrested in the prostitution sting showed up at the motel after arranging a meeting with their supposed dons [sic] aka Broome County [New York] special investigators. Police would not elaborate on what led to the actual arrests during the meetings. They, however, must have developed enough probable cause at some point to take five women and one minor into custody. The women’s ages in the Backpage.com prostitution sting were 15 to 35. Six females were actually arrested for misdemeanor prostitution, and the 15-year-old girl–who was brought along for sex acts–was released to her parents. She will be charged, however, in juvenile and/or family court…
The writer’s faith in the police is touching; “they must have developed enough probable cause” because, you know, they said so and they’re the good guys. One wonders why the writer seems concerned with the “trafficking” of subhuman beings, though; in the last part of his article he assures us that “…Geebo.com…has taken proactive and responsible steps in making its site safe for all users.” All users, that is, except prostitutes; I guess we don’t count because we aren’t human. Unlike the neofeminist commenters on the Belle de Jour blog, this guy’s problem doesn’t seem to be an elaborate psychological defense mechanism but rather a type of atrophy of the critical faculty which causes him to view his subject in a startlingly childlike manner. Though judging by his picture this is a man in his 30s, the article reads as though it was written by an unusually sheltered fifth-grader.
But really, neither the naivety of the latter case nor the derangement of the former surprises me in the least; now that the internet has allowed the truth about prostitution to be presented by the women who know it best, namely whores ourselves, police and moralists no longer have a monopoly on discourse about the subject and reasonable people can clearly separate facts from propaganda, thus leaving only the unreasonable (or those with a personal agenda which supersedes reason) in the prohibitionist camp.
ACK don’t get me started. ACK too late! Being a comment reader I hear/read this kinda crap all the time. But again where are voices of the organizations for sex workers? We should really be speaking out with our researched links in these. I couldn’t do it I don’t think because I am not politically correct and tend to come across as crude, blunt, and to the point. In other words, I’m not nice in the way I call people idiots. But I digress…
Perfect case of cognitive impairment can be viewed on my latest blog post from that woman who defines prostitute as a woman who is beaten and raped for money. What a little twit.
Another moron has been spotted on The Huffington Posts article about LT who stated that the American Journal of Medicine did a study of men who paid for prostitutes and it was ‘proven’ that they were all losers. I asked Mr. Idiot for the link to that study to find out what their definition of loser was. Cricket sounds so far. But what the hell, I went to the AJM site and did a search and of course could find nothing of the kind. But don’t you know that now someone is going to cite Mr. Don’t-know-my-ass-from-a-hole-in-the-ground and call it fact.
And I agree after reading the link you posted on that feminist site. What a bunch of Farley!
Actually, a 2008 study (Durchslag, R. & Goswami, S, Deconstructing the Demand for Prostitution: Preliminary Insights from Interviews with Chicago Men Who Purchase Sex) financed by a prohibitionist group called the “Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation” found exactly the opposite, to their immense chagrin. As described in report of the Atlanta Schapiro Group “study”:
Not to be caught pantsless, the Schapiro authors spun this as “CSEC can only exist as a commercial enterprise if it is a sadly normal practice in our society…Prostitution is a societal problem, not an individual problem.” Obviously a real scientist examining the study would be forced to conclude that since normal, psychologically healthy men from all walks of life hire prostitutes, it isn’t a “problem” except in the minds of prohibitionists (and indeed that’s what most of the civilized world has concluded).
Anyhow, I see no reason not to use the prohibitionists’ studies against them whenever possible.
Would you happen to have that link handy? I would love to answer him within the comments for everyone to read.
Never mind, I just cited the above. He can look it up his damned self.
There was no link to the study in the Schapiro report, nor in any of the other prohibitionist rags which cite the study; obviously, they only want to cite the portions which support their anti-whore agenda and therefore won’t link the whole thing.
you will hardly believe it, but i don’t have one of those link thingies you describe so don’t know who links to me and certainly not who is slagging me off in comments. i glanced at some of what you mention and was glad i hadn’t known about it. gad.
Yes, it was pretty awful; I was pretty angry on your behalf until I realized that there’s no point in being angry at disturbed people.
i came to understand a long time ago that they feel at war over something quasi-religious. they feel beleaguered and feel especially that women like me are traitors. i know i can’t say anything that will make a difference to them and i don’t really understand why they pay any attention to me at all.
Oh, I can tell you the reason; they’re not stupid. Some part of them knows you’re right, and that causes a very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance which results in violent attack. 🙁
Sometimes, the only difference between adults and children is that adults find more sophisticated ways of saying, “Oh yeah!? Well you’re wrong because you’re a POOPY-HEAD!!!”
Go to Amazon and read the comments on Mike Males’ reviews of various today’s youth is the worst generation ever!!!1!!!11!!eleven!! books. He provides facts, stats, links, and after some very angry people (why?) find out that “but I know today’s youth is worse than ever, because I’ve met rude kids!” isn’t a very convincing argument, they inevitably, inevitably! end up calling him a poopy-head in one way or another.
Pissed me off so much I bought his book. 🙂
it is interesting that they don’t come directly to me to complain, no? only julie bindel has done that, and i had mentioned her directly. oh wait, yes once someone came complaining about my linking to a person she said was bad, and it was all about some internecine war i couldn’t understand so i deleted her comment. but it is rare.
It’s very interesting, and very telling. They’re afraid to deal with you directly because they might hear some sort of Lovecraftian “forbidden knowledge” that will burn their psyches and rob them of sleep forever.
As for their little playground wars…well, that’s easier than dealing with the real issues, isn’t it? 🙁
After the Eliot Spitzer case, I read in the comments section in the NYT this sentence:
“Get a girlfriend. Only losers pay for sex.”
I thought it a rather interesting comment. I take it the poster is a hot, young stud who doesn’t have to worry where his pussy will come from for the next day. He might be singing a different tune when he hits middle-age and his hairline is receding and his belly develops a pot.
Nevertheless, his perspective is different from the neofeminist one, I’ll grant him that. And I’ll grant him that there are some men who’ve never paid for sex in their entire lives.
Well, there are guys who have never paid up front for it in their lives, but they’ve eventually paid. Either that, or they’ve dodged the bill when it was presented, which of course carries its cost in karma. But one way or another, they always pay.
maybe also it’s because i don’t fight, though, i am not a satisfying opponent. i see them as operating within a certain cultural logic and me and you somewhere else. like religious wars, no one convinces the other of anything.
That true; when one’s opponent fights it’s easy to lose oneself in the struggle and ignore truth. But when one’s opponent remains calm that’s much harder to do.
actually it must be enraging when one’s opponent doesn’t even respond, or acts as though a fly has landed that has to be brushed away.
Maggie – this column was particularly well said, even measured against the particularly high standards of your own work that I hold you to.
Brandy – the voices of the sex worker rights organizations are right here. You are more than qualified to speak for any of them and don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.
Laura – they do not wish to debate you directly because they know that they will lose.
🙂 KJ
Thanks, Kelly! I’m really pleased that you said that because I wasn’t as happy with this one as with many others except for the “hydra-like gestalt entity floating in hyperspace” bit, of which I was rather proud. 😀
Damn hyperspacial gestalt entities, always redistributing degradation. How the hell am I supposed to dishonor some woman in a totally soul-crushing way when THAT thing spreads out the dehumanization to the point where an individual woman ain’t even going to notice it?
Since the pseudo-hydra started that crap up, I’m lucky if I can make an individual woman blush, much less cry.
As an MVS I’ve had to learn how to handle the evil personal attacks in a non-self-destructive way. It’s been a hard road and I’ve learned for my own sanity to let a lot of things go without comment. But, have also learned you can debate without getting personal and I HAVE gotten through to some people with just stating the facts of my familys’ case and the cases of others. I’ve gotten way too personally involved with people on message boards in the past and have learned to quit doing that as it just wastes time that can be used on boards that TRULY support MVS. The fact is some are going to hate me no matter what I say/do online just because I’m an MVS. That’s how it is. BUT, there’s also at least a few who make the effort to look BEYOND that and then LEARN. Unfortunately, I had to bring up possibly taking legal action with 1 ###*** who accused me of making threats, but am glad IT hasn’t brought that up again. Cases that extreme have been rare for me, but I learned fast that if you’re part of a group that many in society hate or don’t want to hear from, you’re going to get evil personal attacks. It’s part of the package, unfortunately, but we don’t have to get on their level in return!
Maggie – I liked that one a lot as well, but don’t leave out “a glaring contradiction that one would think would be obvious even to someone gullible enough to swallow whatever filth the police shovel into his mouth”. LOL
LOL! That is a strong image, isn’t it? 😀
I’m sorry, Laura, but what is MVS?
Marital Violence Syndrome? Male Vileness Survivor?
When I Googled it I got things like Multiple Virtual Storage and Mennonite Volunteer Society, neither of which sounds like your complaint. I’m totally clueless but I’m sure it’s something horrible that was done to you by a male…?
Beija, Laura will have to answer for certain, but I believe due to her previous comments that it’s Murder Victim Survivor, i.e. someone who has lost a loved one to murder.
Thank you, Maggie. That makes better sense than the translations I found on Wikipedia; although “Multiple Virtual Storage” sounds like a migraine headache to me.
Anyone who would aim “evil personal attacks” at a person who had lost a loved one to violence … if I were in a position to sentence a heartless creep for that, I’d give them a few nights of “volunteer” work in a big-city hospital trauma center; re-stocking supplies, changing blood-soaked gurney linens, and mopping up the floors.
I hope, Laura, that I don’t offend with a secondary translation that just occurred to me: one that has to do with male neofeminists, “Missing Vagina Syndrome.” ;D
“missing vagina syndrome”
LOL! 😀
In the future please don’t answer for me especially in regards to my MVS status. Thank you.
Dear BeijaFlor, MVS stands for “murder victim survivor”. These are the surviving family members and/or friends of murder victims. I’ve been 1 for about 21 years. My main focus with education/support/activism is for the inter-family MVS. We make up 30-33% of all murder cases in the US (I get this # from FBI and US Department of Justice statistics) and our cases involve when a family member and/or friend murders another family member and/or friend. You didn’t offend me with what you said you found online. I’m impressed that you showed concern over this. That’s a plus for you! Too many when wondering about us, etc., don’t even care to use tact. I’m always glad when I see someone who does, so thank you! Yes, MVS get horrible attacks online and off. I could list several I’ve experienced. God help us. BUT, this is 1 reason we should never quit speaking out! We need to fight back without getting on our attackers’ levels and also to educate them. 1 reason I’ve spoken about MVS on here is to show that they’re another hated group along with prostitutes. Those of us in hated groups can support each other plus also learn from each other! Thank you, BeijaFlor, for your interest and kind words and I agree with you 100% on your idea about service in a trauma ward.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Maggie,
I followed the link from your March article, … which you linked here. I love the internet. The threads weave so effortlessly.
The comments were truly spectacular. The commenters proved every point you (or I or anyone else) tried to make.
I want to point them out on one of YOUR blog posts for all to see.
I’m also cutting and pasting them for research. This sort of thing is priceless, and the commenters were shockingly honest about their motivations.
#
January March 10, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Here’s a thought, prostitutes: stop selling what does not belong to you exclusively. You don’t have MY permission to make my sexuality– or my sister’s, or my daughter’s, or my friends’, etc– your product for personal profit. When you make all women less safe in the world because of what you do, I don’t really care about your special need for “protection.”
Reply
*
Maggie McNeill March 11, 2011 at 12:27 am
Goodness, what hypocrisy! No prostitute can sell anything but her own services, since only they are hers to sell. You, on the other hand, are trying to control what does not belong to you exclusively. You don’t have MY permission to make my sexuality– or my sister’s, or my daughter’s, or my friends’, etc– your province for personal comfort. When you make all women less free in the world in order for you to protect your own prudishness, I don’t really care about your special need to feel “safe”.
This proving your point: this woman actually believes that female sexuality belongs to no woman, but is a universal force and women are merely custodians.
Good succinct response:
“Look, who are you to tell me what to do? Are you the Pope or the Ayatollah?”
That is the ugliest thing I’ve seen written on any comment forum. Anywhere. Not wanting to be exploited is “Whaa, I want to be comfortable!” to you? You’re not making sex workers look any more likeable.
Reply
*
Sina March 11, 2011 at 9:15 am
The notion that one womans sexuality reflects on other women directly is a very patriarchal and sexist one. My sexuality does belong exclusively to me. How exactly does it make you less safe if I spend some hours with men who are willing to pay for it??
This is precisely on-point, but for “patriarchal”. Had she said “Paternalistic”, she’d have said it best.
Neofeminists are paternalistic and oppressively moralistic.
JTM March 11, 2011 at 5:25 pm
“Patriarchal”, though a popular word to throw around, actually has nothing to do with it. And it looks like you just proved January’s point. Your sexuality as a woman does not belong exclusively to you. Liknow it’s not convenient, but as a woman you ARE a part of how women’s sexuality is portrayed, and you have a responsibility with that. That is not sexist, it’s reality. Prostitutes making women’s sexuality something to be traded/rented/sold actually has a lot of danger involved. Your question is rather simplistic. I really would like the pro side to stop avoiding the complexity of the issue.
This won=man is admitting what I’ve felt to be the core issue all along:
The anti-Prostitution camp is run by women who see this as a “union” issue. A prostitute is a strike breaker, and has betrayed Feminine Power for her personal gain. The talk about “victims” has nothing to do with PROSTITUTES as victims: it’s because these women feel their personal POWER over their own sexuality (power over men) diminished, and THEY are victims of prostitutes.
This is obvious.
“Prostitution victimizes female power; Voluntary prostitutes are victimizing women.”
JTM March 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“How exactly does it make you less safe if I spend some hours with men who are willing to pay for it??”
But OK, I’ll answer it. I’m just going to say it, and I know you probably won’t like hearing it. I think your question is “why does my/other women having sex with men for their money make you less safe?” Let’s look at this notion that prostitution “empowers” women. Nobody is empowered as a prostitute, sorry. If you don’t fit what men want sexually, you are not an in-demand product. \
More attractive/ available prostitutes threaten her persona power and her “in-demand-ness”.
She must have all forms of commercial exchange. Some space heaters and cars are more in demand.
This is obviously about nothing more than her perception of her self-interest and personal power.
She couldn’t be more blunt.
Sure, you may have repeat customers who say they love your personality, your stories, whatever. But let’s be clear: you are replaceable. If you are not available, or do not meet men’s sexual demands or expectations, they will absolutely find another, cheaper, prettier woman to have sex with. You are at the mercy of what men want. You are NOT in control. They determine what price is paid for you, what you do, what you look like.
In other words, she doesn’t want men to be able to make this choice. This can be read without even reading between the lines.
How does this make women less safe? For one, Because you take our sexuality and give it up to men to manipulate to what they want. You take our sexuality out of our control,
“Our” control: The control of the Union of Women.
This is nothing but class-warfare/marxist-union talk. For once, it’s bald and naked.
It’s not about anything but personal power and protecting it through the manipulation of concepts of “sisterhood”.
and offer it up to market trends. Besides the total absurdity of that, making women a commodity takes away–here’s another word you probably like to use–our agency. As individuals, and as women.
Backtracking. She’s made her bed. She can’t cover it with paper to make it not look like a bed.
Maggie McNeill March 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Your argument is absurd. Prostitutes do not “give our sexuality to men to manipulate to what they want”; on the contrary, we use our sexuality as we see fit, and if we choose to use it to earn a living that is empowering whether you like it or not. Your argument is based on the fallacious idea that sex is somehow magically different from all other human activity, which it is not. ANY human activity which is used to make money involves demand. If a woman is a poor cook she cannot make as much as a great chef; if a man is a poor athlete he will not be able to command the income a champion can. We are all, every last one of us, “at the mercy of” the market in our chosen trades. This is reality, and your argument to the contrary reeks of Marxism. My self, my activities, my choices, and my income are for ME to command; neither you nor the government nor the feminist movement nor anyone else has the right to control them. Anything else is tyranny,
Maggie, excuse my language, but it can only be said one way: Fucking A.
(Men in any room nod heads in rousing but solid agreement, regardless of argument subject).
Sina March 12, 2011 at 11:42 am
Every worker is replacable, so I don’t have a problem with it if any of my regular customers would decide to see other escorts. After all, they pay me- it would be quite unfair if they wouldn’t have any power to decide what they want to pay for. You forget that the clients are also replacable for me. I like them, sure, but it’s not like there aren’t many other good potential clients around. If they want another type than I am, they would have seen that person from the beginning. Also, I’m actually quite irregularly available, but still manage to maintain long-term regulars. Your assumption that clients jump off as soon as something doesn’t go exactly as they want is wrong. They determine what price is paid is also wrong- I decide for what price I offer my services, and they can decide if they’re willing to pay it. In most settings, the power is quite balanced and one can simply enjoy being together, without the power struggle you seem to assume.
She says it hard right here. Note:
That sex is something that is sold is a consequence of different sexual wishes of men and women. Men want more sex without strings than women- so naturally, there’s a market for it. I feel that the media objectifies women far more than sex work on the level i do it. In sex work, I’m always a subject. I interact directly on a personal level, and can influence the way I’m perceived. This is very different than endless female bodies pictured in advertisment as a “byproduct”. Could you explain what you mean with men “manipulating sexuality to the way they want it”? Do you mean that men get the sex they want also outside from sex work? Or do you mean that men have the option to cheat through sex workers and this takes sexual power away from you?
Sina: Once more. I’ll say it. Fucking A.
Sina March 12, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Another Question for you: Where do you draw the line of what’s acceptable work? I sometimes meet clients without any sex- in those cases, one can’t really call it sex work. Does that change anything?
#
Geneva March 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“Another Question for you: Where do you draw the line of what’s acceptable work? I sometimes meet clients without any sex- in those cases, one can’t really call it sex work. Does that change anything?”
Sina, since I’m here, I’ll give some answers. Yeah, just get around the issue by splitting hairs. Because everyone knows that the “spend some non-sexual time with me” industry is just booming these days, isn’t it? Yeah, much more so than prostitution. This kind of avoidance on the pro side is really annoying, and all it does is tell us that you have something you are trying to avoid. Namely, the inconvenient truths about prostitution.
And what are the inconvenient truths? No hint.
What she means, but can’t explicitly say, is: It undermines the power of women with weaker sex appeal or who are using sex to control their men. If men have no outside access to sex, then they’re easier to control.
Damn, this is the same debate women were having 10,000 years ago about how to control their men.
Geneva March 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm
As to this:
“Every worker is replacable, so I don’t have a problem with it if any of my regular customers would decide to see other escorts”
What I read into JTM’s argument- I could be wrong- is that YOU, Sina, are not the product in prostitution. Nor is Eva, or any other individual prostitute. The product is vagina. OK? Meaning, any vagina will do. Any woman will do. Meaning, you are not selling/renting yourself. You are selling what belongs to all women.</I.
meaning, an individual woman doesn't own her vagina. It belongs to every woman.
How is this different from the religious argument that you don't own your body (no abortions) – because your body belongs to God?
Or think of it this way. You are not an independent contractor. You are more like a frnachisee. You can make some personal “tweaks” to the business model, put some personal touch into your BJs or whatever,and you may think you have some freedom. But when the john goes home and you’ve collected your money, you answer to the central business model. And men create that business model. The demand side ALWAYS creates the model.
But besides that, the fact that you sell your gender with your only concern being your personal profit is unconscionable. You can try to throw all the rationale you want at it, and it’s all moot.
And here you discover why they’re willing to let cops rape prostitutes and arrest them on trumped-up charges. Prostitutes are Traitors to Female Sexual Monopolization.
#
Geneva March 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“That sex is something that is sold is a consequence of different sexual wishes of men and women. Men want more sex without strings than women- so naturally, there’s a market for it. ”
Which is total justification for exploiting a gender! Some nations also like oil. Which justifies their destroying natural resources in the pursuit of it. Excellent logic.
</I.
One country hates the use of oil, and wants no-one to use it. it's justified therefore in going to war to stop anyone else from using oil.
“I feel that the media objectifies women far more than sex work on the level i do it. ”
Which makes it OK, because someone who’s only stealing a little as opposed to a lot, makes it less like stealing.
” They determine what price is paid is also wrong- I decide for what price I offer my services, and they can decide if they’re willing to pay it. ”
What price is paid for you is determined by the market. Basic economics. The freedom you think you have in naming your price is actually at the mercy of trends in the market. Should there ever be a sea change– and there could very well be with legalization– you won’t have as much choice. If any.
Of course women do. If the price of milk drops, then the producers have the option of dropping out of the trade. You can stop selling widgets or cars.
Do these women understand the actual meaning of the word “choice?
This is all informed by rank class-warfare marxist sentiment.
Geneva March 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm
oops, missed one choice comment:
“Or do you mean that men have the option to cheat through sex workers and this takes sexual power away from you?”
Sina, JTM already answered that. And your reply is rather pathetic. Please resist the urge to capitalze on the cheap “Oh, I know, I’ll play up questions of sexual insecurity to try to gain the upper hand.” It seems you are choosing to misread the comments, or aren’t paying attention. It’s been said numerous times already, so please pay attention now: you are selling what is not yours to sell. It’s quite natural that one would be exasperated with someone who keeps taking what belongs to others to sell for personal profit. This has nothing to do with “Oh, you’re just jealous because we’re making money off of what you give away for free, and we’re doing it with your boyfriend LOL” or any other ridiculous delusions the pro side parrots.
#
Geneva March 13, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Maggie: “Your argument is based on the fallacious idea that sex is somehow magically different from all other human activity, which it is not.”
You’re right. Sex has exactly the same kinds of dynamics and consequences as tending bar. Yep. No one can tell you different. The world must be so easy for you.
As to your “Marxism” thesis, please.
“My self, my activities, my choices, and my income are for ME to command; neither you nor the government nor the feminist movement nor anyone else has the right to control them. Anything else is tyranny.”
So, how many unicorns do you have where you live? This righteous idealism should have been left behind in your first year of college. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want with your body. Period. You don’t have the right to be an Octomom, to take drugs and have the public foot the bill for your rehab, to be a Quiverfull disciple and take away other people’s rights to resources.</I.
Actually, you do.
In fact, where no other life (a baby) is in danger, you even have the right to kill yourself. Suicide is not illegal. Not that prostitution is suicide; but the point is, your body is your own.
There is something called “society” that you do not seem to be aware of. And your actions affect others in it. If you want to be a part of society, you damn well stop thinking that everything is about you.</I.
The society of Female Sexual Unionists.
#
Maggie McNeill March 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm
So you’re arguing that a woman doesn’t have the right to own and control her own body if it “affects” (by which you actually mean “offends”) others? I’m glad you made your anti-choice position clear, and I’m sure you’re quite happy about recent attempts to restrict abortion using your EXACT argument.
Nicely said.
#
kelsey March 27, 2011 at 2:08 am
Maggie, your actions as a prostitute affect others. Offend also perhaps, but affect definitely. Please stop trying to evade responsibility.</I.
… for breaking with the Union and being a traitor.
That any feminist would say these things openly is shocking. It's more honesty than I've ever seen.
And prostitution is so exactly the same issue as abortion.
Actually, no– One makes women a product, the other doesn’t.
She doesn’t see the issue: For her, the content changes the reasoning. Interesting. She’s not coming from a position of reason or logic.
o
Sina March 13, 2011 at 3:14 pm
@Geneva: Strange that you accuse me of avoiding anything. I was genuinely interested in what all belongs to this ominous sphere that all women own. Is it skin-to skin contact, or is being paid for having conversations also in that area? After all, most people can talk..so does a individual person not have the right to sell entertainment, as any entertainer would do for the person who buys the entertainment?
I have already stated my view without avoiding anything: It is every person’s own right to decide what to do with his/her body. Everything else is tyranny. You care more about the nebulous concept of the greater good than the lives of actual individuals. As Maggie stated, you want to control what is absolutely not yours.
Reply
+
Geneva March 13, 2011 at 4:26 pm
No, you dodged the issue by getting coy. We are talking about the sex industry. If you want to get into the ethics of being a therapist, a midwife, a singer, a coach, or whatever, then start a new thread.
“It is every person’s own right to decide what to do with his/her body. Everything else is tyranny.”
How old are you? I’m guessing mid twenties at the latest. This bumper sticker idealism doesn’t hold up in the real world. See my response to Maggie.
Reply
#
Sina March 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Sigh.. you still haven’t answered the initial question, which is actually very relevant for this thread.
I’m giving up trying to discuss with someone who thinks a person’s body doesn’t belong to him/herself. There is not much one can say but that this is so wrong on every possible level- appalling fits it perfectly. Also, I don’t see the point in trying to discuss rationally with a person who will resort to personal attacks.
#
kelsey March 27, 2011 at 2:04 am
Actually Sina, I read your responses and found them just as annoyingly evasive. Lots of jobs have “peripheral” duties. A bartender sometimes sells Shirley Temples, but everyone knows they mainly serve alcohol. A prostitute’s main job description is fucking. No one cares that sometimes you are paid to drink tea with them and give them a shoulder rub.
She doesn’t see it. Sina is saying even if the job involves fucking, that’s none of Kelsey’s damned business, so fuck off.
Sarah April 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm
And your problem with being paid for fucking is?
*
Sarah March 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Wow, wow, wow. You are actually saying that women and men who are murdered had it coming?
Things not to say to someone who lives near Ipswich.
And what the hell does this have to do with anything?
#
peter schevtschenko March 10, 2011 at 10:22 pm
we have seen the emergence of moral supremacist groups over the years,all with the aim of implementing swedens final solution to prostitution.thankfully such groups don’t reflect what most people think.
why should working class women clean toilets for rich people on minimum wage when they can earn more from sex work,for many working class women,sex work is a better choice.
new zealand has decriminalised sex work in order to protect women & give them rights,this enlightened attitude is hardly suprising as new zealand was the first country in the world to give women the right to vote.
sex workers are so often stigmatised & persecuted that they have become modern day suffragettes
Reply
*
Ths truly is a gender war; Women have declared war on male sexuality. They’ll demonize anyone who breaks ranks.
What’s bizarre is that I once would have morally sided with them: Now, I’m actually tempted to go out and pay for a prostitute and have sex (or just have a nice conversartion) just to piss off these moralistic self-righteous nakedly self-interested paternalistic Ayatollahs of Rightness.
There’s no difference, not one whit, between any of these anti-prostitution arguments and the worst patriarchal religious claptrap. And less reason.
My God, what a horrifying tyrrany these women would make. No wonder neofeminists are always the greatest proponents of Stalinist policies and the first in line to remove civil rights.
This truly is a culture war. People who bring this attitude to prostitution have the potential to beat people down with any issue.
My youngest sister had never seen a porn movie until a local fundamentalist church started picketing local adult video stores in the early ’90s; one Saturday afternoon I had dropped by my mother’s house for some reason when my sister dropped in, proudly displaying a porn video she had rented after crossing the picket line “just to piss off the holy rollies”. My mother laughed.
In our family, even the good girls have a pronounced uppity streak. 😉
Obviously, this was posted before I learned how to do the markup.
Thank you for reposting the comment war! I appreciated being able to read it all here. A new (to me) argument, & a bizarre one. Ta!
Scary.
Can you elaborate on this in a future post ?
And by the way, you wouldn’t have seen any well-adjusted virgins have you ?
Elaborate on guys who dodge payment, you mean?
I did a column on virgins called “The First Time“.
“Police would not elaborate on what led to the actual arrests during the meetings”
Of course not. If they did, they’d be up on charges themselves, or just lynched by an angry mob.
🙂
[…] seem to imagine a deep and mystical interconnectedness of all women, as though we were all “merely the three-dimensional projections of a single hydra-like gestalt entity floating in hyperspac…“; they therefore imagine that “any single woman’s sexual activities performed in private […]