Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself. – Sign displayed in an office of “The Village”, from the classic TV series The Prisoner
As I stated in my column of September 18th, I sometimes get replies to my “Black Men” post of a year earlier that demonstrate a total refusal to accept my explanation of why a noticeable percentage of escorts won’t see black clients; here is an example I received just a few weeks ago which, ironically, demonstrates the very point he’s trying to refute:
What’s wrong with a man demanding to get what he pays for? You said some want to use up the full time with sexual activity…is this not what the deal is based on? I think many escorts take advantage of kind hearted (a lot of them older men) customers, it’s bullshit. So when a guy comes along and just wants what he paid for they are suddenly put out by this.
And even if it were indeed “what he paid for”, that doesn’t address the roughness, the rudeness, the haggling and the attempts at cheating her out of money, NONE of which are part of the deal. What amazes me is why a number of commenters like yourself insist on attempting to defend the indefensible instead of simply not acting that way; this narcissistic behavior is just as absurd and unrealistic as that of women who insist they should be able to get drunk at a frat party and go upstairs alone with a stranger without being taken advantage of. You don’t see me defending the actions of bad escorts or denying that they exist; I understand that they do indeed exist and I did my best when dealing with a nervous client to allay his fears so he would understand I wasn’t one of them. Good customers (and there are many) recognize that poor customers to give rise to a negative perception of the whole group, and they behave in such a way as to let girls know they aren’t like that.
Why haven’t you corrected the egregious factual errors in the Wikipedia article on prostitution? It’s full of Catherine MacKinnon and Melissa Farley stuff!
I know, it’s awful; I noticed it a while back. Though I’ve corrected a little of the wording in the “consent” section I haven’t tackled the article in earnest yet because, frankly, I find it a bit intimidating. I have fixed many minor errors in sex-work related Wikipedia articles (such as replacing the word “pimp” with “escort service owner” in several articles on madams) and even added a section to the “human trafficking” article, but I haven’t tackled the “prostitution” article yet because there’s so much to deal with and adding citations in Wikipedia is extremely time-consuming. I tried to drum up interest in fixing it within a circle of pro-sex work academics, but nobody seemed interested (and I certainly can’t blame them considering my feelings on the matter).
But now that you’ve raised the question it’s going to eat at me, so I will eventually get around to it; in the meantime I’d like to ask my readers to help out a little. Would those of you who have Wikipedia accounts please fix small but important errors (in the main article and all the others) when you see them? Sometimes just changing the wording of a sentence makes a huge difference, for example, adding “opponents of prostitution feel that” to statements making incorrectly declarative negative statements. And if anybody wants to volunteer to help revise that main “Prostitution” article, please let me know!
Can you change the design that appears next to my name when I comment?
No, but you can. That design is automatically assigned by WordPress to commenters who don’t have a gravatar (Globally Recognized Avatar), so all you have to do is get yourself a gravatar and the next time you comment it will automatically replace that design you don’t like (even on comments you’ve already made). Just go to Gravatar.com and register, and you’ll have the opportunity to upload any picture you like as your avatar. From then on, it will appear next to your screen name whenever you comment on any gravatar-friendly site using the same email address you registered with.
Where do you find all the quotes you use?
One Year Ago Today
“Think of the Children!” discusses the bizarre Neo-Victorian belief that “children are as emotionally fragile as soap bubbles and the merest hint of sexual imagery before puberty can cause irreversible trauma”, and looks at two of its notable victims, Paul Reubens and Melissa Petro.