Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant. – John Simon
One of the more insidious forms of lawheadedness is the widespread belief that political fictions have a basis in reality. For example, neofeminism rests on the confusion of legal equality with actual equality, in other words the belief that because the law generally treats the sexes alike that means they actually are alike. Another such belief is that the legal equation of teenagers with children (both are “legal minors”) means that teenagers actually are children in some real way, and that a man who is attracted to a hot 16-year-old is therefore a “pedophile”. But possibly the most dangerous confusion of all is the idea, common in the modern world, that because leaders are chosen and a few legal questions decided by majority vote, it also means that the truth can be decided the same way. We often hear some permutation of the phrase which forms today’s title, but it’s total and complete nonsense: the majority not only can be wrong, on subjects requiring specialized or firsthand knowledge, it nearly always is wrong. I can assure you that no matter how many people vote on it, no matter how many signatures one collects on a petition, no matter how many self-appointed “leaders” demand it, facts will stubbornly remain in place. You can’t make men and women psychologically identical by majority vote, you can’t raise the speed of light by petition and you can’t legislate pi to be a rational number. And no matter how many people claim that “children are being sold for sex” on Backpage, it’s still pure bullshit.
Where do we even start with this? First of all, no prostitute (voluntary or involuntary) is “sold for sex” or “sells her body”; as has been pointed out many times by many whore-activists, the act of selling automatically includes a change of ownership: if the supposed purchaser does not take possession of the goods supposedly “sold”, no sale has taken place. I still own my body, therefore I have never sold it; the same can be said for any other prostitute, either above or below the local age of consent. And since nobody is alleging that anyone ever advertised on Backpage to literally sell a girl as a slave, with ownership changing hands, the statement that “children [or anybody else] are sold for sex [or any other purpose] on Backpage” is prima facie fraudulent.
Next, there’s that word “children” again; every supposed case I’ve ever seen lists the alleged prostitute’s age as 13-17. I doubt anyone other than a hopeless lawhead would consider a 17-year-old to be a “child” in any meaningful sense, and considering that the age of consent in some American states is as low as 14, clearly the legislatures of those states don’t consider someone of that age to be truly a “child” either. That leaves 13-year-olds, most of whom are biologically capable of pregnancy and are therefore not children. Using the phrase “underage prostitutes are often advertised on Backpage” wouldn’t have nearly the emotional impact as “children sold for sex”, but at least it would be true, wouldn’t it?
In a word, no. See, there’s still that passive voice issue: “are sold for sex” or “are advertised” imply that the whore is the passive subject of some “trafficker”, but as we have seen fewer than 16% of underage prostitutes have even met a pimp, and 75% of them work only on the street. There are fewer than 16,000 underage prostitutes in the U.S.; if only a quarter are other than streetwalkers, and if only 16% of <4000 girls are “pimped”, we’re looking at about 600 “pimped” underage girls in the entire country who aren’t streetwalkers…and the majority of those probably work in clandestine brothels rather than even attempting to advertise online. The F.B.I.’s lugubriously named “Operation Innocence Lost” barely even bothers with the internet; as reported in my column of one year ago today, most of the young hookers they arrest (excuse me, “rescue”) are caught on the street or at truck stops. Altogether, there are probably about 100 prostitutes in the entire country who meet all the hysterics’ criteria (underage, pimped online advertisers), or about 2 per state…sad, but hardly enough to justify shutting down an entire advertising venue on the grounds that those 2 girls might possibly choose to advertise on the targeted venue rather than one of the many other sites available. It would be like banning peanuts because they’re the agent of a common food allergy and 11 people die each year from all food allergies combined.
But since the fanatics are so fond of saying “if even ONE CHILD is saved it will be worth it!!!!11!!eleven!!”, I hardly think that they’ll respond to this logic, so let’s look at the final issue: a pesky thing called the Constitution. A federal judge recently ruled that, as previously established many times, internet advertising venues are not responsible for user-generated content. Nor is the case a generic one; the ruling specifically dismissed a lawsuit by a former teen prostitute who claimed Backpage was responsible for an ad she was persuaded (not forced) to allow a pimp to place. Of course, the attorneys general of 44 states (who apparently labor under the delusion so common to state-employed lawyers, that the law is whatever they want it to be) greeted this ruling with a toothless demand that Backpage take down its adult services section; Backpage ignored the demand because, as the attorneys surely recognized themselves, it had no legal validity.
As one might expect, this inspired the fanatics to redouble their efforts (as Santayana tells us fanatics are wont to do) by starting a petition to “force” Backpage to stop doing what it’s legally and morally entitled to do, namely give adult women a low-cost place to advertise an honest and necessary service. And as Laura Agustín reported, a group of 36 clergymen took out a full-page ad in the October 25th New York Times to make the same demand. Their “open letter” begins with the spectacularly asinine statement “It is a basic fact of the moral universe that girls and boys should not be sold for sex”; I’ve already pointed out the absurdity of the phrase “sold for sex” above, and Laura Agustín says the rest perfectly:
There are no rules of the moral universe because there is no moral universe, even about children and sex, not to mention about the exchange of money for sex. The idea that there is some absolute place where everyone will agree on morality is an illusion held by some people with little imagination, who universalise their own experiences. On top of that fantasy they build campaigns in which all other moral senses are turned into crime, sin and perversity.
Dr. Agustín also called attention to this Huffington Post coverage of the story, illustrated with a picture of Demi Moore exploiting an old Indian woman for her publicity. I wonder if she asked the woman to move into position for the photo? If so, the woman was “trafficked”. And if Moore paid her, she was “sold for publicity”. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? And to those of us who recognize that sex isn’t some magical sacred taboo which destroys anyone who uses it in a way prudes pronounce “wrong”, the mythology of “sex trafficking” sounds just as stupid…no matter how many people believe it.
I got into a debate with a friend the other day who claims that America’s decline is due to “moral decline”.
I think that’s silly – first of all, it assumes we were somehow more “moral” in the past than we are today. I don’t believe that’s true, I think we were more “hypocritical” in the old days. Americans engaged in activities in private which they condemned publicly.
And there’s the assumption that a more moral society is somehow superior.
The Romans famously gave us the “vomitorium”. They were the biggest, and harshest slave traders to ever walk this planet. They entertained citizens with gladiatorial games and Christian executions and apparently even mass rapes.
Yet the Roman Empire survived as the dominant force on the planet for hundreds of years – much longer than the American Empire has.
Not saying we should emulate the worst parts of Roman society in hopes of achieving their greatness – I’m just saying I can’t see a connection here between morality and the success of a society here.
But yet … on the whole, our society does subscribe to the belief that enforcing morality will improve the society.
And … that notion is about to blow up in everyone’s faces here.
The war on drugs has led to countless deaths and the rise of very dangerous cartels. Now, with “Operation Fast And Furious” – we see our own government violating it’s own laws to put guns in the hands of these cartels for some insane reason. Clearly – the war on drugs hasn’t made our government more moral in the way it fights that war.
The Information Revolution has also blown up in the Government’s face in it’s various wars on immorality. Backpage.com? Backpage can simply move “offshore” where it’s untouchable by US regulations. I place online bets for fun on intrade.com – which is based in Ireland. Even though no US credit card company will allow intrade charges against their cards – I have an international prepaid debit card for that.
My point is – now that this stuff is all “networked” internationally – there is no way the government can police this stuff – yet they spend millions attempting to and failing.
I’m also catching up on the “Caprica” serious from Syfi. In that series, they have these “holo-bands” which allow people to go into virtual worlds and engage in all kinds of activity like drug use, sex, violence …
I have no doubt all that is coming and … LOL – how will the government “police” “virtual vice”???
Krulac,
Here is an interesting perspective on violence by Steven Pinker.
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/05/the-decline-in-violence/
Maggie,
But, But, surely 20 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong????
This approach to “child” sex trafficking mirrors the hysteria about “children” being killed by guns – when the “children” in question were actually teenagers in gangs. Minors killed by guns would have been more honest but would not have had the emotional impact the hoplophobes were looking for. Especially since the circumstances of those killings were omitted.
This is a little like the statistic that you are most likely to be killed by someone in your family. This is a reversal of cause and effect. It’s not that you are most likely to be killed by someone in your family, it is that killers also have families that are convenient targets.
“The Romans famously gave us the “vomitorium”. They were the biggest, and harshest slave traders to ever walk this planet.”
While I have little patience with the Victorian British fetish for Roman Virtues, I seriously doubt that the Romans were more harsh than The West African trade to the cities of Islam, and I question their supremacy on volume as well. I’d believe it if presented with some comparative numbers, mind, but it feels wrong.
Well, I believe that historians estimate the Arab Slave Trade enslaved about 16-18 million people between 600 AD and 1900 AD?
Roman Republic began around 500 BC? Roman Empire collapsed around 400 AD? So around a thousand years for both and, I’d argue that the slavery in Rome in 50 BC was harsher than slavery in Saudi Arabia in 1800.
As far as numbers of Roman slaves – it’s said that Caesar took 500,000 Gauls as slaves just during the nine or so years of the Gallic Wars. Estimates are that 30% of the population of Rome were slaves in the year 1 AD. Rome endured three servile wars.
But – in the end … does it really matter? I think the point I was trying to make is that Rome was a successful and influential society in spite of it’s moral flaws.
So much wrong about Roman society.
476 AD is when last western roman emperor fell, and is accepted date for collapse of western half. Roman Empire fell in 1453 with fall of capital to Ottoman Empire.
vomitorium doesn’t work that way. Just entrance to sports stadium.
While extremely large slave traders, Roman slavery was far less brutal than many other forms of slavery. Slaves had many rights and freedom wasn’t out of their reach.
The slavery we are most familiar with, the kind practiced in the south was probably the most brutal in the world.
I know this is three years late, but I can’t believe nobody has corrected this. A vomitorium isn’t what you think it is. Almost everybody reading this column, especially sports fans have used a vomitorium.
A vomitorium is not a place set aside for people to vomit or puke after drinking too much. It’s an archway in an ampitheatre or stadium that enables people to enter or leave the building quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium
The Indian lady in the pic is Anuradha Koirala, she was voted cnn’s hero of the year a year ago. She runs Maiti Nepal. And Maiti Nepal is terrible. You should read about their “prevention homes”, and I once read that they “arrange marriages” for the rescued girls with “willing men” from their home countries, as long as the men are willing to pay a fee. Sounds kinda sexually exploitative and even trafficky to me.
Here in Hong Kong we have a sizeable Nepalese community, and the name of Maiti Nepal and its personnel are mud here. Ninety-nine percent of our Nepalese Hongkongers retain links to their old country, and mainly because of that, they are very ‘with it’ about NGOs back in the old country.
Well, you know, trafficking and exploitation – even sexual exploitation – are perfectly acceptable as long as governments and other “moral” people do it. Same as if you kill somebody it’s “murder”, but if government operatives murder someone it’s “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses” or “a tragic mistake”. And if I take money without permission from someone it’s “theft”, but if the government does it’s “taxation” or “asset forfeiture” or a “levy”.
A few more:
Crime lord = politician
Thug = police officer
Turf = country
Kidnapping = arrest
Threats = laws
Okay, I got a question for you and Maggie (as the dictatrix). I won’t dispute that at times those analogies are valid, but are you arguing that they all need to be done away with? If you are, what would you have in their place?
It seems to me that there are way to0 many people in this world to not have some of those things, though definitely not as many as we do now.
What I’m saying is the George Washington was right: “Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” We need to treat all government power, especially police powers, like fire or radioactive material: necessary but extremely dangerous, to be contained and controlled and never, ever allowed to get out of tightly-defined boundaries. Government officials need to be held personally responsible for their actions, and if found guilty of stepping outside legitimate lines need to be severely punished; those who commit crimes as citizens (i.e. ordinary theft versus legally-sanctioned theft) should be subject to penalties three times that of ordinary citizens, so they can serve as examples rather than trying to make examples of others.
You find the *best* quotations, Maggie! Dang! That is a fantastic mot by Unlying George.
I used your recent Picasso gem to good effect in a wildly different context.
Thanks.
You’re very welcome. 🙂
Speaking of tragic vs other equivocations, here is a politically balanced example. It’s an example of balance by iteration.
…
George W. Bush is visiting a primary school and he visits one of the classes. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the President if he would like to lead the discussion of the word “tragedy.”
So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a tragedy. One little boy stands up and offers: “If my best friend who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy.”
“No,” says President Bush, “that would be an accident.”
A little girl raises her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”
“I’m afraid not,” explains the exalted leader. “That’s what we would call a great loss.”
The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Bush searches the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”
Finally at the back of the room, little Johnny raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says: “If Air Force One carrying you was struck by a missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.”
“Fantastic!” exclaims President Bush, “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?”
“Well,” says the boy, “because it sure as hell wouldn’t be a great loss and it probably wouldn’t be an accident either.”
…
Once Bill Clinton visited a elementary school to talk to a group of 3rd graders. He said to them, “Today we are going to discuss the difference between a tragedy, a great loss and an accident”. Then he said, “Can anyone give me an example of a tragedy?”
A little boy raises his hand and says, “If a kid runs out in the street after a ball and gets hit by a car.” Clinton says, “No, that would be an accident. Can anyone else try?” A little girl raises her hand and says, “If a busload of kids drove off a cliff.” Clinton says, “No, that would be a great loss. Come on, anyone else?”
A boy raises his hand and says and says, “If you and Mrs. Clinton was on a plane and it blew up.” Then Clinton says, “Well, Yes, but can you tell me why it would be considered a tragedy?” And the little boy says, “Well, it wouldn’t have been an accident, and it sure as heck wouldn’t have been a great loss.”
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” Voltaire
You’ve reminded me of one of my college professors (yeah, I did go to college for like … five days or something) … anyway – he was from Pakistan and taught Biology …
He was a single guy … then sent home to Pakistan for bride and they sent him one out. However, after a couple of years it turned out that she couldn’t have kids.
I don’t know – maybe she was still under “warranty” or something but he sent her back to Pakistan and another lady was sent out to him and they got right down to business having kids!
Trafficking.
This is like, totally unnecessary tbh coz the comment is almost a decade old, but say whatever you want about Islam, they treat marriage as the legally binding socio-economic contract it is. Centuries before western countries invented the modern pre-nup, Muslims contractually decided “bride price” to be paid in the event of divorce, parental rights, inheritance, & so on. So they’re traditionally very pragmatic when it comes to divorce in the event that any of the underlying pre-requisites (like kids) end up being unfulfilled. Divorce simply doesn’t carry as much of a stigma as it does in other cultures.
re: ‘legal minors’ = children
Military recruitment in the UK and the USA accepts enlistees from 16 years old – are these children?
re: [Your headline]
Two perspectives about the ‘lawheadedness’ of policy and law wonks:
1. Hitler et al were democratically elected on the strength of their Nazi manifesto. Last time I checked, the German public at the time were dead wrong.
2. A Hong Kong/Chinese perspective: In the 1840s-60s, there had been a genocidal war in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong between the Toishan and Hakka tribes/clans that went on for 25 years or so. Each side chose to bump off the other side by majority agreement (democracy?).
Other perspectives:
3. In my legal experience, legal equality is easier to handle than actual equality. Actual equality requires the person to be dispassionate and sensible when looking at the issues. Neo-feminist, anti-feminist and various clerical camps aren’t interested in examining the issues to look for solutions – theirs are to lobby people to believe in their causes, whatever the hell that might be. Legal equality, by virtue of being legislated somewhere, is a comfy cop-out because some statute is readily available to be interpreted as ‘the authority.’ No thinking necessary. For those in law enforcement, you are paid the same regardless of performance, so you can take the piss.
4. re: passive voice
Anyone who’s ever paid attention in English Language class will have been taught that the passive voice can be used to hide intention. Enough said.
5. In my own legal experience, it is a rare thing to see a law-enforcement person to protect and restore justice/fairness and not latch on to a case for career enhancement. In my experience, most people in the criminal justice system in any country (including mine) aren’t particularly interested in criminal justice in the full sense of the word, mainly because they’re not particularly able by frame of mind to understand the whys and wherefores of what they do. Enough said.
6. My own personal feeling is this: save whoever needs to be saved. Don’t save just because of some disembodied statute telling us that so-and-so sector of community should or needs to be saved. In my own legal experience, some people branded as ‘to be saved’ have never been danger and need no saving. It is easier to save those who aren’t in danger than those who actually are: witness the fact that many social workers gravitate towards habilitating walking-and-talking-able-bodied teen drug abusers than towards helping half-cripped, half-paralysed, half-rotted-away disabled persons. Again, you are paid the same regardless of performance in law enforcement and social work.
Thank you for allowing my twopence worth.
I see ads for goods for sale in the papers all the time, and on Craig’s list. Think none of those goods are dodgy? Well, if even ONE AD flogs stolen goods, then we should shut ALL classified ads down, right?
Really? Are we that crazy?
Look, I spent most my working life in one part of the sex business or another, and no, I never had a pimp. Not once. Oh, I suppose if you’re really reaching, you could claim the escort agencies as pimps, or the modeling agency I got porn work through as pimps, because they did get paid, but I was free to quit at any time. I’ve met very few girls who had pimps. The ones who did (at least in my opinion) were mostly married to them.
When I was first on my own, it was difficult to get proper work. I had a good fake ID but no social security number. (Didn’t have them in the UK, and when I got here as a teen I didn’t know I needed one and my family didn’t bother. So yes, I did have to do a few “street dates” before I got that all sorted. Odd thing was that “legitimate” employers were quite willing to give my ID a quick glance and hire me to serve alcohol while underage but a strip club wouldn’t.
If kids are being “trafficked” then I’m against it, and sorry for them. I’d like to see it stopped. I don’t want to see anyone forced into sex work against their will. But I don’t think we need to burn the house to catch the rat, either.
God that Demi Moore photo……urgh!
There was a huge guff-fest on the BBC last night in regards to coca production and child labour. Even though the original title of the piece was about appalling working conditions you could tell that the actual focus was on kids working with their parents rather than going to school.
The Beeb gave it the full shocked whitey treatment furious that these kids weren’t getting enough schooling, which isn’t a bad thing, but when there’s no money in going to school (and hardly any schools around) and when you’ve got to work to live you can’t afford to NOT work…you can bet that the message will soon be “live like westerners or suffer” in the form of banning kids from working alongside their parents.
Also taking a note out of Demi and Ashton’s book, EVERY shot of a poor deprived child looked… conveniently…miserable.
It’s true (whoever said it) that colonialism never went away it just got really subtle.
“Democracy is the theory that the Common Man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it good and hard” H. L. Mencken
Who, BTW, had some interesting things to say about Whores in his autobiographical writings. See in particular “The Girl From Red Lion PA” from his NEWSPAPER DAYS.
That said, I see no evidence from history that government according to the whim of the Democracy is notably worse than rule by an Intellectual, Moral, Social, or Political Elite.
A popular joke in Italy is that a middle-aged man who lusts after 21-year-old women is a “pedophile.” The vlaue of such deceptive rethoric is that it keeps children and young people dependent (i.e. ignornant) and under the control of their “betters.” Children and young people are always free to do what adults want them to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f1o16twvuk
(Sorry for the self-promotion, but I’m feeling a bit neglected.)
Sorry to get off topic but I’ve heard numerous times that Lucille Ball of I Love Lucy was a prostitute before she made it big. Was that long standing rumor true?
Obviously I’m sure many Hollywood actresses in the Golden Age of Hollywood(and today) were call girls but I was just wondering if that rumor of Lucille was true. I’ve heard it more than once.
I’ve never heard that about Lucy, though I have about Mae West. The professions of actress and prostitute were indistinguishable until the Victorian Era, when they began to diverge; some 19th-century actresses weren’t prostitutes at all, and a larger number were halfway whores or mistresses of wealthy men (Mae West falls into that category). It wasn’t until the appearance of film that acting became entirely distinct from prostitution, and even now the crossover between the professions is extremely high; actresses who capitalize on their looks alone and/or do lots of nude/sex scenes are essentially prostitutes, and porn actresses are straight-out whores.
Exactly I’ve always been appalled by actresses that talk about, and are involved in kissing and sexual scenes in film that seem to think because they are acting that they are not whores.
Even though that it is true that they are acting, they are still essentially being involved with a person who they aren’t dating or married to, in order for some kind of compensation.
Its like providers that talk about how they aren’t “hoes” and act like they are above whoring and say things like “I’m not a ho, I’m just doing this to get me through school”. “I am not a ho because I pick and choose who I see…I don’t see everyone”. “Whores get paid by the hour….I don’t”
Its almost comical how they justify and believe it too.
>Its like providers that talk about how they aren’t “hoes” and act like they are above whoring
OH how that always just drove me mad. The whole “I’m better than you because I do or don’t do blah blah blah.” That delusional mindset. I’ve seen incredible logical gymnastics employed to avoid the dread label of whore. The whole “I’m better than you” bollocks.
I’ve been told by some of those stuck-up bitches that I was “just nasty” because my range of services was wider than theirs. Rather crazy and self0-delusional I always thought.
I don’t know what makes people want to think they are better than others, but it always peeves me.
Comixchik isn’t it ironic that many of the biggest prudes happen to be call girls? Lol.
I’ve heard about providers going crazy if you want to feel their hair somewhat while they are “pleasing” you. I can understand getting upset if you are aggressively yanking on their hair….but just lightly touching or feeling? And it goes for BOTH upscale and lower end providers.
Obviously I’m not talking about all providers but it is amazing and ironic how many woman think like this. Especially strippers that think that they are not whoring.
>”and porn actresses are straight-out whores.”
Really? I’ve known a few who would strongly disagree with that. I recall a friend who was in the business back in the early 80’s. She said many times that she would do porn, but would never be a prostitute.She was very determined about that. As far as I know she kept to that, although it’s true, it’s not uncommon not to. Her reasoning was that as a performer, she was paid to fuck, but not by the person she was fucking, and he (or she) too was paid, whereas a whore was paid to fuck the person paying, provide a direct sexual service, she was paid to provide an erotic performance.
And I can kind of see that. In porn, the final product isn’t the sexual satisfaction of the performers. far from it. It’s the performance, the documentation. In porn, it doesn’t count if the camera doesn’t catch it. in whoring, the product is the sexual satisfaction of the client. Oh I well understand that whoring is a performance too. But the approach is different. I suppose like movie acting vs, being in a play,
Now I’ve always had a whore brain, I always said I’m paid to fuck so it doesn’t matter who’s paying and who’s fucking.
I suppose if your definition is that anyone paid for a sexual service is a whore, even if the person paying isn’t receiving that service, is a whore, then you’re right. Do you consider strippers whores too?
I’ve always found the “whorearchy” rather pathetic: “Oh, I’m not a whore because I’m not paid by the hour”, or “I’m selective about my clients”, or “I’m paid by a third party.” Whatever. As an escort I was sometimes not paid by the hour, or I was paid to put on a show and the client wasn’t directly involved; I was still a whore. I would define a “sex worker” as someone who uses sex to get money, and a prostitute as someone who actually has sex for money (including dominatrices and porn actresses). It’s all this hair-splitting which has allowed the prohibitionists to suppress us for as long as they have, a fact which I address in this coming Wednesday’s column. Gay rights activists concentrated on coalition-building, bringing many groups together under one umbrella; meanwhile the various species of whore concentrate on how they’re different from each other. The result after four decades? Gay marriage and criminalized, infantilized whores.
And really, it’s not like in the business there are firm boundaries that no one crosses. During my career, I stripped, did porn, and hooked. Of those, I probably liked porn the best, and hooking was the hardest work. (Seriously, it was.) I don’t think that’s all that uncommon. It’s usually stripping ==> porn ==> hooking.
So yes, I think you’re right there, and we are deluding ourselves if we think otherwise.
>Comixchik isn’t it ironic that many of the biggest prudes happen to be call girls? Lol.
Yeah, I’ve seen that. I suspect it’s just good capitalism, give the least amount of product for the most money. That or some weird idea, some internalized hatred of the whore, that if somehow, there are lines they don’t cross, then they are still “good girls.”
>I’ve heard about providers going crazy if you want to feel their hair somewhat while they are “pleasing” you.
Takes a lot of time to get your hair just so, and you don’t want someone messing that up if you’ve another appointment half an hour after.Plus, some use hair pieces, or extensions. I never bothered with all that, figuring that the men would mess up my hair. I didn’t like men ejaculating in my hair unless it was the last client of the day, because I didn’t want to have to rush to re-wash and dry before the next client. Since I usually let the client control the thrust, they usually had their hands in my hair.
Years ago when I had access to newsgroups,* I read this rant which ended with (close as I can recall exact words): “Porn performers like to think that they are better than high-class prostitutes, but the sad truth is they’re not.”
I wrote back that I fully agreed that porn performers are no better than high-class prostitutes, but that I didn’t see what was so sad about that. Why does anybody need to be “better than” a person who provides an honest service for an honest price? The answer I got was something to the effect that prostitution is bad, so porn is too, but exactly why either is bad wasn’t addressed.
This was before I’d ever read a word Maggie wrote, so while I’ve learned a lot from her, I take a little pride in having figured out the foundational fact before I had an expert handy to consult. 😉
* I lost access to newsgroups because Time Warner quite providing such access as a part of it’s Internet service. I could have such access again, by paying another company $15 a month. Funny thing is, my TW bill didn’t go down $15 when they stopped providing the service that costs that much. 🙁