A man’s jealousy is a social institution; a woman’s prostitution is an instinct. – Karl Kraus
What is it about the end of the year and prostitution-related news? Last year saw an explosion of such stories after mid-November, so that I ended up doing a number of miscellanea columns between then and Christmas; one year ago today “Bits and Pieces (Part One)” appeared, featuring Derrick Burts’ self-outing, a Melissa Petro follow-up, the duplicitous Annie Lobert of “Hookers for Jesus” and an astonishingly ignorant “child sex trafficking” story from NPR. Well, this year was much the same; I had so many short articles I had to spread them across six different columns! Don’t worry, I won’t throw them at you all in a row; we’ll start with a two-part update column and a miscellanea column on Sunday, then save the others for the end of next week.
Think of the Children! (September 30th, 2010)
The list of teachers “outed” as porn actors continues to grow; first Tera Myers, then Benedict Garrett, and now Kevin Hogan of Malden, Massachusetts, whose stage name was “Hytch Cawke”. But if reporter Mike Beaudet of WFXT in Boston imagined he would be hailed as a hero for exposing the dirty porn-making fag lurking in our schools to corrupt innocent children, I’m sure he was unpleasantly surprised. Oh, he was easily able to find the usual assortment of sheeple to bleat out quotes like “I’m disturbed. I’m surprised…This is scary” and “he’s teaching our children. Everyday. It does bother me a lot.” But take a look at the comments on the story, which are not only overwhelmingly defensive of a person’s right to do (legal) sex work, but also overwhelmingly condemnatory of the TV station and reporter. Beaudet actually went on the air the next day to defend his actions, probably because there’s a “Support Kevin Hogan, FIRE Mike Beaudet” Facebook page and a Fire Mike Beaudet petition at Change.org. I don’t believe for one second that the furor would be this strong if the teacher were a heterosexual woman, or if Hogan had been a gay prostitute rather than a gay porn actor, but any vociferous public support for any flavor of “sex work is work” is a huge step in the right direction.
An Older Profession Than You May Have Thought (October 12th, 2010)
In this post I explained that in some species of cricket, males give females large bags of low-quality food as their payment for sex; I compared them to human clients who pad their pay envelopes with low-denomination bills hidden among the large ones. Well, this November 13th article from Physorg.com introduces us to the arthropod equivalent of clients who try to cheat hookers with envelopes full of worthless paper strips:
Male nursery web spiders (Pisaura mirabilis) prepare silk-wrapped gifts to give to potential mates. Most gifts contain insects, but some gifts are inedible plant seeds or empty exoskeletons left after the prey has already been eaten…New research…examines the reproductive success of deceitful males and shows that females are not impressed by worthless gifts. [In the experiment] male spiders were provided with either a potential gift of a fly, or a worthless item, such as a cotton wool ball, a dry flower head, a prey leftover (previously eaten housefly), or no gift at all. All the gifts were approximately the same size, so the females would not be able to tell what the gift was without unwrapping it. Males that offered any gift were more likely to successfully mate than males without. However the length of time the females allowed males with worthless gifts to spend transferring sperm was shorter than those with edible gifts (and even shorter for those with no gift at all!) It appears that both male and female spiders are apparently able to assess the value of the gift and modify their behavior accordingly…Maria Albo who led the research explained, “The evolution of male deceit involves a complex equation of costs and benefits. It costs the males to find and wrap a gift, but these costs can be reduced if the male does not have to first catch his gift, or gives one that has already been eaten. The benefit of the gift is longer mating, which leads to more sperm being transferred, and potentially a higher number of offspring. However, the females are wise to deception and terminate mating early for worthless gifts”…
Keep this in mind next time some neofeminist tries to tell you that gender-based human sexual behavior is “socially constructed”.
No Other Option (October 17th, 2010)
Most severely-disabled men and many whose handicap is less severe are completely unable to acquire sex by noncommercial means, so prostitutes are their only recourse. Neofeminist fanatics declare that sex is not a “need” and that such a transaction still constitutes “male oppression”, but sane, moral, decent people know better and fortunately many whores are happy to help these men experience sex. A newly-released documentary named Scarlet Road follows an Australian professional who specializes in helping disabled clients:
Australian sex worker Rachel Wotton works with many clients who have disabilities. Her work has become the subject of the latest documentary from award-winning director Catherine Scott and producer Pat Fiske. Filmed over a three-year period, Scarlet Road follows Rachel in her relationship with John, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 26 years ago, and Mark, a client with cerebral palsy. It reveals the therapeutic aspects of human touch and sexual intimacy. This unique documentary gives voice to two men generously sharing moments of sexual self-discovery. “People with disability are not seen as sexual beings and on the other hand sex workers are often portrayed as oversexed, victims or damaged goods. I really wanted to tackle these stereotypes head on”…Scarlet Road shows Rachel in her daily life and follows her on a journey to the UK, Denmark and Sweden, where she meets with sex workers, people with disabilities and their families, as well as making quite an impression as a speaker at the World Congress for Sexual Health.
Aphrodite bless Rachel and her work; I’ve added a link to her charity, Touching Base, to my “Resources” box at the right.
Interview: Jill Brenneman (starting February 21st, 2011)
On December 2nd our friend Jill spoke at the Sex Worker Summit in Asheville, North Carolina hosted by the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition and several other organizations (including New Orleans’ own Women With a Vision). Local newspaper Mountain Xpress covered the event and according to Jill even got it mostly right. I don’t have a lot of hope for North Carolina becoming a center for sex worker rights in the U.S., but I’d love to be proven wrong!
Validation (May 25th, 2011)
“Even when one already knows something, it’s good to get validation from others. And when one is beset by enemies on all sides, particularly ruthless enemies who are willing not only to lie but to distort or completely fabricate bogus “research” to support their lies, every extra bit of academic research which soundly supports one’s position is another arrow in one’s quiver.” So I was quite pleased to see this November 11th article on the Migrants’ Rights Network; we’ve seen this study before in my November 15th column, but this article mentions a different aspect:
A new study on migration and trafficking in the UK sex industry has challenged the idea that trafficking is the main factor in trapping people in exploitative and abusive employment. Based on a survey of 100 people of migrant background involved in the industry, [Dr Nick Mai of the Institute for the Study of European Transformations (ISET)] has found that a majority of them had not been forced or trafficked into the profession…[and that] difficulties in exercising rights…were more likely to come from the issue of official immigration status than from forced labour. Many of the workers had entered the industry because the alternative employment available to them was likely to be more exploitative and unrewarding than sex work. They also felt that the stigmatisation of the profession had a negative impact on their personal lives…[and that] criminalisation of clients…[would] not reduce demand or exploitation but [would] mean more insecurity for migrants working in the industry. The report argues that better strategies to combat negative aspects of the industry would…[include allowing] migrants to become and remain legally documented…[allowing] the industry [to] operate legally…[and providing] victims of trafficking the right to remain in the country and the long-term support needed for integration.
This information needs to be pounded directly into the skull of every career politician and cop in the United Kingdom, United States and every other country which uses “human trafficking” as an excuse to persecute whores and/or our clients and partners.
By the looks of that FOX link you posted Kevin Hogan did do some “cock for cash” gay films so I don’t think his teaching career is going to last even if he was a straight pornstar.
One silver lining I guess is that at least he can join forces with Sasha Grey to show to the bigots that sex workers actually can read and, like, understand long wurds.
Oh wait, disregard the first sentence…..*is tired*
On spiders and sex:
I’s not so much specifically human biosocial programming hat makes sex roles and behaviors gendered. it’s the mathematics of sex and game theory.
Women have wombs; men do not. This brutal logic means sex for every single species that is not hermaphroditic is going to be the same; Males must gain access to wombs. This is the hard, vicious logic of sex.
It means all males everywhere will always be buyers. All females everywhere will always be sellers. This is not just true for humans; it’s true for every living thing with such a setup.
If feminists don’t like it, they can opt to join another species of life. Better choose something without gender at all.
On politicians and immigration and sex trafficking: They will never change. The fembots that pretend to have sex workers’ rights at heart play into the hands of men and women who want social control. its all about social control.
I suspect the advocates for prohibition know this. They’re not defending women in sex work. They don’t fundamentally care about that. I suspect they’re defending middle-class women and their own self-images, not down and out women at all.
Oh, they talk the talk, but they rarely do anything to give these women jobs commensurate in freedom and income in exchange for drumming them out of the sex trade.
It’s like calls to ban pornography or beauty in advertisements. It’s not about fighting exploitation and commodification of women. It’s about raising their own social status: men who are more sexually free to seek redress elsewhere are a danger to female control over the men in their lives; hence whores as gender-traitors. They break the union contract, and are in effect scabs and strikebreakers in the eternal war against male reproductive/sexual rights in favor of female rights. In the same way, women being free to acquire outside sperm and stiff the wrong man for the bill is an assault on men, as well, but this is usually legal; and the imprisoning of women to remove their choice is the same response from men. it’s all about sex/reproductive needs and the differences between the male and female interests.
One person I know says it best. All calls for the reform of beauty standards or sexual repression are designed to give the complainant more power in the sexual marketplace come the revolution.
You might be right about the ran and file, but IMHO neofeminist leaders don’t care about sexual power; they just care about political power, and this is their way of getting it.
The rank and file are clueless. I had the opportunity to relieve a female enlisted Sailor as the CMC of a Navy ship. Now, we didn’t have too many women in that position in the Navy so this woman was one of those “trail blazers”. As such, she felt she needed to subscribe to certain tenants of neofeminist dogma.
During our relief process … she told me … “Don’t ever take the ship to Thailand.”
I asked her why not and she responded … “Well, YOU can take it there – but I lost a lot of respect for men when we went there.”
Now, I just let that statement hang out there and continued on to another topic. I think I could have explained the facts of life to her but I really didn’t know enough about her at the time to know how she’d take it. She was also moving up to the echelon above me, working for my Captain’s boss – and I really didn’t want to taint her opinions of me with a … “Whores? Yeah I done ’em!” speech. However, it would have been nice if SOMEONE tried to talk to her about it – because she DID go on to very important jobs in the Navy at even higher echelons – and she took those thoughts with her and they, no doubt, colored her leadership in those position and the advice she gave to Flag Officers. And Flag Officers really decide where ships pull into – and what the crew is allowed to do there – and how much liberty they will have. So she had this kind of influence, and that influence resulted in policies that placed a lot more restrictions on the already limited liberties of the Sailors (of both genders) … in the Pacific Fleet. I know this – because later, she and I fought over the phone about those policies.
She did not understand men – she was married, but she got divorced within a year after I relieved her on that ship. I think, how did she cope with this loss of respect for men? And the only answer I can come up with is … she probably sought shelter by diving even deeper into the neofeminist dogma, because – to her, what she had seen of male conduct in Thailand validated that dogma.
I think this woman was a good person – even though she was “rank and file” neofeminist on most all issues. It would be nice to figure out a way to save these individuals – because I think there are a lot of them in the neofeminist rank and file. They’re just gravitating to the doctrine that “makes sense” to them – and the only reason it makes sense is because it’s the only doctrine that has the volume turned up to “11” right now.
Seriously? She didn’t think there was link between sailors and prostitutes before she saw for herself? From exactly what planet is she visiting?
Planet Shore Duty.
Not her fault … she joined the service in the late 70’s when we had no women at sea. All of her experience was at shore duty commands – she never stepped on a ship but after DACOWITS and Congress ordered the ships to be “integrated” – we suddenly needed senior women on these ships to act as role models for the younger women that were coming aboard.
She did a one year “introductory” tour on a ship as a counselor – and then she was assigned to the highest enlisted position on a Navy ship.
Not optimum by any means. And, what it meant was – that all she had was classroom “training” to go by – training on how things SHOULD be – rather than practical knowledge of how they actually are. Unfortunately – the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) writes the books on how things SHOULD be. Within the walls of DEOMI Headquarters, I’ve no doubt you could find a bust or a painting – or at least a picture of Melissa Farley. I fell for a lot of snake oil salesmen when I was in the Navy – I was by no means the brightest bulb in the box – but I am proud that I never fell for DEOMI’s propaganda – and even fought them and sometimes won.
Tbh if I didn’t have any stake in keeping a professional relationship with her I would have said “if you and the other female officers are prepared to spread your legs for half the ship, then be my guest. No? Well shut the fuck up then.”
Yeah, diplomacy isn’t my strong point. 🙂
1 of the reasons that too many men are sexually frustrated is because of the snobbery of some women. If the men don’t have a certain amount of $, then forget them! They’re not “good enough” to even have a sex only friendship with. If they don’t have enough of the almighty $’s then they don’t deserve sex. Every man is seen as a potential provider even though these women are able-bodied and can work to pay their own bills. Or they’re seen and used as literal “banks” while the hypocrite liar women put on an act (flirting, complimenting the men, etc.) with NO intention of giving them sex. They just put on their evil act to get gifts, etc., and never follow through. Disgusting. Yes, some women are at fault for sexually frustrated men. But, the positive needs to be mentioned: there are 1’s who don’t do this and without them things would be worse.
So, is it equally wrong for men to refuse to have long-term relationships with women to whom they aren’t attracted? It does take two to tango, you know, and it’s not “wrong” for anyone to do what he needs to do in order to achieve personal satisfaction, and if that’s different from your idea of personal satisfaction it doesn’t automatically make that person “evil”.
I wasn’t talking about attraction. I was talking about money. Yes, I know the wonderful world system says it’s OK for women to lie, give men compliments, etc., to get $’s, gifts, free meals and drinks, etc. when they have no intent of following through with sex even though they flirt, etc. The system says it’s also OK to literally use men as BANKS even if women don’t flirt. I’m convinced it’s evil and arrogant and I hate it and always will. This doesn’t automatically mean I’m out ordering anyone around, OK? This doesn’t automatically mean I’m “out to get” those who do it. I just don’t want ANY part of it EVER. That’s my choice and my view and if I’m convinced it’s evil that’s my right. When people say they’re convinced something is evil it doesn’t always mean they’re “out to get” people, OK? I’m convinced drugs are evil (EXCEPT to use for REAL health problems) but I’m not literally out there ordering anyone around. I just won’t be around it. I hate the belief (taught by the world system) that if men don’t have a certain amount of $ they’re not deserving of sex. As far as long-term relationships go if women want to pay their own way and NOT see EVERY man they meet as a potential provider then more power to them. If they’re not ordering anyone else around (like I do) then that’s their business. I love that they’re going against the world system that sees the ONLY value in ANYONE as the $’s they have.
Just because you aren’t attracted to men with money doesn’t mean other women aren’t, just as men who dig personality have no right to claim that male attraction to big tits isn’t real. Attraction is attraction, and we can’t help whom we’re attracted to or for what reason. A woman who is attracted to men for their money is on exactly the same moral ground as one who is attracted for their power, looks or personality; as long as she treats them fairly and honestly there is no ethical difference.
That’s the important thing. “as long as she treats them fairly and honestly there is no ethical difference.”
I might not want to date a woman because she’s a Luddite or because she just doesn’t turn me on. If I pretend to like her so I can get in good with her influential family, then I’m a jerk. If I just stay away from her, then I just have my own tastes, and she doesn’t meet them.
If she isn’t attracted to me because I’m too short or too tall or don’t have money or pick my nose with my toenails,* then fine. But don’t play games with me. That makes her a bitch.
* This is just a hypothetical example. How flexible do you think I am?
Again, I was talking about sexually frustrated men in general, not relationships.
I’ve NEVER said I’m not attracted to men with money. What the ? I’ve said at least twice on here that if Sailor Barsoom had been a millionaire when I met him I still would have wanted a relationship with him. Also said at least twice that with my sex only friends that the $’s they had was never a factor (I did that on purpose) and that some of them were way richer than me. Again, I wasn’t talking about relationships in my 1st remark. I was talking about men being sexually frustrated IN GENERAL and that 1 reason for that is snobbery. Please don’t pretend there’s not women in the world that if a man doesn’t have a certain amount of $ she won’t have him as a sex only friend and/or even go out with him. There’s women that won’t even have a non-sexual friendship with men if they’re unemployed, don’t have a certain amount of $ if they ARE working, etc. All the talk brought in about relationships is a distraction from this. Also, if it’s OK for women to have whatever relationships they want as long as they’re fair and honest, then why are women like the “sugar babies” downed? I personally hate the sugar baby thing, but 1 thing I like about them is that they’re honest with the men up front. Why do they have to be put in the category boxes of they’re really whores, all women are really whores, etc., when they say themselves they don’t want to be in these boxes?
Why do they have to be put in the category box of ALL women are really whores…sorry, it’s early.
Laura, it is other women’s RIGHT to have sex with men for whatever reasons they think best; your values are not superior to theirs except in your personal morality. You are not morally superior to a whore, professional or semi-.
If feminists don’t like it, they can opt to join another species of life. Better choose something without gender at all.
You know they’d LOVE that! But they’d rather turn humans into genderless, shapeless, sexless, passionless, emotionless, sacks of blah.
And Maggie, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for not including a picture of the spider with the article. 🙂 Did you attend the summit, Maggie?
I did want to, but I found out about it too late to make plans. Well, perhaps next time; I’m thinking about going to the Desiree Alliance convention this summer.
I hope to go to DA this summer too. Where is it going to be this time?
I wanted to go to the one in Vegas, but just couldn’t get the money together, which really upset me. i wanted to reconnect with all the people I met at the conference here in Chicago. Hopefully we’ll meet this summer!
Last I heard this summer’s will be in Chicago, so your only fees would be whatever the actual conference fees are. 😉
Even better! If that’s the case, I’ll contact Serpent and see what I can do to help out since I’m already here.
Seconded. Spiders, ug. [shudder]
Laura, it is other women’s RIGHT to have sex with men for whatever reasons they think best; your values are not superior to theirs except in your personal morality. You are not morally superior to a whore, professional or semi-.-the things I’m going to list below don’t have ANY “superior things” in them at ALL (lol): whores are the only 1`s who help disabled men sexually (WRONG and I have links to prove it and I prove it also by my own experiences); whores are the only honest 1’s in the sexual area; women who don’t become full-on whores aren’t “brave enough” to; women who don’t take money for sex for philosophical reasons, etc., are either literally stupid or wilfully stupid for not charging a cent and ALL women are whores no matter what they think, do, say, etc. The last 1 CAN BE (note I’m saying CAN, not automatically IS) a nicer way of saying “everyone really should be like me” and also “if everyone is really like me then it’s not so bad. Everyone’s doing it so that means it’s OK”. Also, if people REALLY think that all sexual choices are OK then women like the “sugar babies” wouldn’t be downed the way they are. People can put all kinds of labels on others but sometimes they’re not what’s real but are what people WANT those people to be (usually just like them).
Laura, I understand that you don’t intend to come across as saying that you are morally superior to others, but you do come across that way. Even I take things you say that way sometimes when you don’t mean it that way, and I know you.
Perhaps it’s time you stop getting exasperated with all the people who take what you have to say that way, and start asking yourself why they take it that way.
I really don’t intend to come across as “above it all”. But, on the asking myself why thing, I’ve been doing that for a long time. I’ve gotten some good answers (from people who care about me as a person) and have worked on it from there. Does it need more work? YES. And that work will be fully done as I have the time to do it. I think what happened here is I touched a nerve (talking about how some women NOT ALL really do don’t give men without a certain amount of $ a chance with ANYTHING) and it went from there with stuff I never said (like I’m not attracted to rich men) to Laura thinks she’s above it all. A recent thing on here that disproves that (along with many others that I’ve already listed in the past) is me saying if I had the time/money I’d love to go to the “red umbrella” events (sorry, don’t remember now the exact name of the day that the red umbrella is a symbol for). A person who thinks she “above” whores wouldn’t have the desire to even go. People AVOID the people they think they’re better than. Also, not once have I said the women like me are the ONLY 1’s who help men (disabled men, for example) out sexually, are the ONLY honest 1’s, etc. For me to do that would be disgusting as this stuff isn’t true. ALL who help need to get credit and the truth is whores don’t have a monpoly on honesty and/or helping disabled men and neither do the women like me. Thanks for listening.
The red umbrella is a symbol for sex worker rights in general; there are actually several different occasions on which it is prominently used, as I discuss in this coming Friday’s column. 🙂
Sometimes when a nerve is hit (talking about stuff that’s not popular, facts that don’t want to be heard about, etc.) then the messenger is “projected” on. “Projection” is 1 of the terms for it (it’s from psychology). A real life example: remember the 1’s at my job not long ago that said (behind my back) that I’m “negative”? From years of working with them plus what others have seen/experienced in their dealings with them they’re the 1’s that are negative and proud of it, etc. I don’t say this lightly, but there’s a lot of years full of evidence that they are. They were projecting on me THEIR negativity. They’ve seen how I’ve made progress on the job and wanted to down that.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I’ve been saying the more or less the same thing less eloquently than you have on this site, other sites and whenever I can in personal life for a while now. When you speak of seduction(Game), male-female relations, and prostitution, I’ve never found anything to disagree with you. Everyone read Gorbachev’s comments above,read as often as necessary to remember, and try to understand. Ask questions and give comments if you need, and act like no comment nor question is stupid because even if it is you’ll likely be corrected. It’s better to ask or make a stupid comment than walk around an ignorant fool no matter how painful it initially is. You may not be interested in reality, but reality is interested in you. Reality is governed by the truth and reveals the truth. You can not make up your own reality or truth, but only try to live by reality and truth. For the sake of yourselves and others seek the truth, and live within the truth and reality.
This is for maggie:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/its_time_to_legalize_prostitution/singleton/
It will be interesting to see what Maggie thinks about that … he’s proposing that a clear distinction be made between street prostitution and “indoor” prostitution.
I have a lot of respect for Weitzer; he’s produced the best hard-number studies on the subject ever (several of which I have available in PDF form). And his suggestion to differentiate street and indoor hooking is a pragmatic one; a lot of very idealistic activists get bent out of shape about it, to which i reply “Declaration of Independence”. Much as they hated to, Jefferson and his allies were forced to strike the anti-slavery clause from the Declaration in order to get the Southern colonies – without whom the war could not be won – aboard. I can tell you for a fact it’s going to be the same way for prostitution; indoor workers will have to accept what we can get, then try to help the street workers out from a position of power rather than one of criminalization.
LOL – I’m glad you liked that idea … I was afraid you might not! 😛
Well, I thought it was a good idea but, then again – I’m often accused of compromising too much.
The treatment of the former porn actor illustrates how unreasonable the anti-sex devotees are. They want people to leave the sex industry; yet when someone does make the transition to a “regular job” they are still subjected to harassment.
Exactly. As I’ve said before, they don’t care about whores; they just pretend to so the gullible won’t recognize that their entire agenda is based on hate. 🙁
That’s a very good point. Everybody who thinks that porn and prostitution are horrible lives that people should be encouraged to leave need to support Tera Myers, Benedict Garrett, and Kevin Hogan in their right to do not-sex-work. After all, if hookers should leave the life, they need something to do outside of it.
Or, you know, the anti-sex brigade could mind their own bees’ wax.
As someone who left the sex business for a straight job, I did it by totally hiding my past. I constructed a fake past, got people (respectable people) to give me references and back me up. Still, I worry. It’s always a land mine, lying there. One person sees the wrong thing, and it’s over. I even worry about posting here, about doing my comics. Still, the sex business was almost all my working life, save these last couple of years. It gave me lots of experiences, and made me who I am. (In a good way. It made me more independent, more of a thinker, kid of civilized me.)
It wouldn’t matter that I’d do my job just as well after they found out about my porn and whoring past as I did before. I’m certain almost any company would get rid of me.
That’s just the way it is. It shouldn’t be, but it is. It’s totally unfair. But it’s also totally unreasonable to expect otherwise- If your past is exposed, the straight world sees you as some strange, suspicious, damaged creature. It’s a product of the very twisted relationship our culture has with sex.
[…] organization was modeled on SWOP Australia, and Rachel Wotton (who now specializes in sex work with the disabled) was instrumental in securing permission for the American group to use the name and helping to set […]