Jules: Look, foot massages don’t mean shit.
Vincent: Have you ever given a foot massage?
Jules: Don’t be tellin’ me about foot massages. I’m the foot fuckin’ master.
Vincent: Given a lot of ’em?
Jules: Shit yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don’t be ticklin’ or nothin’.
Vincent: Would you give a guy a foot massage?
Jules: Fuck you. – Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction
When I was a librarian, our director once read a study showing that when fiction is divided into genres, the works of more obscure authors tend to circulate better because readers of that genre can discover them more easily than if all fiction is shelved together. He decided to try it, and I was given the task of reclassifying every single book into one of six genres, plus a general fiction class. I soon discovered that, while some authors (Robert Heinlein, Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, Stephen King, etc) were easily categorized, others were not…and some books simply defied assignment to any one genre.
People just love to mentally file things in little boxes; it keeps them neat and orderly and, as in the case of our director’s plan, makes a large number of somethings easier to manage by subdividing it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as one recognizes that the grouping is often an artificial one which exists only in our minds. Yes, some authors set out to write works in a particular genre, but others just get ideas and write, and any classification is something imposed upon the work afterward. And if that classification is a poor fit based on superficial criteria, it can actually hamper interpretation of the work by instilling false expectations in the mind of the beholder. For example, the British TV series Space: 1999 is generally classified as science fiction because it takes place on a moonbase with conventional science fiction trappings such as spaceships and ray guns. But actually, the series is more horror than science fiction, and once that is understood a number of the most common criticisms of the show evaporate.
In real life, such categorization can be even more problematic because human behavior is far more complex than any fictional story. And given the voracious desire of modern government to seize control over all aspects of human life, the arbitrary box into which bureaucrats choose to place any given behavior can mean the difference between being allowed to live in peace and being ruthlessly persecuted by uniformed thugs and entitled busybodies. Worst of all, the rules of classification are often purposefully vague, or else the behavior is one so complex it’s impossible to break it down into a rigid system, and police and prosecutors are thus empowered to classify any given behavior as they please…and it’s nearly always in the box marked “illegal”.
In a free country, sex would be recognized as completely outside of the government’s business; alas, no country is completely free, so every government feels the need to meddle in people’s private sexual affairs to a greater or lesser degree. For reasons far too complex to discuss here, nearly every human society has decided that a sex act which is compensated by currency is somehow vitally different from one compensated by other means, and so have enacted rules and regulations in a futile attempt to control the uncontrollable. The existence of such laws creates the necessity of drawing artificial and ephemeral lines between “pay” and “gifts”, “stranger” and “acquaintance”, “discriminate” and “indiscriminate” and (most absurdly of all) “sex” and “not sex”. Defining sex is like twisting a rope of sand; the more one tries the more it slips away. In Pulp Fiction Jules is adamant that foot massage is not remotely like oral sex…until Vincent forces him to recognize that there is a definite sexual dimension to it. How about tying someone up? Most people would probably consider that nonsexual, but I’m far from the only one who disagrees. What about holding hands? We even do that with our children…yet Tennessee legislators recently defined hand-holding as a “gateway sexual activity” and therefore prohibited it from schools. That’s the hardest part of drawing artificial lines to excuse meddling and criminalization: draw the lines too tightly, and they’re either too easy to circumvent or (as in the case discussed in my column of one year ago today) almost nobody can qualify as a “victim”; draw them too loosely and the legislators and their goons are revealed as busybody sociopaths. This is exactly why New Zealand opted for decriminalization; enacting practically any rules about sex opens the door for abuse, so any country that actually cares about justice has to leave the whole subject alone. Alas, the United States doesn’t care about justice any longer, so we get petty tyranny like this:
…Melissa Borrett, 26, began Fantasy Maid Service of Lubbock [Texas] as a way to make extra money. She charges customers $100 per hour to clean their homes, and at their request, she can do the dusting in lingerie or in the buff…[she] started the service in February. Now, just a few months later, she has three other women working for her. But while business is booming…the “sexually oriented business” doesn’t have a permit to operate, police Sgt. Jonathan Stewart said [and] Borrett could face at a fine of $2,000…”Just the fact employees are topless or semi nude in this case — it’s just not allowed,” Stewart told KCBD. Company policy prohibits employees and customers from engaging in any physical or sexual contact. “If a maid accepts tips for physical contact, she will be terminated immediately and the customer will not be able to schedule service with Lubbock Fantasy Maid Service again,” according to the company’s website. Additionally, the company will not work topless or nude in the presence of persons under 18. According to the Associated Press, the permit Borrett needs to obtain costs $650 per year and requires an additional $5,000 surety bond or letter of credit…Borrett has said she will take legal action if the city attempts to shut down the business.
Although it pains me to say so, the police are factually (though obviously not morally) right; of course it’s a sexually oriented business, and those who deny it are being disingenuous. The reason she can charge low-end escort rates for maid service is because of the sexual component, and for no other reason.
Lawheads cannot be fought on their own terms and in their own territory; attempting to define sexuality (commercial or otherwise) as being in the “permissible” or “legal” category rather than the “unacceptable” or “illegal” one is a tacit acknowledgement that such lines of demarcation are valid and that government has the right to draw them. That is a losing strategy because even if one wins the battle, the government can simply re-draw the line to include one’s entrenched position. The only way we as a culture will win the war for liberty is to reject any and all claims by “authority” to power over the private, consensual behavior of individuals, no matter what that behavior is or how far it falls outside of the boxes which define our own personal comfort zones.
Indeed. Attempting to classify and regulate sexuality is totally arbitrary and changes chameleon-like depending on who is setting the rules. Of necessity this means that the verboten area will organically expand to take into account everybody’s concept of what is bad or immoral, until at last it encompasses everything.
It reminds me of the arguments amongst writers of what is “erotica” as opposed to “porn”. After tens of thousands of words, it always boils down to “porn is what I don’t like and squicks me out, and if you disagree then you’re wrong.”.
I talked about that in “Prudish Pedants“.
It’s the old rule, alright: what turns me on is erotica, what turns you on is pornography.
And the arguments about degradation and trafficking such make even less sense when we try to subdivide like that. A woman is NOT degraded to the point that “there aught to be a law” if she is nude and standing next to a nude man who is NOT sporting an erection, but she IS degraded if she is nude and standing next to a nude man who IS sporting an erection, and there aught to be a law!
huh?
Actually, the lawheads love businesses like this- It’s a great excuse to collect more money, and other perks. Even the legal sex businesses are subjected to fees higher than other businesses and there’s always extortion and graft on the part of the cops.
And the public is afraid to show sympathy. Even republican politicians, the lapdogs of big business, winning to make almost any excuse for anything a business does won’t speak for sex businesses.
Yeah, I know about that from owning an escort service; the totally unfair restrictions the Yellow Pages company was able to impose on us were unbelievable, and the only reason I got my business license without paying a bribe was that my lawyer called the mayor.
Off topic, but I was reminded of something that might be worth some comment. Talking to some of the Australasian girls, they talk about stories from “the good old days” when there was a lot of money to be made out of being an escort. They mean way before the financial downturn, back to pre-decriminalisation. It occured to me that for those willing to run the risks in those days, the supply was lower relative to demand, so they had more business. With decriminalisation, supply went up, prices down (or at least number of customers per escort went down). THis seems exactly the same as any other type of prohibition (drink, drugs) where criminal activity is rewarded by the prohibition as prices are inflated.
I have noticed that many of the most pro-decriminalisation escort bloggers in countries where it is illegal tend to be (IMHO) of an activist/political disposition first (not sure if this applies to you at all though?), and a whoring disposition second. For the more common variety prostitute, the money not the politics is more important. Could there be subtle disincentives to supporting decriminalisation for these women do you think?
Whatever the truth or not of that, the girls in Australia really work as professionals with advertising, marketing strategies etc. all of a type you’d expect in a competitive market. The quality of service might have gone up, but the price down. A clients dream at least.
the distinctions that people make between what they consider acceptable and what crosses the line for them has always gotten on my nerves,not just because the most influential ones try to impose their beleifs on others,but because many of the people that have been faced with scorn try to validate and defend themselves by saying they are not like others who do similar stuff,because they are less”extreme”.the bitchiness that often exists in the adult industry comes to mind.most psos freak out if they are called whores,because phone sex is not actual sex,no real penetration there.the fact that bothers me is that they say it in a way that implies that we are more moral than prostitutes,thus we should be respected more than them.the girls who wear mini skirts, but not a low cut top at the same time say that they are ”sexy”,because they have only one area uncovered,while those that uncover both are ”slutty”. i also see lots of classism in that way of thinking.thats the reason i detest pole dancing going mainsteam,for example.the housewives who try it and the middle class girls who practice it in competitions put down working girls,like those eminem wannabes who disrespect black ghetto people,although they would be nothing if it wasnt for them.i just think those distinctions people make prove how ridiculous and hypoctitical the world is.
Ah, yes, the “Whorearchy”. I have a column on that coming up on May 10th.
I eagerly await that.
It seemed to me that the less one actually did, the “higher” their class, much like in the rest of the world. Worse yet is when a bunch of whores get into it on a review board or something, I’m sure the hobbyists love it. I’ve been drug through those storms.
I’ve had other sex workers tell me they were better than me because they didn’t show their face in ads (I’d respond with, “I wouldn’t either if I were you!”), because they didn’t have porn on their sites, because they were GFE and I was PSE and “just nasty”. (Yes, that so hurt my business when they posted that on review boards… Do it again!)
I never quite understood it. The human sexual appetite is wide, and one style doesn’t suit all. Why should someone who fancied themselves a high class GFE even care what I did? I certainly didn’t care what they did. We didn’t compete. The only common area was that to the wider world, we were all just whores.
I hat to tell y’all this – that has nothing to do with “whorearchy” – that’s the way the WOMEN, in general, are. I don’t know why they feel the need to “broadcast” the “rankings” – men don’t. Get a group of men together and after a while they all KNOW where their place on the totem pole is without having to tell anyone else or have it be told to them.
Women … different story – for a “sisterhood”, you guys tend to take great pleasure in abusing each other.
Don’t doubt me on this one. 😉
It’s that way in strip clubs, too.
The waitresses KNOW that they are better than the dancers, because waitresses don’t have to take their clothes off.
The dancers KNOW that they are better than the waitresses, because after all, nobody’s coming into the place to look at the waitresses.
Other than the dancers and waitresses, I don’t think anybody gives half a damn who’s “better” than whom.
There could be some good from the mainstreaming of pole dancing; yes, elitists may try to claim it for themselves, but the range of “acceptable” behavior has still expanded. The mainstream and non-mainstream get closer, allowing for further mainstreaming in the future. If pole dancing is okay, then maybe phone sex becomes okay, and then erotic massage and so forth.
Changing a culture does not happen overnight.
Compartmentalism, the classifying of things, is a mental strategy to help us overcome the otherwise overwhelming sensory overload that we’d experience. Take a trivial example: we know what a “door” is, we don’t need to think about it, we “know” what to expect — that the handle is on the opposite side to the hinges, for example. If experimentally we put the handle on the same side as the hinges, most of us will find it very difficult to work out how to open the door. Classification is a sort of “mental shorthand”, but it has its drawbacks; it can be very difficult to see “outside the box”, and we may even think that the boxes represent reality, rather than being a cerebral coping strategy. This “mental shorthand” imposes considerable rigidity in thinking, so it’s no real surprise that some people can’t see the reality; they are totally constrained by the (artificial) boundaries. You just have to think of a “jobsworth” to see what can happen.
I know why this maid service is taking the legal strategy it is. It is trying to to win its particular case. Since our government has effectively reduced Grand Juries and Jury Nullification, and the people of our fair country, the USA, don’t really want the responsibility, the maid service is trying what it can to win. These things are finished to an even grater degree in countries that were or are based on English Common law including England itself.
That said, until people want to be free in their affairs to include sexual affairs, we will not be free. You and I and others are too few in number to factually change anything. The mob which is most powerful even if it is a minority wins and gets its power asserted. Those who don’t fight will always lose, and those who fight often have the odds against them. Sex work between consenting adults should always be legal. People need to tell their government executive branches, legislative branches and judicial branches to let us have or natural rights through protests, elections, jury nullifications etc.
Look at this way. The more they try to control us, the more they will destroy us and in the end destroy themselves. A parasite can be good for the host, but when it wrecks the host to much, the host dies. Our ruling elite, government and too much of the population(looks like most) do not understand this.
I still LMFAO every time I hear you say that!
By the way – add to your list of “sexual activities” the very occupation of LIBRARIAN.
I know I’m not the only man in this world who hears the term “Librarian” and gets a woody. 😀 Librarians, with their long slinky skirts and glasses … totally hot.
In fact – if I had a choice … crash a convention of escorts, or crash a convention of librarians – it’s no contest. I’m neck deep in the librarians!!
That makes me think of this.
Or maybe this.
I’ve always had a soft spot for the original film.
THAT’S the one I was looking for. Thank you.
“When I was a librarian”
Did your career as a librarian overlap your career as an escort? What led to you stopping library work? Do you work now and, if so, what as? Presuming that you feel free to say. Why? I find it interesting knowing that all kinds of people in all kinds of work are included within those who, at one time, did “sex work”. It adds to the diversity of this human race we belong to.
Oh, no, there was a five-year gap; I explained how it all happened in my three-part “Genesis of a Harlot“, which you may find interesting. I’m a housewife now, which is why I have time to do this blog so regularly; I invest so many hours in it there’s no way I could do it if I had to sell 40 hours of my week at a cut rate to someone else. My husband travels a lot, so I work extra-hard when he’s away so I can give him my full attention when he’s home. Even when he’s home I still have some time because he has to write reports and do conference calls and such, but it’s much less than when he’s travelling.
Got it! Thanks! I did read the “Genesis” columns before but missed noticing the mention of your work as a librarian during your first marriage.
They are completely insane, you know.
Texans that is. If you choose Dubya over Ann Richards, it is the only possible conclusion.
How a state that could produce T-Bone Walker, Willie Nelson, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, Janis Joplin, and Stevie Ray Vaughn could be so screwed up just blows my mind. But then again, this was also the state who held its illegally deposed Governor–and former President of the Texas Republic– Sam Houston underhouse arrest for two years because he believed–like his mentor Andrew Jackson–that secession was Unconstitutional, and was not shy about telling everyone what he thought.
I can certainly understand why the rest of the country is ready to help us pack.
Sorry. Texans have been my “hot button” for 35-years, ever since one in an RV almost ran me off the road. How about if we divided it in two, allowed Houston and Dallas to reestablish the Republic of Texas; Austin, El Paso and Waco could remain in the U.S. (Gotta love the Baylor Bears). I don’t know where San Antonio would go.
I’ve got a better idea: how about we let all the secessionists (I mean people who would actually do it, not just blow hot air) move into however many Texas counties it takes to hold them (it won’t take many), counties bordering either Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, or both (because what’s the point if your whole country is surrounded by “the enemy?”), and let them go? No civil war this time, just a cheery, “So long, and don’t let the border hit you in the arse on the way out!”
I like it. So moved. Do we have a second?
Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
[…] and “illegal” kinds, though the laws change so often and arbitrarily that those little boxes are rarely useful for anything other than persecuting those who don’t see the world as you […]