They use thought only to justify their injustices, and speech only to disguise their thoughts. – Voltaire
It’s easy to tell when a crusade of some sort is based in hate, bigotry, greed or other motivations the crusaders prefer to hide: supporters of the exact same campaign in different times and places invent widely-varying justifications for the same meddling and harassment, and those excuses often directly contradict one another. I don’t need to tell regular readers that anti-whore schemes are a perfect example; with the rise of secularism in the 19th century Protestant interpretations of Christian morality were no longer sufficient grounds for persecuting consensual sexual activity, so the prohibitionists came up with all sorts of “objective” and even “scientific” excuses for the bans:
…Some argued that all whores were driven to the trade by extreme privation or forced into it by pimps, while others claimed it was due to “laziness” and a desire to avoid “real work”. But the most popular view of all was that whores were atavisms, throwbacks to a more primitive human type…since prostitutes were primitive they were also stupid, and thus incompetent to make their own decisions; this of course was used to excuse tyranny like the Contagious Disease Acts…because the government could claim it was forced to arrest, incarcerate and “rehabilitate” prostitutes “for their own good”… Except for the modern replacement of “nature” arguments (whores are born defective) with “nurture” arguments (whores are made defective early in life by sexual abuse), the propaganda is [still the same]…non-prostitutes with no personal experience of normal female sexuality…claim that it’s impossible for a normal woman to choose prostitution, and that all of us are driven to it by extreme privation or forced into it by “pimps” or “traffickers” …we are all victims of child abuse or rape, all drug addicts, blah blah blah. Many prohibitionists openly call us stupid, selfish and neurotic, and even the ones who don’t insist that we’re incompetent to make our own decisions…
The false and arbitrary nature of such claims are particularly obvious when cops talk about the issue, because so many of them can’t seem to make up their minds about which paradigm to use; the results are sometimes hilarious and, one would imagine, embarrassing to the more intelligent sort of prohibitionist:
Deputies arrest[ed] a [touring escort from Canada as]…part of a continuing effort to crack down on what many don’t realize is a dangerous crime…Lt. Chris Reeves with the vice-narcotics unit [said]…“we get a lot of calls from, people’s husbands, daughters, wives that are not working the streets that have to walk to get groceries are getting solicited for sex from these Johns that are roaming the area…People think it’s a victimless crime, however when they are taking HIV, hepatitis home to their spouses or their significant others, that’s a big crisis.” Reeves says some of the prostitutes are victims of human trafficking. “A lot of them are beaten and abused. A lot of these are young girls that have gotten hooked on drugs”…
Reeves can’t seem to make up his mind about whether escorts are ruthless gangsters or pathetic victims, not to mention his conflation of touring escorts with streetwalkers and the “diseased whore” myth thrown in as well. Large American police departments have mostly shifted to the “victim” model in order to capitalize on the “sex trafficking” hysteria, but it’s somewhat different in Bangladesh:
The red light district in Madaripur city is thought to have been in operation for at least 150 years, and the sex workers believe [a] sudden wave of protests [has been] orchestrated by developers trying to take over the valuable land. Last month, about 10,000 people led by a new Muslim group called Islahe Kaom Parishad (the National Reform Council) rallied outside the rambling complex to call for it to be shut down and the 500 sex workers evicted…It is legal as it dates back to before Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, but is now being targeted by hardline activists…[who are] lobbying city authorities on the grounds that the brothel corrupts the town’s young men and must be razed. Sex workers believe the activists are organised by businessmen linked to local politicians, and they report a campaign of intimidation including an explosive device found recently on the site and two attempted arson attacks.
“We told the authorities that we won’t leave the place. Our job is lawful. We also don’t have any underage sex workers here,” said Momo Rani Karmakar, head of the Madaripur sex workers’ union. “We’ve inherited the place from our grandmothers, some of them are still alive. We are like a family here. It’s a conspiracy to grab our land worth [hundreds of thousands of dollars],” she said…government officials say any final decision on redevelopment is still pending. A committee, led by the regional deputy administrator, has been set up and has tried to open talks to encourage rehabilitation of the sex workers…But the sex workers told AFP that they don’t want to leave or switch to other jobs…[they] allege that the real reason behind the protests is the ambitions of a prominent Muslim family who are already erecting a multi-storied building next to the brothel. The Parishad group deny such claims and say they are acting to protect Islamic morals. “The brothel is the main source of criminal activity in the region,” group secretary Ali Ahmed Chowdhury told AFP. “It runs illegal wine shops. Under-aged girls are bought and sold and it’s a big source of the drug trade. It’s shameful work. It is not a profession”…
Though Western-style trafficking rhetoric is tacked on at the end there, it’s clearly an afterthought to the main excuse that evil harlots are corrupting the public morals. In the end, the excuse doesn’t matter; whether the motivation is furtherance of anti-life, vengeance for imagined wrongs or just plain greed, prohibitionists will say whatever they need to say to trick others into going along with their personal jihad.
>”The Parishad group deny such claims and say they are acting to protect Islamic morals. ”
You mean force Islamic morals onto others, unwilling to adopt them. Just like the Christian busybodies here. Religion is always an excuse to force others to do as you wish them to do.
The worst thing is that religion is entirely made up.
>”“we get a lot of calls from, people’s husbands, daughters, wives that are not working the streets that have to walk to get groceries are getting solicited for sex from these Johns that are roaming the area…”
Now this bit I can believe. You know how it is walking alone. But the solution to this is legalization, allow the working girls to come out of the shadows and advertise who they are.
This is a good point. When hookers have to disguise themselves as somebody else, somebody else will be mistaken for hookers.
In my opinion most get into the business because they are lazy, and can make more money selling themselves than any other way. Others are addicted to drugs and can make more money selling themselves than any other way. Most are proud to be whores because every body likes to be good at something and to have someone pay money for your body is quite a complement to ones looks and sexuality.
** Krulac grabs popcorn. 😀
*gets lawn chairs*
You picked the wrong place to say that.
Anyone who thinks a lazy whore can make any money has never been a whore; I used to be on call 84 hours a week, and that’s not unusual. How many hours are YOU on call every week?
As for “selling themselves”, everything I’ve ever sold has been taken away by the buyer. Yet, I still have my body. So clearly, I didn’t “sell myself” because I’m still here. Or did you mean something else, like perhaps “perform a socially important service people are willing to pay good money for”? Sounds a lot different when it’s expressed honestly, doesn’t it?
Furthermore, anyone who believes that whores are paid for our “bodies” knows nothing about sex, whores, human nature or economics. Manual laborers are paid for their bodies; a whore who just lies there like a blow-up doll soon finds herself without customers unless she’s working the street where guys only have looks to judge from.
“Anyone who thinks a lazy whore can make any money has never been a whore”
Or visited one. I have seen lazy sex workers, although never the same one twice. I’ve gotten dressed and simply walked out on ’em too. (That’s why reason it’s called “punting” – there’s always a chance you will simply lose your money).
People think that if prostitution is legalised, all the blokes would be doing it. Not true. Apart from the occasional buck’s night or whatever, it’s all about repeat business.
You do realize, of course, that one could replace ‘whore’ with ‘virtually any job not requiring higher education and/or licensing’ in your post and it would still be accurate? Many, perhaps most, people do not have a plan of what their life will be like. They fall into jobs, find out they can make a living doing those jobs, and get on with things. Some of them even take pride in doing those jobs well, because you are right, it is a boost to the ego to know that you are good at something that people will pay you money for.
I got into the business because I could make more money than I could in other ways, like waiting tables. Isn’t that what’s applauded in our capitalist society? But I can’t say It’s always easier work. Like anything else, it all depends on what you put into it. And no, I wasn’t addicted to drugs. Drug addicts don’t make good whores, they do as poorly at that as most things.
And yes, I liked being good at it. And i admit there was some ego involved, after a while.
You also used the word complement incorrectly. Talk about lazy. And stupid to boot.
This is what it’s all about right here …
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/human_trafficking_denver.php
It’s about money.
Sadly, I’ve worked in government for over 30 years now and I know how this game is played. The money comes from taxpayers and you simply have to come up with what LOOKS like a valid reason with a (bogus) plan of action and you can get money. Government organizations that are good at coming up with BS programs get money – those that don’t, wither and die away.
Anyone remember this?
http://www.victoryinstitute.net/blogs/utb/2009/10/acorn-steals-grant-from-fire-departments/
There was an outrage when ACORN seemingly swiped a grant from Louisiana fire departments for $1M. I was pretty outraged, until I found out that the grant was supposed to go to one of the fire districts in my home town. Then, I was livid pissed until …
I did a little investigation – and it seems the fire department intended to use that $1M to install smoke detectors in underprivileged houses. Sounds good right – but wait …
I looked on Amazon and found I could buy a smoke detector for $8.00. You do the math – that’s 125,000 smoke detectors – do we really have that many families in my small little town to install that many smoke detectors?
So I contacted the fire chief (and the parish president) and they told me the money was for (a) Paying contractors to install each smoke detector and change the batteries and regular intervals. (b) Training for the home owners on how to use the smoke detectors. This was to be done by a team of firemen!
Let me ask – why does a homeowner need training on a smoke detector if he’s not even changing the batteries himself?
Are there really people out there who OWN a house that don’t have enough money to buy a smoke alarm for $8 bucks? I’m assuming that city codes already cover apartments and rental houses – and those should already be required to have them.
WTF?
Both the Fire Chief and the Parish President were Republicans – and I asked them if they thought this was consistent with the stated Republican principles of proper use of taxpayer monies and smaller government.
They’re response?
“Well we had five people die in a house without smoke detectors last year.”
Fuck – I wish ACORN had gotten the money!
Well, first let me welcome you to the big bad real world where people don’t always do things for money that aren’t in accordance with your lofty principles. Protip: you can’t divide people in two groups based on easily understandable differences, the world just isn’t that black and white.
Also there are no free lunches.
As for the grant thing, I admit it’s suspicion but not too far beyond reason.
But great work, you picked the cheapest model without regards to quality or value. And do you really think that amazon would ship you around 20 tons of smoke alarms for free?
So already you’ve got massive cost overruns from leaving no money for shipping and handling.
You need a dual sensor set up, the cheap ones are ionization only, which don’t protect against carbon monoxide build up. Plus,the cheap ones have really bad sensors because they’re designed to be used in numbers, not cover the whole house with one.
A high quality smoke alarm costs one hundred, two hundred dollars. Installing will take basic carpentry skills and knowledge of where to best put them, so it would require an entry level carpenter, who would charge a decent rate.
And even if training the homeowners is just a basic fire safety lecture, somebody who knows fire safety still has to go out there and tell it. Even printing and distributing some flyers could cost a couple thousand bucks.
Cheapest model? All these models have to pass certain certifications to be sold here – so the cheap one works. I’m sorry dude – but if you’re too cheap to shell out $10 or $20 bucks for a fire alarm that also wakes you up in the morning and makes a cup of joe to get you going – then I’m not going to buy it for you. You can have the cheap model.
Will Amazon ship 125,000 alarms to me for free? Nope – I won’t buy them from Amazon – I’ll go right to the manufacturer and say … “Yes, I’d like 125,000 of these alarms – if I buy in bulk with numbers like that can I get a discount on each unit and FREE shipping?”
The answer would be YES. Remember Amazon is a RETAILER – if I’m buying 125K worth of smoke detectors I’m in WHOLESALE territory brah.
WTF dude? Do you OWN a house? You’re really showing your ignorance here. I do. I don’t have any two hundred dollar smoke alarms. My alarms all cost about $10 and I’ll be damned if it’s right or proper for me to pay to get other people higher quality alarms than the ones I purchased for myself! Justify that “Mr. Antagonist”?
Further – there are basic standards according to city code for a fire alarm – and mine meet them just fine. It’ s absolutely laughable that you insist I pay to install better alarms in someone else’s house than I have in my own!!
Basic Carpentry Skills? Uhm no – any idiot can install a fire alarm. In most cases it’s two screws through the sheetrock if you go right into the stud. In that case you only need a screwdriver and “screwdriver operation” isn’t even 1/100th of the basic carpentry skill’s class.
Use them in numbers? Fine – but that still doesn’t justify 125,000 of them. Remember – who are we buying these for?
The underprivileged who OWN their own homes. Just how many underpriv’d folks OWN their house? If they rent an apartment – the landlord is responsible for the fire alarm. If they rent a house – the landlord again is responsible. The only people you need to buy them for are those who own a home.
They can “afford” a home but NOT afford an 8 dollar smoke detector.
The main problem with you is you always pick at the irrelevancies, or the language used in an argument without addressing what is easily identifiable as the point. No wonder you haven’t been able to decide upon a political philosophy that you can agree with – you’re looking at the window dressings of everything – and not the structure of the building.
Let me just throw it out there at you so can’t miss it.
THE POINT I was making was that the “Fire Grant” was frivolous because there’s no way that all that money would have gone to purchasing and installing fire alarms. Oh yeah – that’s what the books of the fire department would have said – but that wouldn’t be reality.
Let me show you how this works …
I’m the fire chief and I get this grant …
“Hooray!” Now I can hire three new firemen for this year and I’ll charge them off as being “trainers” for this bogus fire alarm system. Oh and yeah – I’m sure I can buy a new golf cart for each fire house using those funds – I can just say they were used to transport the fire alarms. Of course – I’ll need to purchase me some Ipads too – because we need a way take notes on all these alarm installations we’ll be doing!”
That’s how it works bro – from someone who’s watched it for 30 years.
And – this is only ONE example. The skipper’s article today on trafficking – hey, there’s all kinds of federal monies police departments can get for combating this non-existent problem.
But – you’re good with all that?
No, I agree with your point and I think that’s exactly what happened. The problem is that while you have a lot of experience, it’s only tangentially related to the specifics of the situation, and then you make a bunch on top of it.
You’re making the assumption that the government already solved most of the problem by making apartment and house renters install smoke alarms. You’re assuming that the current fire codes in your area are not dangerously out of date and that most firefighters don’t desperately want to update them.
As I’ve said, I agree with your point, just not your libertarian window dressing around it.
Not sure about the golf cart, but iPads – sure. The main expense is people, including bookkeeping and administration people. With government, you have to track all the money, you have to handle grievances. Everything always costs more and takes longer. $1M isn’t really a lot of money whn it comes to public works.
I’m guessing that being a whore is actually a lot of work.
It’s interesting that when abolitionists call it “selling yourself”, it’s as if the whore is giving up part of her soul or something.
The naked moralizing is clear: There’s a limited fountain of “sexuality”, or “proper sexuality”, and it’s being mined and gound up by the man, strip-mined perhaps being a better way to say it.
It’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that these prohibitionists just don’t like heterosexuality.
What do they have to say about general promiscuity? I mean, neofeminists generally won’t shame women for sleeping with all kinds of men for free; I know some who had upwards of 15 sexual partners over a year, and no end of one-night-stands. Is that fine?
I just don’t see much, or any, difference, between women who have sex with men more or less freely and whores, except that in one case, it costs money. Actually, it costs money both ways, just in one case it’s not honestly spelled out.
It is amusing that one of the most common criticisms of sex industry workers is that they are lazy.
I can’t see how a whore’s job could be any less demanding than that of a sales person.
Both sell a service or product. There is likely a lot of standing around or travelling. Both need to be nice to the customers and try to meet their needs. Both jobs require a certain degree of physical effort.
On top of that, the sales person (unless she is a drug dealer) does not face the constant risk of arrest or harrassment.
There may be lazy whores, just as there are lazy sales persons. Neither are likely to be very successful.
I’ve done my share of selling and entertaining potential clients, and I can testify that it can be exhausting. In most cases, the more money that is involved, the greater the strain and tension.
Anti prostitution crusades never made much sense to me, except as a cover for other objectives, whether it be the promotion of a religion or out and out monetary gain.
My take is that the neofeminists’ really only care about making men grovel, as if being male were something to be ashamed of. Plenty of other women with an inflated idea of their own sexual market value do that too.
Whores give men a safe alternative to putting up with that nasty dominance game. It’s reasonable to assume that anyone who doesn’t want whores around intends to play it.
And here I think we agree.
The one whore I know well used prostitution in the end as a means to getting other opportunities. I think the husband was an after-thought, not a goal.
But she got legitimate jobs through her work, and even scored a real estate deal. I have no idea how these transactions take place, but she had a few very regular visitors (I still find it hard to say customers), and they were relatively generous. One set her up with a client of his, and through the client she bought into a new development and made a lot of money.
It’s an odd thing to think, given the moral judgments people make, but business guys seem to understand whores well, and even appreciate them. I’m guessing they understand the whole exchange-method of human interaction, and respect it; and they don’t seem to have a low opinion of whores because of what they do.
We all whore ourselves out in some way or other.
One of the things I like reading MAggie for is the clarity-inducing reason she brings to everything she writes. There’s no inflammatory rhetoric, only clear and cogent reasoning. It rings like a bell. I mean, if she was talking about turtles and apple pies, it would be interesting to read, just for this clarity.
On another note, a link to an article I saw. It’s a year old but the commentary was interesting. Apparently, the public are divided on this, but there are many people with reasonable opinions on the subject.
The prohibitionists in the comments all advocate for giving the government control over peoples’ lives.
http://www.straight.com/article-472801/vancouver/feminist-supports-sex-work
Well worth reading. Thanks for the link.
I suppose that whores are “lazy” in the sense that they don’t find it worthwhile to do hard work for terribly low pay. In that case, I suppose anybody who’s ever asked the boss for a raise is “lazy” as well.
IOW, whores are only lazy if one uses a standard of laziness which would not be used for anybody else.
we get a lot of calls from, people’s husbands, daughters, wives that are not working the streets that have to walk to get groceries are getting solicited for sex from these Johns that are roaming the area
So any man soliciting for sex=prostitute’s client? Uh-oh. Lock up the bars, taverns, lounges, schools, workplaces, public transit systems….
And, excuse me as I roll on the floor laughing at the thought of men not approaching a woman for sex anywhere he thinks he might have a shot as well as the thought of the delicate little flowers who don’t know how to say “No.” and keep it moving. And hey, if you have a bag of groceries and the man doesn’t want to understand no, then, sweets, you have a weapon with you. Hit him up side the head with that bag of frozen vegetables and run. While I didn’t have to hit this one smarmy man who approached me in that fashion when I was about sixteen, I did wrap the handle of my bag filled with a couple cans of corn around my hand in a way that undeniably said, “I WILL hit you with this”; he wisely walked away.
Regarding “Launching a Frigate.” I’m assuming the cartoon is from Punch?
I understand that in the late Georgian and Early Regency, that the “High Flying West End Comets” were also referred to as “Barques of Frailty.” Is this why we give the female gender to ships?
The real question? If Maggie actually *did* auction herself, who would have ENOUGH MONEY to pay the price her skills and worth would truly command?
I think there would be massive interest, too 🙂
💕💕 for Maggie 💕💕 😎
((yes, I know this is a naughty joke thats close to the bone; Maggie overwhelms my good sense sometimes))