This essay first appeared in Cliterati on September 22nd; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.
History, it is said, repeats itself. And while the parallels are never exact, they are often pretty damned close. Witness, for example, the new Victorianism which has engulfed Western society:
…we have become shockingly hypocritical about sex and grant our governments tremendous power to suppress it while simultaneously spending tremendous amounts of time and money on it…We have revived Victorian ideas of government-enforced temperance and “social progress”, and the…“Cult of the Child”…which…preaches that children [including adolescents] are as emotionally fragile as soap bubbles and the merest hint of sexual imagery…can cause irreversible trauma…is…pressed into service for sex issues which have nothing to do with children…prohibitionists [have resurrected] the late Victorian “white slavery” moral panic under a new name, “child sex trafficking”, and [wield] it as a bludgeon against adult whores…lest anyone balk at treating adult women as children, there’s a Victorian answer for that as well; prostitutes are abnormal, defective “victims” of men who have to be protected from our own choices, which are clearly irrational. Similarly, trafficking fanatics classify brown people as…too stupid and unsophisticated to move between countries on their own without being “trafficked” by gangsters, so by the Victorian “white man’s burden” philosophy they need to “save” these poor victims, whether they want to be “rescued” or not…
But while the racist, colonialist, prudish, censorious and paternalistic attitudes we see around us, especially in speeches by politicians and articles from the mainstream media, are straight out of the late 19th century, at least the language used is still modern, isn’t it? Well…not quite. In recent decades we’ve seen the return of tortured, obfuscatory euphemisms and circumlocutory, polysyllabic abortions used in place of clear words and direct phrases, and nowhere is this more true than in prohibitionist anti-sex work screeds larded with cumbersome, politicized passive-voice constructions such as “prostituted women” or even “women victimized by systems of prostitution”. And in recent months, it’s been growing steadily worse; yellow news stories steeped in purple prose extol the supposed “horror” of sex workers’ lives in lurid detail, women are described as utterly helpless and hopelessly naïve, and sexual behavior is described in phraseology that would not seem out of place in a hellfire-and-damnation revivalist’s tent. And really, that’s not surprising; the equation of all prostitution with “sex trafficking” goes back to the 1880s, and one of its chief originators at that time, The Salvation Army, is also one of its chief proponents now. The “trafficking” mythos is deeply rooted in Protestant Christianity’s obsession with “pure and pious womanhood”, and even when there is no Christian group involved in a prohibitionist scheme the same themes of sin and degradation echo through their rhetoric, even if translated for a non-Christian audience.
To be sure, some of them are very subtle, contenting themselves with merely denying that sex work is work, equating all sex work with survival streetwalking and using Victorian phrases like “selling their bodies”. Others absurdly state that “prostitution is not a victimless crime”, deny sex workers’ agency (“When you are bought and sold for sex…does that make it a freely made choice?”), misdirect attention from the real issues with simple-minded morality plays featuring demonic pimps and heroic cops, and ignore the coercion implicit in the “diversion programs” they tout. Still others feature cops using language that sounds plagiarized from penny dreadfuls: “[The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics] is committed to dismantling organizations involved in the seedy world of prostitution and ultimately human trafficking. Our agency…[is] determined to make a positive impact in a dark world that troubles the soul. Women that are used as a commodity sickens ones hear [sic].” But others aren’t nearly as restrained:
The struggle against human sex trafficking in Israel has made appreciable progress in the past decade. Mass media have better informed the public of the severity and dimensions of this vast criminal enterprise…The Sinai fence and more effective border patrolling has appreciably, though not totally abrogated the tacit understandings between the IDF and Beduin [sic] smugglers that annually brought thousands of sex slaves into Israel’s brothels…girls as young as 13, are coerced by the ravages of poverty, incest and rape…into sexual servitude. Procurers and their underworld bosses subjugate them in lives almost never truly rehabilitated by even the most valiant and dedicated social welfare agencies…tens of thousands of [men]…continue to buy women’s bodies in order, as they commonly express it, “to make them do whatever I want”…the purchase of sex is about power, not about sex, about societal toleration of the abuse of women’s bodies – and souls…
If not for the uniquely modern idiocy that sex isn’t sex, one could easily mistake this for a description of a Victorian or silent-film melodrama, complete with bearded Bedouin slave traders (no doubt carrying their struggling captives on camels); note also the revoltingly misogynistic assertion that whores are “fallen” women who can “never truly [be] rehabilitated”, a common Victorian prostitute-motif which persists in modern “sex trafficking” myth and is echoed in the characterization of rape as uniquely destructive, a “fate worse than death”.
But the myth of the harlot as a passive, pathetic victim of the Almighty Phallus is a comparatively recent one; for the majority of the past two millennia (and for centuries before that among the Jews), we were cast by prudes and religious fanatics as powerful figures akin to witches, vile temptresses sent straight from Hell to seduce godly men into wrongdoing. A few of their modern successors still prefer that sort of rhetoric, and demand that whores be made into outcast pariahs who can be persecuted by the “authorities” at will:
…New Port Richey [Florida]…Police Chief Kim Bogart…suggested the city consider crafting an anti-prostitution ordinance that makes it easier for police to arrest known “ladies of the night.” He’s hoping the ordinance would be worded so that if such a woman even waves or makes a certain gesture to someone, it would be justification for arrest…Councilman Jeff Starkey took aim at the city’s prostitution problem. “It’s unbelievable how brazen these nasty, nasty, nasty women are”…he said…
Of course, before we were witches and temptresses we were priestesses; many ancient religions believed that sacred whores were a way for men to connect with their goddesses. The practice still existed in the early Christian era, much to the chagrin of early Church fathers (who had inherited the long Jewish tradition of hatred for whores). Our last (and most fiery) example of retro anti-whore rhetoric derives its inspiration from that time period:
…Preaching from 1 Corinthians 6:15–7:5, [Russell] Moore likened the present-day cultural saturation of pornography with the first-century pagan practice of temple prostitution. “The temple prostitution of Corinth has been digitalized and weaponized…and brings with it the kind of illusion and anonymity that the temple prostitutes could never promise…there are digital harems of prostitutes, available and pushed upon every single population in the United States of America and increasingly every single population in the world,” Moore said…
As I’ve said before, if I’m going to be insulted and lied about I’d rather be cast as a powerful succubus than a weak and deluded victim. Given the choice between two ridiculous stereotypes from the past which have somehow held on into the 21st century, I prefer to be a living weapon so dangerous she must be arrested on sight than an infantilized defective who needs to be locked up because she’s too stupid to know what’s good for her.
(This essay was inspired by Dr. Laura Agustín‘s “tweets” about how silly prohibitionist language has become lately; she and Mistress Matisse provided most of the featured examples.)
This is a fabulous sentence.
Thank you! I was hoping some of y’all would appreciate it. 😉
I almost had an orgasm just reading that.
We aims to please. 😉
I wish I could right like that.
Correction: Write!!!
I also love the part that says ‘..yellow news stories steeped in purple prose.. ‘.
This is a great piece, really well articulated. I really enjoy reading your blogs 🙂
Shit … that made me grin! 😀
“Kneel Damsel … before the Almighty Phallus!!”
LOL – it just tripped my trigger!
Yeah Jeff .. they’re fuckin’ awesommmmmme! And believe me – cuz I know a few!
Well now … my theory is that the “demon” stereotype of the hooker comes from the religious right.
And the “infantile” stereotype of the hooker comes from the Marxist left. And yeah – I know we don’t really use these Left / Right terms on this blog but I’m an idiot and they’re easy for me.
Now – that’s not to say that the two don’t occasionally “share” stereotypes and engage in some “crossover”.
But – here in Louisiana, we’re seeing the “infantile” stereotype being applied to poor people … by a leftist union leader no less …
Those “poor” parents are too busy to really make good decisions about their kids education – so let’s have the union do it for them!
This is why I despise unions. Well, one of the reasons anyway.
This is in regards to school vouchers. Louisiana has a school voucher program that ONLY serves those in poverty. The teacher’s union is livid pissed about it – and Obama’s Department of Justice has taken the State to Federal court to stop it. Let me reiterate – I send my daughter to private school and I’m not eligible for a voucher – only someone who’s parents are living below the poverty line are. So if education is the key to success, which everyone on the left says it is – then what’s wrong with this?
Whether you’re demonizing or infantacizing sex workers or poor people – or whoever – it’s all about control baby!
“The temple prostitution of Corinth has been digitalized and weaponized…and brings with it the kind of illusion and anonymity that the temple prostitutes could never promise…there are digital harems of prostitutes, available and pushed upon every single population in the United States of America and increasingly every single population in the world,”
What is a “digital harem”? And, where would I find one? Is he talking about the Internet? I am so confused.
I hope you are right about the new Victorianism, but I have my doubts. Because while the Victorian age was rife with hypocritical sex panics, it was also the time of great changes, rise of a middle class, empowerment of the working class, rise of labor unions (It was the time of the Docker and Bryant and May Match girl strikes), the empowerment of women (Suffragette movement), widespread public education and the fight against unrestrained capitalism.
I see us sliding back instead into a feudal age, with large corporations replacing landed barons. You want your serfs to reproduce, but don’t want them wasting their energy that could be put to work for you on sex for pleasure, drink, drugs or anything else. So the church steps in to threaten their souls. The corporate lords own the serfs, after all.
>”“When you are bought and sold for sex…does that make it a freely made choice?”
If performing a task for money equals being bought and sold, how does this sentence read if we substitute some other occupation?
“When you are bought and sold for plumbing work…does that make it a freely made choice?”
“When you are bought and sold for accounting…does that make it a freely made choice?”
Wonder how the lies would fare if any other job were the subject?
“Experts estimate that over 30 million young boys are forced into becoming plumbers each year. The average age of taking up the trade is as young as 13, and these plumbers do 50 jobs a night, making over 10 million a year for their bosses. They flock to public events such as sporting events (more people, more blocked loos) and out small town, right out here in the middle of nowhere is a major plumbing hub because we have a highway.”
“Wonder how the lies would fare if any other job were the subject?”
My physiotherapist is female (I am male). She uses her body to relieve my “stress and tensions”. Sometimes she gets in the water with me; often, she gives me orders, often she is physically rough with me.
Likewise, my surgeon is female. Sometimes she probes my orifices, sometimes she uses things to help her do this. But she relieves my problems, using her mental and physical skills.
Clearly, these two started their jobs at 13, joining all the others here. And, of course, they were trafficked from abroad. So, I’m very impressed that not only are they fluent in English, but they have perfected the local accent.
If we actually were headed for a feudal age, I wouldn’t mind so much. Feudal society, at least in theory, consisted of mutual oaths going both directions (up and down), freely entered into. What we are, I fear, heading into is another age of Aristocracy and the Divine Right of Kings. Or in this case the Clear Rightness of Intellectualism.
*spit*
I think we should remember, however, that much of the prudishness of the Victorian era can be traced to Middle Class reactions to being preached at by the Upper Classes, who then preyed on them sexually. Regency Rakes didn’t tumble peasants. They tumbled maidservants, and shop-girls. And the parents, husbands, and boyfriends of the maidservants and shop-girls resented that even if the maidservants and shop-girls didn’t always.
I’m not sure how this should affect our perceptions of the present situation, but it seems to me that it needs to be kept in mind.
At this point I welcome a feudal age of corporations – at least they reward providers and aren’t slaves to the “parasitic class”. They also have the balls to defend what’s theirs.
I could only hope. But that’s not what’s coming.
It’s going to be an era of “strongmen” – dictators. My friends say our “strongman” is already in place at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. Well I’m not so sure. Then again – when you start de-legitimizing the opposition party by calling them “extremists” and “terrorists” … you’re only a step away from seizing power if those same “extremists” win an election now aren’t you? I mean, Obama CAN’T allow Republican terrorists to take over the U.S. government now can he?
Hell, you can’t even disagree with this President without being called a “racist” – which is the strongest argument I have for never electing a minority or a woman to the office (at least not a “progressive” one – since they’re the major whiners about this) – because Presidents NEED to have opposition to their policies or they run unchecked.
>At this point I welcome a feudal age of corporations – at least they reward providers and aren’t slaves to the “parasitic class”
“And I. for one, welcome our robot overlords…”
A corporation is a gang out for profit, who seek to reward no one but themselves. They pay the lowest wages they can manage, and give the worst treatment that they can, and still get workers. A quick glance at your history will show this to be true. The capitalists, the Mitt Romneys who were born into wealth are the parasitic class, not the workers.
I think…
We all want a world where food, clothing and housing are all (relatively) dirt cheep and machines and robots do most or all of the chores so we can all fight over fancy things like cars and cell phones.
Oh yeah. That’s this world, and its getting better every year.
I wish people who aregued politics would discuss how to keep going the way we are going rather than blaiming the arbitrarily other side for all the problems both real (sustainability of our economy and resources) and imaginary(who’s morality gets made into law, the (insert political group here) Nazis or the anarchists (also known(by their members) as people who prefer to live and let live)
Preach!
“My friends say our “strongman” is already in place at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. Well I’m not so sure.”
I agree that you shouldn’t be so sure. Obama may be a lot of things (none of them very good by this point), but he is no strongman. If he were, we would not be hearing him complain almost constantly about how much the Republican Party is keeping him from doing anything domestically, or even very much in the foreign arena.
“Then again – when you start de-legitimizing the opposition party by calling them “extremists” and “terrorists” … you’re only a step away from seizing power if those same “extremists” win an election now aren’t you? I mean, Obama CAN’T allow Republican terrorists to take over the U.S. government now can he?”
I don’t listen to many political speeches anymore; I read blogs such as this one and opinion columns in the Washington Post or NY Times. It’s in the freewheeling comments section of those columns where I’m seeing small-minded people try to prove how tough they are by calling the Republicans “terrorists.” Aside from mangled metaphors by his hapless press secretaries, can anyone pin any of those references on Obama?
Granted, it is on Obama to step up and speak directly to his supporters that such terms are a useless and disrespectful distraction. The fact that he has not speaks volumes.
As for seizing power, it would be one thing to say it, it would be another to enforce it. To enforce it would take loyal troops. Maybe a cadre of die-hard Democrats would support Obama, but with the country as split down the middle as it is right now, I’m betting more than a few troops would either opt for neutrality (akin to when the Egyptians threw out Mubarak because his armed forces chose not to fight for him) or would throw down their uniforms and choose active opposition.
Another excellent article by Mags. It makes it easy to understand why politicians like Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter don’t see themselves as hypocrites. Despite their best efforts to combat the scourge of “Ladies of the Night”, they themselves fell victim to “vile temptresses sent straight from Hell to seduce godly men into wrongdoing”. I have to say that at least public figures like this Kim Bogart and Pastor Moore are at least honest about the true nature of the anti-sex work movement. So called “Feminist” groups are anything but, they are the rank hypocrites and don’t seem to understand the message they are sending…that women are truly the weaker sex.
I don’t know about you, but I was lured with promises of a magic carpet ride.
“Won’t you come with me, little girl, on a magic carpet ride.”
It all makes sense now!
Since I’m a male, I’m incapable of being “lured” by anything. Any choice I make is a choice I freely made and I will be responsible for the consequences of such a choice… hmmm….the anti sex feminists are making me feel empowered as a result of my gender status…but leave it to my wife to bring me down again.
It ironic that the Male led Christian fundamentalist movement regards sex workers as women who have supernatural powers to seduce and corrupt men while the female led Anti-sex feminist movement sees sex workers as infantile childlike figures who are incapable of intelligent thought.
The male-led version is pretty well correct. Have you seen Maggie’s red-umbrella photo? Yeah … I checked my brain right there, and now all she has to do is crook her shapely index finger at me. And it totally won’t be my responsibility, either! It’s all on her. She and her supernatural powers. Hurry up and corrupt me!
Jim, if it’s time to have a discussion of nail polish colors, just let me know. 😉
I actually took a picture today in which my nails were visible! It was just a hand, though. 😉
I’ll take what I can get. Beggars (such as myself) can’t be choosers. Besides, you have very attractive hands.
Sasha, it’s time! Thanks for taking the initiative.
Of course you are right, the male version as always…is absolutely spot on while the female version is as usual…totally stupid. Yes I’ve seen Mag’s photo…again males can’t be “lured” unless it is by shapely temptresses “from hell”. In that and only that case…It is not our fault!!
Its not really ironic, it makes perfect sense-
Evil woman are the opposite of the good woman of their relative religions.
What is really ironic is that they decided to team up despite fighting completely different imaginary demon women.
It is ironic because the anti-sex feminists are purportedly fighting for gender equality. If it is ok for males to be craven sexual horn dogs, why is not ok for women to be sexually insatiable vixens?? This question brings up another ironic fact, a woman is more than capable of having sex with 10 guys in a row, can any man do the same??
“we’ve seen the return of tortured, obfuscatory euphemisms and circumlocutory, polysyllabic abortions used in place of clear words and direct phrases”
LOL.
The Jerusalem Post citation underlines the fact that sex-trafficking hysteria, in common with most moral panics, is usually whitewashed racism and xenophobia. Drug prohibition, sex-trafficking hysteria, even the chinese “cultural revolution” and pol-pot’s cambodia. They were all about purging we nice people of the evil influence of outsiders.
First, I thoroughly enjoyed this, Maggie. “Well done” doesn’t cover it.
Second, I believe the source of American misogyny is the Bible, since it says things like ‘I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.’ The connection between the one and the other is so rarely made that I feel it needs to be said.
As an Israeli, I have a few things to say about the piece you quoted from The Jerusalem Post.
First, you may not notice it from a glance, but the writer of that piece is an orthodox rabbi. Color me surprised.
His alleged expertise on the subject matter comes (by his own admission in another article) from a talk he had over coffee with some unnamed woman who “opened his eyes” to this horrible horrible issue, of which he was previously unaware.
Basically he is the embodiment of the unholy alliance between naive ignorance and deep-seated (religious) prejudice.
As for his claims, oh boy, where do I even begin. He spews so much bullshit that I can’t deal with it all. I’ll just comment on the one thing I know from personal experience. During my time in special forces (all Israelis have to serve in the army) I had actually spent some time at the southern border, where allegedly all that human trafficking happens. As team sergeant I got to sit at the debriefings, and learned that human trafficking was quite a rare occurrence – about once a year according to the border guard officer who did the debriefing. There were no “tacit understandings between the IDF and Beduin smugglers”. In fact persons crossing the border (voluntarily or not) was not taken lightly; it was on par with weapon and Heroin smuggling. Basically it meant that the Internal Security Service got involved, and the profit simply wasn’t worth the added risk for the smugglers (which is why it was so rare). All in all I would say there were no more than a few dozen prostitutes a year entering Israel that way, a far cry from the 3200 figure the article gives. And really, even according to Israeli feminist statistics there are 10 to 15 thousand prostitutes in Israel, which means that even if they are all smuggled, the average lifespan of a prostitute in Israel must be 3-4 years.
Well, that was long enough so I’ll stop here.
Goodnight.
Thank you for the extra information! As usual, the people who are actually in a position to see all this supposed “trafficking” never do, yet nobody wants to listen to them!
Shabbat Shalom, Glider 🙂
I suppose that there is one piece of potential good news in all of this. Potential, not actual. It shows that left and right, conservative and liberal, religious and secular, can band together to fight a common enemy. It would be nice if that enemy were poverty or cancer or pollution instead of women trying to earn a living while harming no one, but there it is.