This essay first appeared in Cliterati on April 13th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.
Probably the most common stereotype of anti-sex worker feminists is that they’re all misandrists, and on the surface that certainly seems true. But a closer examination of the issue reveals a deeper motivation which more closely resembles an obsessive concern with men at the expense of women. Feminists are willing to deny models income in order to deny lads’ mags to men, and would rather see women in the porn industry unemployed rather than know that men can watch porn videos. “Sex trafficking” fetishists are willing to undermine the entire edifice of civil liberties for both sexes in order to stop men from having access to commercial sex. Anti-sex worker screeds go on and on about “ending men’s demand for sex”, or “teaching men they aren’t entitled to sex”, or “look at the awful things men say about ‘prostituted women’!” Men this, men that, men the other thing; men, men, Men, MEN, MEN! No matter how vociferously prohibitionists insist that their motive is women’s protection or “empowerment”, sex work prohibition has absolutely nothing to do with women: it’s all about the men.
Nearly every Western society has a long tradition of viewing sex as something “dirty” and “demeaning”; the idea of punishment is inextricably bound up with the concept of “correction”, so buried in the misandrist rhetoric spouted by prohibitionists is the notion that if Big Nanny just spanks men hard enough and often enough, they won’t have those dirty thoughts any more. The underlying pretext of punishing men for male sexuality, and restricting them from enjoying same, is not to hurt them but rather to “help” them by making them more like (asexual, idealized) women. To be sure, “fallen” women are to be “helped” as well wherever possible, but when it happens it’s merely a happy byproduct of the campaign to “improve” men; those women who refuse to be “saved” and to dutifully recite the feminist catechism thereafter will be thrown under the bus without the slightest hesitation. While this motive is obvious in most Christian prohibitionism, it’s often less so in the feminist variety; that is not, however, the case in Katha Pollitt’s remarkably-transparent jeremiad in The Nation, whose lede included the feminist shibboleth “male privilege.” But rather than quote from Pollitt’s polemic itself, let’s instead look at Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s excellent criticism of it in Reason:
…Pollitt is upset about what she perceives as widespread leftist support for legalized prostitution. This is, in itself, a strange perception…I am far from alone in noticing a recent surge in anti–sex work passion among progressives. But more problematic/annoying are the reasons Pollitt gives for criminalizing prostitution, reasons which turn on an unsavory belief that restricting liberty is justified if it leads people to better (read: more progressive) views…Giving sex workers more rights…would also mean giving johns less punishment—a point which Pollitt expects women to find scary. Have you thought about the fact that men you know might visit prostitutes, young ladies? “This faceless man could be anyone: your colleague, your boyfriend, your father, your husband…When feminists argue that sex work should be normalized…they accept male privilege they would attack in any other area…Maybe men would be better partners, in bed and out of it, if they couldn’t purchase that fantasy,” Pollitt [writes]…
Despite its “feminist” trappings, Pollitt’s argument rests on the premise that men’s attitudes, ideas and feelings are so important and so central to our society that the state is justified in criminalizing and marginalizing some women and endangering all women in order to shape men in some way. The goal of making them better bed partners for “good” women justifies dispatching thugs to stalk, entrap, humiliate, brutalize, rape, chain, abduct, cage and torture the “bad” women who want no part of this social engineering project; or failing that, at least to starve, ostracize and endanger them via the “progressive” Swedish model. In either case, what the prohibitionist philosophy boils down to is that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to be endangered, harmed or even killed if it keeps some men from thinking Bad Thoughts; whether the aim is to control men or to “improve” them, women must be limited, subjugated or even sacrificed to accomplish the goal. One way or the other, it’s all about making men acceptable to the state and to “good” women, and what happens to “bad” women in the process is neither here nor there.
And because their demonisation of men and marginalisation of women is considered by them to be ‘the right thing to do’, like almost all evil people, they believe that they are doing the right thing so much that anyone who questions them is branded a pariah and a heretic. (Or spreading ‘hate speech’ or a ‘misogynist’ in layman’s terms)
‘Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences.’ CS Lewis
Just for the record, this is a different A. (not that I post much, but still)
Reblogged this on Pycraftsworld’s Weblog.
Excellent essay. at this point in our development, we ought to be looking at why society sees sex as so dirty. It’s wrapped up with religion, but we ought to be getting past that by now.
Thanks to readily-available birth control, antibiotics & safe abortion we were starting to, but HIV smashed that and put us back to the old “wages of sin is death” days. Once our culture is over its current fear of its own collective shadow and the “cult of the child” is again passé, we’ll see another sexual revolution; alas, you and I will be far too old to enjoy it.
The wonderfulness of the sexual revolution was heavily oversold, in my opinion. An awful lot of sexual bullying and minor predation seemed to go on, and even win approval in some quarters, and the general rate of STDs jumped hugely. AIDS was just the lethal icing on a pretty revolting cake.
I still think, and always have thought, that prostitution should be legal, if only because its legality would remove a lot of pressure on those of us who have low sex drives, or idiosyncratic ones, to participate in the general mating dance that doesn’t address our issues. But don’t pray for another Sexual Revolution, please. The last one left us with issues we still haven’t addressed rationally.
I agree with your sentiments regarding religion and sex, but I’m not sure “getting past” religion will help overall. Looking at societies and the beliefs that inform them, Protestant Christianity looks rather good. Catholic societies rest on the backs of large groups of peasants. Buddhism sounds swell, but Buddhist societies routinely treat people like farm animals. Don’t get me STARTED on the Hindu faith(s) and the attendant (and revolting) caste system.
Yes Protestantism obsesses about sex. It also formed the basis for the first anti-slavery movements that weren’t fundamentally slave rebellions. It produced the first societies that actually took care of the small and the different. Atheists like to make horrified reference to witch burnings and other Christian viciousness, but Atheistical societies murdered 100 million people in the 20th Century, so possibly they should shut up.
Sex is a primary drive. I think it’s fair to say, therefore, that it is always going to bend people out of shape. Not that we shouldn’t fight the tendency, but until I see a decent society that also gets sex right I’m not going to be down on societies that get it wrong on that basis alone.
“Protestant Christianity looks rather good”
Parts of it, perhaps. But in N Ireland we have a theocracy just as poisonous as those in radicalised countries. Have a look on Youtube for the Justice committee of the N Ireland Assembly and watch and listen to how some members treated a sex worker and a couple of academics, amongst others. (They are trying to introduce the Swedish model here, because of trafficking; this does seem to be a small problem locally, and it’s clear from their attitudes that they are anti all sex except within marriage.) It was English protestants who transported thousands of Irish Catholics as slaves to Montserrat, and who also transported 1000 prostitutes from London to the West Indies. The Puritans who left England as it wasn’t “pure” enough for them, were a nasty bunch of people; the sort who were quite capable of hanging someone for adultery—as was Calvin.
At the other extreme—though I can’t really see the present incumbent saying it—Geoffrey Fisher, the (protestant) Church of England Archbishop of Canterbury (after the sovereign, the head honcho) spoke in a debate in the House of Lords in 1957, and took:
the old-fashioned view…that men have every right to a reasonable supply of prostitutes and should not in any way be restrained from resorting to them.
Isn’t Protestantism the dominant religion in the USA?
Right at the moment the dominant Religion of the U.S.A, in the sense of that which informs most policy decisions by the Ruling Class, is Progressivism/Liberalism,New-Age-Religion-of-the-month. The U.S. was founded on 18th Century Protestantism, with roots back into earlier (and far less tolerant) versions.
“Land where my Father’s fried,
young Witches and applied
whips to the Quaker’s hide,
and made him spring.”
I have scant patience for Progressivism; it strikes me as this decade’s excuse to tell me what to do, and to hell with them AND the social construct they rode in on.
Protestantism strikes me as a firmer base. There are elements I don’t care for, but the Atheisms I’ve run into are worse. The nicest people I’ve known are, almost without exception Theists of some stripe or another, and the majority are Protestants. Sadly all too many of the worst busybodies are too. But the Neo-Feministas prove beyond question that that isn’t limited to Churchgoers, and that it always comes down to some small soul throwing a temper-tantrum because folks won’t do it THEIR way.
You’re deluded. Christianity, the majority being Protestant, is still the dominant religion in this country. Look at actual stats.
According to the ARIS, 76% of Americans identify as Christians (about 51% Protestant and 25% Catholic).
According to a 2011 Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 Americans say “yes” when asked the basic question “Do you believe in God?”
The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, only 15% of Americans claimed no religion, of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%). According to the Pew Forum, less than 2% of the U.S. population describes itself as atheist.
By actual stats, Catholicism was the dominant religion in Ireland circa 1900. The country was then run by a Protestant elite from another land.
This country is run by a Progressive/Liberal elite from (based on what they think of as “facts”) a completely different planet. Since, unlike the British of 1900, they neither like nor understand the use of military force (though they resort to it regularly), I expect this to change in the not-too-distant future. They don’t approve of Christianity, at-all at-all, and suffer from the delusion that Socialism is a respectable religion.
I find them more offensive, frankly, than the likes of Pat Robertson. Robertson only wants to criticize who one might sleep with (though if he thought he could, he’d regulate). The current elite want to have a say about pretty much every thing I put in my mouth, and everything that comes out of it.
Guillotine bait, the lot of them.
Yes and no, as far as Ireland is concerned. The ruling elite was certainly protestant, but was mostly local—the so-called Anglo-Irish; but the real seat of power was the UK parliament in Westminster—after the Irish parliament was bribed into dissolving itself in the early 1800s. But—and this is the root of many present day problems—the population in the north-east was predominantly protestant, while throughout the island the majority was catholic. Despite the ambitions of the Easter Uprising, which envisaged equality for all (including men and women) de Valera’s new 1937 constitution de facto integrated the catholic church with the state, and relegated the position of woman to be home bound, child rearers. Much of this paternalistic attitude seems to persist in the “south” today. If the attitudes of hard-line protestants in the “north” are based on “fundamentalism”, the attitudes towards woman are strikingly similar—paradoxically, one of the few areas which both sides agree upon.
I’ve seen reports saying that almost 50% of Americans believe in the literal truth of Genesis—they are creationists.
A recent survey of American adults showed that about a quarter believed that the sun revolves around the earth—the geocentric theory. The heliocentric theory has been around for a very long time; and was proven by observation in the 1820s.
I’m not certain if this belief in geocentricity is because of poor (scientific) education or because of what the Bible apparently says.
A Google search confirmed what I suspected—that excellent picture of the “Astro-Chicks” was drawn by none other than Jack Kirby.
Absolutely; his style is inimitable. A really keen Kirby fan could even tell you the exact period.
Certainly post his run at DC, with THE NEW GODS, KAMANDI, OMAC etc. I suspect even post the return to Marvel and THE ETERNALS.
Nope. It’s contemporary with New Gods. He was experimenting a lot at that time, stretching himself a bit after a decade of arguing with Stan Lee.
I’m not a huge Kirby fan, but I instantly assumed it was ’70s Kirby.
IMHO Kirby is one of the three great masters of the alien landscape, the other two being Ditko & Infantino. Kirby is the king of industrial backgrounds, Ditko weird supernatural worlds & Infantino alien cityscapes.
The logo used by abolitions in the recent Amnesty International debates was a parody on the AI logo replacing the candle with male genitals and adding the words, “Protect the Male Orgasm.” Clearly, whoever came up with that is concerned with men having sex more than the alleged abuse of women.
Yes, that’s one of the things that inspired this column. I was fascinated by their unrelenting focus on suppressing & marginalizing women merely to deny men the ability to buy sex.
Exactly, why else would gay sex work be criminalized in Sweden?
While sex work should certainly be decriminalized, maybe in a sense we’re fighting the wrong battle. I smell distinct Christian fundamentalism behind this ‘sex is bad’ propaganda. Debunking Christianity would solve many other problems, e.g., creationism and ‘abstinence-only’ sex-ed in our schools.
If you drill down to the fundamentals of Christianity, you will find something along the lines of:
1) Love thy God
2) Love thy neighbour as thy brother—i.e. be nice to everyone
Whereas in Islam, the fundamentals are:
1) Believe in Allah
2) Pray to him (sic) five times a day
3) Keep the fast of Ramadan
4) Give alms to the poor*
5) Make the pilgrimage to Mecca*
* provided it doesn’t inconvenience your family.
Anything more is religiosity, the product of theologians. And none of these fundamentals is anyway contentious.
(BTW, does any reader know the equivalent in Judaism?)
The great Pharisee Hillel summarized the Torah. “What is hateful to yourself do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Go and study.”
Micah the Prophet said, “He has told you what is good and what The Lord requires of you. Act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.”
Thank you. I suspected that this might be the case, but wasn’t certain. I do like the “All the rest is commentary. Go and study.” concept and instruction. But why is it so difficult for many people.
It’s “difficult” because even such initially-simple-seeming terms such as “love”, “mercy”, “justly”, and “humbly” turn out to not be so simple to define after all. People can and definitely do sincerely vary and even outright conflict over what actions and attitudes they consider to be loving, merciful, humble, and just.
“Anything more is religiosity, the product of theologians”
Well, no. All too much of it snuck in with the prejudices and cultures of those who adopted – or pro ported too adopt – the religion. Maybe at some point a theologian was involved in “accepting” the inevitable, but I don’t think it’s fair to lay all the blame on them.
Well, yes: the concepts promulgated by the early Christians were very much at odds with the beliefs of the Roman Empire within whose purlieu they lived and evangelised. They certainly took over Roman festivals for their own ends—syncretism—but their monotheistic beliefs were very much at odds with the pantheistic Romans. And until Constantine’s (very political) conversion, they were a persecuted minority.
Misandry on the one side and fear of sex on the other. The Neofeministas and the Fundamentalist Christians are strange bedfellows, but they are in bed with each-other on this, if on nothing else.
Nothing that can be agreed upon by radical feminists and fundamentalist Christians can be good for anybody. Feminism hates and fears men and fundamental Christianity hates and fear women.
Well said. Can I use it?
by all means if you think it will help
Right now, there’s a campaign by the White House to persuade men not to rape women. I don’t think in theory anybody ought to have a problem with this. What sane man is going to admit that he wants to rape women? But if this campaign were to be of any real use, it would admit that
1) Men do have sexual needs, and it is very dangerous to suppress them or pretend they don’t exist.
2) If men cannot have sex with a girlfriend or spouse, they should be able to have sex with a willing prostitute.
3) Barring that, they should masturbate to some sort of pornography.
Unfortunately, neither the religious right nor neofeminists are willing to acknowledge any of these things. They genuinely believe that men should NEVER ejaculate unless it is with a woman they intend to have a long-term relationship with. They also believe that a man masturbating to a Hustler centerfold, a swimsuit magazine, the Victoria’s Secret catalog, or even a comic book does just as much damage to women as forcibly raping her. Which is incredibly stupid, but until Americans wake up to the importance and reality of human sexuality, things are not going to get any better.
Obama’s just telling women voters what they want to hear, “rape” is such a stimulating topic that people don’t notice how embarrassing it is for the Presidency of the USA to have come to this.
“there’s a campaign by the White House to persuade men not to rape women”
As AVfM points out – this is every bit as insulting and bigoted as a campaign to persuade black people to not steal (etc).
It would be stupid, too, if it’s goal really was to reduce the incidence of rape (which had been quietly reducing itself for decades, anyway).
But that’s not really the goal. The goal is to create fear, for purposes of political control. http://paulmurray.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/fear-on-campus/ . Someone perceptively labelled these sorts of efforts a “two minute’s hate”. “Teach men not to rape” posters are the equivalent of Big Brother’s posters keeping people afraid of Eastasia, with whom Oceana has always been at war.
Right now, there’s a campaign by the White House to persuade men not to rape women.
Not exactly. The real point is to impose the neofeminist, non-credible notion of “rape culture” (and its definition of any sex that wasn’t the woman’s idea, or that she regrets afterward, as rape) on the country, while carefully framing these ideas as if they’re already universally accepted (so debate is prevented and, if they can help it, common sense is never heard from).
The constant use of this argument technique is a hallmark of the Left, especially when presenting (in the name of tolerance/acceptance for all) the view that only some people’s feelings and needs are valid, and others must be forced to unlearn theirs. So long as the Left not only thinks this way but also argues this way, I see no rational way of dealing with them but to dismiss them as evil enemies. They won’t let anyone reason with them.
Civilisation is all about chaining up men in order to extract labour from them. Women will have babies regardless, but men will relax and goof off if they aren’t induced to work. Managing men’s access to sex (especially for young, productive men) is a huge part of that inducement. Work hard, make money, keep your head down and you get a wife and regular sex. That’s the deal, that’s the bargain.
A false one, of course. One always more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Prostitution is the safety valve, which wiser societies at the very least tolerated.
[…] McNeill, “All About the Men”, The Honest Courtesan, […]