It’s a sad fact that more women than men support the violent policing of women’s sexualities. Think about that: despite all the “feminist” rhetoric supporting a woman’s supposed right to control her body and sexuality, polls consistently show that more women than men are in favor of criminalizing prostitution; that is, more women than men believe male cops should deceive, rape, rob, brutalize, humiliate, cage and ruin the lives of other women for having sex for reasons of which these women disapprove. Presumably-sane women, many of whom would call themselves “feminists”, think it’s perfectly OK for a state mostly run by men to make laws giving other men the “right” to guess why a particular woman is having sex, raping her if the cop claims it’s to “gather evidence”, then taking her possessions, locking her in a cage and inviting news media to splash her picture all over papers, TV and the internet…because her motivation for having sex is “wrong”. They tacitly approve of her reputation being destroyed, her children abducted from her and any hope of a straight job forever closed to her because they wouldn’t have sex for the reasons she chooses to have it. Oh, some of them like to pretend that they don’t want this to happen, claiming that the “Swedish model” decriminalizes sex workers (an obvious absurdity given “accessory” laws, “avails” laws, “brothel-keeping” laws, etc); however, even if it really did what the propaganda says, that would still mean they supported the principle of starving other women into homelessness and financial ruin for the “crime” of wrongthink.
There are a lot of theories, guesses and opinions as to why this might be, including mate-guarding (i.e., attacking other women their husbands might choose to fuck) and the idea that whores lower the price of sex by charging a flat fee rather than forcing men to accept a possible lifelong burden in order to get it. And while these ideas might have some merit, they don’t explain why these same women aren’t equally upset by women who essentially give sex away, nor why lesbians are well-represented in the whore-hating crowd despite their sexual disinterest in men. Now, it’s absolutely true that behaviors deriving from evolution aren’t logical; for example, a lot of human sexual behavior is clearly designed to increase the number of offspring that individual can produce, even if the individual has absolutely no conscious interest in producing children and even if he or she is sterile. But given the human history of promiscuity and casual prostitution (read Sex at Dawn if you haven’t already), I’m not really convinced that whore-hating has a deep evolutionary motive, at least not directly; I think it’s more likely a byproduct of a general female behavior pattern which probably does have an evolutionary origin, but which isn’t specifically aimed at whores.
I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that in general, women tend to put more emphasis on social interactions than do men. Baby girls stare at faces for longer than baby boys do, girls tend to travel in duos or small groups, women tend to have higher “social intelligence”, we work through difficulties by interacting with each other, we bond by sharing vulnerabilities, we emphasize consensus-building, etc, etc. The reasons for this aren’t important to consider in this limited space; what does matter is that women have a much more pronounced tendency to think of ourselves as members of a group than men do, and a much stronger tendency to feel that the actions of other women reflect upon us. In general, guys aren’t all that likely to be concerned that some individual dude’s behavior “makes all men look bad”, while it isn’t at all hard to find some collectivist “feminist” blathering about how the mere existence of Barbie, sex workers, sexy lingerie, kink, labioplasty or some other thing “demeans all women” or even “harms all women”. Women trapped in this belief-system seem to imagine a deep and mystical interconnectedness of all women, as though we were all “merely the three-dimensional projections of a single hydra-like gestalt entity floating in hyperspace“; they therefore imagine that “any single woman’s sexual activities performed in private magically affect all women throughout the world as though we were one huge set of Corsican sisters, and therefore all women must submit to whatever limitations are imposed on our sexuality by our rightful leaders“. Once one accepts the absurd premise, the anti-sex “feminist” demand for suppression of sex work actually makes a twisted kind of sense; to someone trapped in this horrifying belief-system, all the women in the world are stuck in one immense elevator together and the whores are smoking, farting and pissing on the floor.
The best evidence for my theory being the correct one is that, as I alluded to above, sex workers aren’t the only women policed in this fashion. The women who demand the criminalization of commercial sex also tend to be anti-kink and bigoted toward transwomen; this cannot be explained by “mate guarding” or “sex price depression” theories, but it makes perfect sense in light of the notion that nonconforming women somehow “pollute” womanhood by our very existence. The poison vomited out by Trans-Exclusionary “Radical” Feminists (TERFs) is especially telling (the fact that these women are in no way “radical” is a subject for another day); their screeds tend to be larded with nonsense about some imaginary monolithic “shared female experience” (as though there were such a thing) which excludes transwomen, and how that makes them not “real women” (a slur that, not coincidentally, is often hurled at sex workers as well). Add to that the fact that TERFs are nearly always Sex Work Exclusionary “Radical” Feminists (SWERFs) as well, and I think we have a smoking gun. But wait, there’s more: as many bisexual women can attest, there are still quite a few lesbians out there (though, thank Aphrodite, not as many as there used to be) who insist that bi-women can’t have “real” lesbian relationships, or that we aren’t “really” queer, or whatever; when I tweeted about this last week I received no fewer than four replies to this effect from would-be Dyke Cops within two hours. Back in my formative years in the ’80s, it was even worse; I was actually told by many older lesbians (older than me, that is; some were as young as 30-something) that “real” lesbians didn’t use dildoes on each other, that fisting was abhorrent, and that kink was basically a mortal sin (“How could you possibly want to hurt another woman?!? What’s wrong with you?!?”) It’s absolutely true that the latter kind of sex-act-policing has largely vanished from lesbian communities, but the fact that it ever existed speaks volumes. There is a large and very vocal subset of women who are deeply horrified by the fact that other women are unlike them sexually, and many if not most of them are perfectly willing to use coercion – up to and including the threat of sexual violence inflicted by armed men – to punish these other women for the sin of being different.
I have the opposite fear: I’m afraid I’m not like other women(or man)…that I’m a total freak.
I know it’s a very irrational fear because…how’s a human completely different from another human?
LOL, but not really.
The explanation given by “radical feminist” ideologues is summed up in two words: Internalized oppression. In their mind, any woman who uses a dildo, engages in BDSM, or exchanges sex for money must be doing so because she is still brainwashed by patriarchy to believe this is okay. And, it is the duty of every radfem to “liberate” her from such “false consciousness”.
It never occurs to them that their acts of coercion are more reflective of the system they claim to be fighting than any sexual behavior of which they don’t approve.
A couple of thoughts: I assume that more men than women avail themselves of sex workers’ services. People tend to fear the unknown; perhaps that’s a factor. Also, I imagine religious beliefs play a part.
I can’t speak for anyone but my feminist self, and I’m in support of this https://feministsforsexworkers.com/
Thank you for mentioning “Sex At Dawn.” It’s an eye-opener of a book that more people need to read.
Great post!
My only quibble is I would assign a little more weight to what you call mate-guarding, not on a conscious level but sub conscious, evolution driven level. It manifests itself in both sexes. The practice of males of some species killing other possibly rival males to ensure “their” females are passing on only their genes is very common. Less common and less well known is the mirror of this. The working hypothesis, not completely accepted, goes something like “I have gone through a rigorous vetting and courtship rituals to choose the absolute best sire for offspring. If he impregnates another female, their offspring will be serious rivals to mine.”
None of this is simple and open, and the structure of our current society as you so well discuss, influences and warps everything. I suspect if male prostitutes serving wives were more numerous and acknowledged by society, a poll would find men much more derisive of them as a group than women.
Again, I totally agree with all the other issues you discuss, and these are just comments on one of so many issues you make us think about.
I understand the argument, but as I pointed out it ignores the fact that some of the most vociferous proponents of criminalization are lesbians.
Maggie, I would agree that the prevalence of lesbians within the SWERF camps would preclude seeing this exclusively as mate-guarding. The way I see it, there are multiple motivations going on here. For one thing, there’s a continuum of overly simplistic – dare I say childish – attitudes towards sex, ranging from beliefs that “it’s only for love” to outright erotophobia. Another, I believe, is the idea that money somehow “soils” things (to which I say: “Uh, sorry, but money is a tool, not some shadowy talisman with the magical power to corrupt.”)
You’ve mentioned how most women are not that straight, so committed lesbians have an interest in keeping men away from women in general, “end demand” is related to fantasies of “ending men”. Competition for resources can result in identity politics that take on a life of their own, and you end up with “no fisting!”
Lovely post!
I feel this issue is related to Need for Cognitive Closure, the measure for how well a person deals with ambiguity/uncertainty/the world containing experiences not comprehensible to them. Recent research showed that high NFCC is more than religious or political beliefs indicative of intolerance towards LGBTQIA/sexworkers/foreigners/(non)religious people/etc.
Basically, some people are more disturbed than others by being confronted with ambiguous experiences they can’t comprehend/decode using a worldview based on their own person. This makes them more likely to be hostile towards these experiences, as threats to someone’s worldview are psychologically similar to threats to someone’s person. This is apparently the root cause of a lot of intolerance issues. The more rigid someone’s worldview/selfperception is, the worse they’ll act in the face of difference.
Yep.
Makes a lot of sense.
I just had a look into NFCC (Googled it, really) and it seems Psychology has had quite a few really fundamental research results in the last few decades that are widely unknown or ignored. Possibly because these results do not say anything good about people that have a large influence on society as a whole.
Well, I for one prefer to go down with the ship understanding what went wrong, so thanks for that pointer.
Definitely explains radical fauxminist reactions to all sorts of fun stuff!
Makes a lot of sense. There are quite a few other things women do to women that are pretty much unacceptable to any modern human being, but that can be explained quite well by this “large and very vocal subset of women”.
It’s not just “mate guarding,” it’s a matter of trying to deny other women the opportunity to breed at all. As any prostitute doubtless knows, the opportunities for hypocrisy are enormous where sex is concerned. Some women will be less likely to mate if other women hypocritically discuss the advantages of “not mating” or “limited mating” while actually mating themselves.
Further, the most dangerous thing to anyone’s offspring is not just “someone’s mate mating with someone else” but anyone who behaves in a way which might lead to more births from rival females. Women who offer a better menu of sex will presumably breed more (and more easily,) so we must fight against them, and against the men who accept them!
Straight out I think because they are jealous. Many are not pretty. And they feel if they suffer, so should you. And some women don’t want the responsibility of equality, they are lazy.
When I studied CS, I heard some pretty scathing comments from fellow female students about women studying other, much easier subjects. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge none of the female computer scientists, engineers and mathematicians I know ever regretted investing the large amount of time and effort that getting that degree took.
You make being a woman sound a little like being in the Borg Collective. However, I have noticed that women do have more solidarity among themselves, for good or ill, than men do.
I’d say that hostility to whores is partly the sort of thing you get when a cartel has to face competition that’s priced lower, partly jealousy (why is SHE having “so much fun” while I’m stuck with this schlump?) and partly fear that “her man” might leave her for “that trollop.” This last fear is usually more unfounded than women want to admit, but most women don’t want to grok that men do think differently, and we do separate sex, love and commitment in our minds more easily than they do.
Based on the history, I’d go with the mate guarding hypothesis. Look at WHEN the laws against prostitution, as well as age of consent laws, largely came in to being. Additionally, keep in mind that modern research shows that the fewer sex partners you’ve had, the happier you tend to be with your current sex partner. Put another way, when you don’t know what you’re missing, you tend to be very happy with what you have.
It happened mainly post civil war. The country was transitioning from an economic system in which husbands were largely in view of their wives all the time to one in which they were not. Farmers were out in the field in view of the wife/family. Most other occupations were of the cottage industry nature: the business was colocated with the home. The “business owner” and his family lived above the store, or in the house next door. The main issue was that husbands had few opportunities to cheat on their wives. Then along came the industrial revolution, and more and more husbands were working in factories, which involved some kind of commute. Additionally, factory work generally paid a lot better than the previous family business. So some guys would stop off at a bar/inn on the way home for “beer with the fellas”, since the family was doing well financially. That’s where they’d meet a young woman working as a prostitute. There was a bit of an increase of young women working as prostitutes because of the number of dead fathers as a result of the war. Some were daughters, some were widows. So some men would fall in love with their new sex partner, they’d take the family savings, and run away with her and start a new life. Married women around the country convinced their state legislatures to make sex with young women illegal, as well as making it illegal to have sex for money, by painting this as a major “epidemic” (the usual BS of hyping the problem to get action).
We got the age of consent and antiprostitution laws because married women (typically past their sexual/attractiveness prime of 13-25) didn’t want to have to compete with younger, more attractive, or more sexually adventuresome women. Even women who hadn’t lost husbands in this manner supported the effort, as a way of restricting their husbands exposure to other women.
Basically, there’s some percentage of married women who just aren’t interested in keeping their husband sexually satisfied, and they don’t want to lose them to women who will. For example, some years ago, a study asked prostitutes to keep track of what kind of sex their customers asked for (oral, anal, etc.) and to ask their customers why they came to them for sex. The most popular sex act requested was oral, and the most popular reason was that their wife/girlfriend wouldn’t do it for them. By denying men easy access to women who might be more willing to sexually satisfy them, women made finding and keeping a husband easier.
If you have answered this in other blogs please steer me there.
I was wondering why lesbians are accepted in the prohibition groups. If they are mainly based on Christianity wouldn’t they not agree on lesbians sexual choices? And from a religious standpoint what is worse sex for money or sex with the wrong sex (lol, this isnt my view i am just trying to understand).
Prohibitionism is an authoritarian movement, not a specifically Christian one. “Feminist” and Christian “purity” campaigners have been in bed together for the past 150 years.
I miss the days when you got so many comments here.
I saw a link to this post tonight, so I thought I’d reacquaint myself with your views on Transgender topics. I’ve been looking up a lot about the subject for the last few months, ever since deciding that I’m Transgender. And I have definitely noticed a great deal of TERF rhetoric is identical to the various anti-sex work propaganda that you’ve discussed here.
Maybe all ERFs are pretty much the same.
(And yes, I guess this is my official coming-out, at least for the two websites where I use this name.)
I think most of the reason for the decline in number of comments is simply that Google now tries to hide websites they declare “adult”, so there aren’t remotely as many hits as their used to be.