On Monday evening I sent out this tweet, quoting an article someone else had tweeted (CAUTION: loud & obnoxious autoplay video):
People who follow me are mostly used to my hyperbole, but I reckon I touched a nerve because a couple of male internet friends took exception, asking whether I was passing judgment on women who have sex with men because they like them, and questioning whether I thought there was anything wrong with doing things for free that one could charge for, out of principle or affection, such as pro bono legal work or favors for friends. I think my answer deserves a little expansion, and presentation in a more permanent medium than Twitter.
Like most people, I also do things for others I care about or whom I think it’s right to do things for, without asking for direct monetary compensation; however, I don’t deceive myself that those things aren’t labor. I sometimes do have sex with men without cash changing hands, but those guys (or their wives or girlfriends) pay me in other ways; currency is not the only form of payment. The problem isn’t when sexual labor is uncompensated by money, it’s when women buy into the male lie that sexual labor isn’t labor at all, because “mutuality”. Oh, please. I cook for people I love; I give them rides all over the place; I help them do manual labor; I wait on them when they’re sick. And nobody pretends those things aren’t work just because I’m doing them for people I care about; that’s why we have expressions like “labor of love”. But suddenly, when the work is sexual, everybody wants women to buy into the lie of “mutuality” even though I can sell my sexual labor & few men can; because so many men are willing to stick their dicks into anything warm (alive or not), dick is abundant and of low value. It is not in any way an equal or fair trade for pussy, no matter what many men like to believe. Expressed in economic terms, my sexual labor has value & his does not (except to other men); it’s a simple case of supply & demand. So I’ll give sex for “free” (where that means “no direct cash exchange”) if and only if the recipient (note that word, which designates the one who receives a thing of value) recognizes that what I give him is a gift, a precious thing of high value that I choose to bestow upon him for some reason of my own, and not a thing he’s “owed” or, even worse, a thing that his own low-value participation constitutes “payment in kind” for. In the case of a physical gift like jewelry, or a gift of labor like cooking a meal or helping a friend with some task, the recipient recognizes that the gift so conferred has value and expresses gratitude (unless he’s a semi-savage without proper manners). But in the case of sex, men want to pretend that what was given wasn’t a gift but a “mutual experience”, and a woman who disagrees and demands recognition of her value is stigmatized & punished with insults, the threat or infliction of violence and, in barbaric regimes like the United States, organized state persecution, police violence and ostracism. If that last weren’t true, this would be an academic discussion; however, it is true, and the recognition of the value of female sexual labor is not a mere intellectual exercise, but rather a matter of life and death for millions of women all over the world.
Sure, sex work is work, but that doesn’t rule out an element of mutuality. My long-term provider and I spend many more hours off the clock than on. Same with my physician, a long-time friend who fully expects payment for services.
“An element of mutuality” is like “a little bit pregnant”. The idea of mutuality is that the sex exchanged is the payment to each other. Which in a hetero relationship (and, to be honest, most lesbian relationships) is bullshit.
Just wondering…. Why in most lesbian relationships? I thought they were supposed to be egalitarian.
That’s what “political lesbians” want you to believe. It may be the same in gay male relationships, but I can’t speak to that because I’m not a gay man & don’t actually know what it’s like inside of their relationships.
The moving men might enjoy the decor of your house and the music you’re playing. You might even feed them. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything “mutual” going on. Pay them and preferably tip them.
The same thing applies to someone providing sexual services. As Maggie said below, there is no male equivalent to this, at least not in the straight world. So I think the moving men analogy works. They’re not breaking their backs so they can have coffee with you, nice as you might be.
To take the analogy futher, I am friends with a moving man and he’s worked for me. Doesn’t matter how much fun we have talking about guitars. I still have to pay the guy for his work when he’s doing his job.
IMHO Barbara Ehrenreich said it best: “Work is what you do for other people.” That’s irrespective of any compensation, or even whether you love doing it or the person for whom you do it.
The problem is that reducing this to the mere sex act itself is not really a realistic model of what is going on. Even in a professional setting, there is far more to it, except possibly at the low-end. The sex act itself is merely a small part of the overall transaction and that may be why men do still think they give as good as they get in it: Overall the sex is not that important, even if they cannot see that and an actual balance is achieved (if it is achieved) only if the whole transaction is taken into account. As men are usually very much focused on their (I gather mostly imagined) sexual prowess, they may miss what else is going on, hence the misunderstanding on their side.
All perfectly understandable. I’ve had far too many female acquaintances think they can make use of my male muscles or my ability to repair a car or computer for nothing in return.
Value is subjective.
You have decided that vagina (and everything that comes with it in sexual interaction) is more valuable than penis (and everything that comes with it in sexual interaction). And that’s true. For you.
For others, not necessarily.
Don’t mistake your subjective preference for objective fact.
No, dude; I didn’t “decide” shit. I’ve made a full-time living selling my female sexuality for 19 years (on and off for 32), mostly to men. Nearly every single female friend of mine makes hers the same way, or has in the past. I know not one single man who survives selling sex exclusively to women. Not one. It’s not “true for me”, it’s true in the real world.
You are just butthurt about it, as I describe in the column, because men can’t STAND that women are in control of this one sphere.
Don’t mistake your subjective preference for objective fact.
I’m not butthurt about it.
In point of fact, it so happens that I share your subjective valuation of the matter (I expect that any sexual exchange between you and me would involve many dollars from me, and that’s just fine — my own valuation is that the services you provide would be well worth it).
It’s just that I recognize that, as with all exchanges, it IS a subjective valuation. The fact that you’ve made a full-time living selling your sexuality is a function of the numbers of people who share that valuation. The people who don’t share it either never try to become your customers, or else can’t come to an agreement with you on e.g. price (which means only that they value what you’re selling less than you do).
I’m a man, and I’m quite happy that women are in control of their sexual interactions. If I’m hurt by anything, it’s by the sexism implied by your claim regarding men in general. That’s beneath you.
Values can be subjective, but Maggie has a point that the market value of ”vagina” is much higher than that of ”penis” (whether we’re talking about sex for fun or reproduction). Most sex workers are women and most clients are men, even now that women can earn just as much money as men. It’s like gold or oil; it doesn’t matter how much you personnally want those, they have a value based on supply and demand in the general population. This has implications even in personal relationships; which I think is why many women don’t like sex workers (they make something valuable easily available).
That being said I don’t fully agree with Maggie; mutuality is not as clear cut. Women can have sex with their husband on one day because they enjoy it and do it just to make him happy some other day. As a guy, I’ve also heard other guys say that they had sex with their GF even when they did’nt feel like it (even men can fake it sometimes; just groan a bit, pretend that you came and throw off the condom). Maybe they were just trying to make their GF happy while she is just trying to make them happy; relationships are full of misunderstandings like that!
It is a simple market observation. However, in modern times in the west with pornography available and the brain-damaged arguments against masturbation thoroughly debunked, I would not say women are in control of “this sphere”. I would say they are in control of a significant sub-market, but alternatives are available.
i assumed (prob. incorrectly) that you were tweeted as a sw, in which case you’d never be expected to let a man who didn’t pay you near your vajajay. in any case i am getting sick of ppl taking tweets personally… i wish everyone would remember that god gave us our own mute buttons in our brains, it’s called IGNORING THINGS.