Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘halfway whores’

I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason.  –  Klaatu, The Day the Earth Stood Still

There were too many of these little stories to fit into one column this month, so here without further ado are the rest of them.

Why Not Teach Them Critical Thinking Instead?

The Arizona leadership of the Girl Scouts apparently believes a vital part of teaching girls to become “strong, active, modern women” consists of training them to buy into moral panics without examining the claims upon which the hysteria is based.  This story (which was called to my attention by regular reader Joyce) appeared in Modern Times magazine on April 12th:

…Through a partnership formed through the Innocence Lost Phoenix Initiative, the Girl Scouts—Arizona Cactus-Pine Council, has partnered with the Department of Juvenile Corrections to address a population of prostituted children.  The program…is a mentor-ship effort intended to help “build girls of courage, confidence, and character who make the world a better place.”  The educational prevention program is applied to underage females who have been sexually exploited and are incarcerated…The 16-week course is designed to decrease risk of victimization of minors by addressing issues related to  domestic minor sex trafficking, including crime and violence, education, gangs, health, homelessness, sexual exploitation, and substance abuse…

According to “Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, Child Sex Slavery in Arizona”, a report published in December 2010 by Shared Hope International…the issue is unfortunately alive and well in the Grand Canyon State.  According to the report, The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000…defined all minors involved in commercial sex acts as victims of trafficking…“The reality is that many domestic minor sex trafficking victims are detained in the criminal justice system under charges of prostitution instead of receiving the services they need and to which they are statutorily entitled,” the report reads…

While the stated aim of the program (assisting juvenile prostitutes trapped in the Arizona prison system) is a laudable one, I’m afraid no good can come of any partnership with the FBI’s “Innocence Lost” scam or “rescue” organizations like Shared Hope.  Though the principle of locking up “victims” is rightfully challenged, nobody involved seems willing to question the illogic behind defining all teen hookers as “trafficking victims” even if they were in fact acting voluntarily.  Teaching girls credulity and unquestioning acceptance of authority is not any kind of way to make them “strong”.

Porn is Violence Against Women!

I wonder how neofeminist anti-porn crusaders like Gail Dines would spin this April 13th story from CBS News to define it as “violence against women”?  I tried to think like one of them in order to figure it out, but my brain just couldn’t function that illogically.

…an unknown number of homeless people in St. Petersburg, Florida…say they were recruited for videotaped beatings by attractive women for the website Shefights.net.  Homeless advocate G.W. Rolle told CBS…he discovered what was going on after repeatedly seeing homeless men…with injuries.  “Broken ribs, fractured skulls…I think that’s wrong and I think someone’s going to die if they don’t stop this,” says Rolle, who took photographs of some of the injuries.  Two homeless men…are now suing [the website]…seeking damages for emotional distress and money for medical bills.  Lawyers for the two homeless men said the website sells videos starting at $2.99 for a two-minute “sparring session” clip and increasing in price to $33.99 for a 33 minute clip of two women beating a man.  The lawsuit, which was filed April 1 in a Florida court, contends the beatings violate a state hate crimes law that specifically protects the homeless and that the producers are exploiting the poverty of transients for whom any cash is hard to come by.  “What type of society would allow this to happen?” said Neil Chonin, the lawyer for the homeless men.  “This company preyed on people who are desperate.”  Chonin and area homeless advocates said there are many more men who were assaulted in exchange for cash and that some were injured so badly that they were hospitalized…

What Would Orrin Hatch Do?

Since I am former librarian, you’ll have to pardon my smug pleasure at seeing librarians using common sense to solve a problem congressmen would no doubt attack with a sledgehammer.  This story is paraphrased from one which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 13th:

On December 28th, 2010 at the Chinatown Branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, a number of parents complained because a patron was using a library computer to watch internet porn.  The incident was covered by several local newspapers, and Derek Ma of the National Chinese Welfare Council organized a meeting with library officials shortly afterward.  Librarians explained that the library has a policy of not filtering Internet access, and Ma and other Council members accepted it because of their experience with internet censorship in China.  All of the computers in the L.A. Public Library system are already outfitted with screens that make it hard for bystanders to see the content, so Ma recommended that the computers be reoriented to further reduce visibility to passersby.  He is happy with the result, and the library’s branch manager said she has not heard any complaints about pornography since her aides reoriented the computers.

A 2003 Supreme Court decision said public libraries that receive federal money have the authority to install filters that block pornography and other material that may be “harmful to children” until a patron asks for it to be unblocked.  New Jersey resident Dan Kleinman, a non-librarian who runs the website SafeLibraries.org, said in a letter to city officials that such filters are “necessary” to keep library visitors “safe” and that privacy screens aren’t enough.  He argued that libraries already have book selection policies and should have similar guidelines that determine what people can view online.  But at a Los Angeles City Council committee meeting Tuesday (April 12th), city librarian Martin Gomez said making computer use as private as possible is the best solution; he said that licensing fees for internet filters are costly and the software is imperfect.  For example, because the filters block websites with certain keywords and phrases deemed by authorities to be “obscene”, they could keep patrons from accessing websites about breast cancer.

I’m glad common sense won out over the demands of amateur busybodies from the other side of the continent with no legitimate concern in the matter.  Kleinman’s comparison of the internet to book selection is spurious; books cost money and so it is necessary to carefully pick and choose which purchases constitute the best use of limited funds.  But once the access fees are paid the internet is unlimited, so there is no legitimate reason for libraries to stop patrons from viewing any content they wish.  The mission of libraries is to make information and entertainment available, and requiring them to censor access is a serious conflict of interest.

What’s the Legal Definition of Prostitution Again?

Amanda Brooks called attention to this website in a post on April 13th; I have nothing to add to her observations other than to remind you for the umpteenth time that the dividing line between activities legally defined as “prostitution” and those which are not isn’t nearly as distinct as people like to pretend.

Read Full Post »

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
–  Cole Porter

It’s time for another collection of short articles about various things of interest; think of today’s column as a collection of provocative little presents from Maggie’s fishnet Christmas stocking.  The first one is a seriously big deal; if it pans out it’ll be the best Christmas present the medical community has given mankind in many years:

HIV-Positive Man Cured in Berlin

Doctors recently published a report in the journal Blood announcing that Timothy Ray Brown, also known as the “Berlin Patient,” appears to have been cured of HIV infection thanks to a stem cell transplant he received in 2007 as part of a his treatment for leukemia.  The doctors stated that the results of extensive testing “strongly suggest that cure of HIV infection has been achieved.”  Brown is the first person to ever be declared cured of HIV, and his case shows the way toward a potential cure for HIV through genetically-engineered stem cells.

And just last week, Time named another AIDS-related discovery to its list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2010; recent studies show that healthy individuals who take antiretrovirals, medicine commonly prescribed for treating HIV, reduce their risk of contracting the disease by up to 73 percent.  It’s too early yet to say that AIDS has been cured, but the millions already infected and those (like sex workers and medical professionals) who have higher-than-normal risk definitely have reason to hope that a cure may finally arrive in the next few years.

Definitely Not the Worst Pickup Line Ever

As I’ve mentioned before, Jezebel tends to sit on the fence between third-wave feminism and the last remnants of second-wave feminism; its editorial staff seems to give considerable leeway to contributors, and some unfortunately have the tendency to write articles which exude the unmistakable dead-fish smell of neofeminism. I’ve noticed the writer of the following article (reprinted verbatim) in particular has a strong tendency to rely on rhetoric which was already pungent in 1991 and has grown ever-more-foul in the intervening two decades:

We’re referring to the words allegedly spoken to Mark Wahlberg at some party for The FighterAccording to the NY Daily News, a “young beauty” approached Wahlberg in the “VIP Section” of the Top of the Standard bar.  Her line? “Well, I’m the single girl and you’re the married man.”

Wahlberg allegedly “wasn’t amused,” and we don’t know why he would be, since it wasn’t remotely amusing. What it was, in fact, was depressing, degrading and reliant on archetypes that we wish didn’t exist.  And while we’ve described it as an abysmal line, there’s always a chance it’s worked in the past — which is more depressing still.

For all we know, Wahlberg’s PR is pushing the story to highlight his upstandingness (and really, you shouldn’t get special credit for normal, decent behavior) but that’s not where our interests lie.  Young beauty, whoever you are: you are better than this.  You shouldn’t be defining yourself in relationship to the nearest man, and you shouldn’t buy into a world that pits “mistresses” archaically against wives.  We hope that seeing this item will serve as a wake-up call.  You’re not “the single girl” — you’re a person!  A person with opinions and history, and value.  You deserve to be not just in the VIP section, but in the VIP section of life!

First off, it’s only a “pickup line” if a man uses it; the female equivalent is called a “come-on”.  But even if the two are considered together, this does not remotely even make it into the running to be considered to be nominated as among the worst pickup lines of this month, let alone ever.  My nomination for that honor would have to be, “Let’s  joust; my pork sword versus your clam salad.”  Yes, that was a real line, spoken by a guy I actually knew and overheard by another friend.  What makes it even more astonishing is that it actually worked; I guess low female self-esteem is a horny-but-clueless guy’s best friend.

The rest of the piece is so judgmental and indicative of rigid, indoctrinated thinking that it is – to paraphrase the article itself – “depressing, degrading and reliant on rhetoric that we wish didn’t exist.”  The author clearly believes herself to be “better” than the young half-hooker who solicited Wahlberg, yet says the girl is better than “this” (meaning her profession).  But you’re right about one thing, Ms. Neofeminist; she is a person with opinions, history and value, just as every other prostitute is.  We don’t “define ourselves in relationship to the nearest man”; it is YOU who are doing that by “defining” her in relation to a potential customer even though you know nothing else about her, and you shouldn’t buy into a world that pits “feminists” archaically against whores.

Funny Shows

These are just a couple of funny slideshows which are only tenuously related to this column by the “Video Girl Barbie” entry in “Toys Not To Get Kids for Christmas” and the “Free Hugs” entry in “Obvious Traps”.  Think of them as stocking stuffers.

Another Whore Who Thinks She Isn’t

The ex-porn starlet ex-wife of actor Kelsey Grammer, infuriated over his divorcing her for a younger woman, now plans to blackmail him with a sex videotape demonstrating “just how twisted his sexual appetite is” in order to extort a larger alimony payment than the court assigned her.  A woman demands money that she would not have if she hadn’t sex with a man; why isn’t this illegal again?  Oh, yeah, that marriage license thing, which makes prostitution legal.  I don’t remember anything about it making blackmail legal, though, so why hasn’t this sleazy trollop been arrested and charged with attempted extortion?

Hooters, Japanese Style

This article talks about “maid cafes”, Japanese establishments in which guys pay girls to give them a GFE without the sex.  This is of course exactly what many of our clients want as well, and it’s a very old tradition in Japan; really, the girls are like low-rent modern descendants of geishas (who as you may remember replaced the oiran by practicing then-modern entertainments instead of archaic ones).  It’s also not all that different from the being-sweet-and-cute-for-money procedure practiced by strippers and Hooters girls.  Still think there’s a clear line between illegal prostitution and legal professions which dance all around it?  What is it that defines prostitution?  If it’s penetration, what about hand jobs?  If the guy doesn’t climax, is it still prostitution?  What about police busts in which neither sex nor any conversation about it occurs?  How about guys who just want to watch a girl masturbate or play with another girl?  If a guy comes in his pants during a lap dance, is it prostitution?  How about a Las Vegas escort who gets a quickie wedding with her client, does a all-nighter and then gets an equally quick divorce in the morning?  How about the Muslim temporary marriage, which can be as short as one night?  And if a ex-porn starlet blackmails her ex-husband with video of him clapping and chanting “lubbu-lubbu”, is it illegal?

Read Full Post »

I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing. –  Prince Philip

In my column of November 21st I discussed “halfway whores”, and I mentioned that there are websites dedicated to helping potential sugar babies meet with potential sugar daddies.  Well, one of those sites is now in the news after a rapist used it to lure a victim into a trap.  Here’s the story, paraphrased from the original report in the Orlando Sentinel:

Marcelo Alves was convicted last Friday (December 3rd) of four counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon for the rape of a 22-year-old woman from Tampa he met on a dating website called SugarDaddyForMe.com; he faces a potential life sentence.  In the days before jurors found Alves guilty, his victim related graphic details of the explicit online chats and then phone conversations she shared with a man she knew as “Mark Garcia”; those communications eventually led to an arranged meeting outside a mansion in the Dr. Phillips neighborhood, where Alves, wearing pantyhose over his face, tackled her in an isolated driveway area, put a knife to her neck and told her to “shut up” repeatedly before raping her.

“I kept saying, like, ‘Please don’t kill me,'” the crying victim testified Tuesday. She recalled being raped in the rear passenger area of her car and outside the vehicle, as well.  Alves also testified, saying the sex was pre-arranged and consensual, but too many other factors undermined his defense, including the fact that he used a large knife, wore the pantyhose as a mask, lured the victim to an isolated location outside a vacant mansion and portrayed himself as another man online.  At the time of the attack in March 2009, Alves helped run the Valencia Community College website as a contract worker.  He also had a wife, kids, a nice home — all lost as a result of his actions.

The case, however, illustrates larger issues about the potential dangers of online dating and the way a victim’s character can be impugned when online communications are part of the criminal investigation.  Before describing the attacks, the victim explained that she registered with the online dating site, which is designed for men wanting “to mentor, pamper & spoil” and women wanting to be “pampered” by “that classy, caring and mature partner.”  The site claims it prohibits “members from offering money in exchange for sex.”  A message left with the site’s management this week was not returned.

The victim acknowledged she was looking for just such a Sugar Daddy-type relationship; she had problems paying bills and wanted to meet someone who could help her financially, she testified.  So she created an online profile on the site, stating she was “fun, outgoing and crazy.”  She even set an allowance on her profile, in other words the monetary amount she expected to receive periodically.  Alves, 40, discovered her profile on the site, where he went by the screen name “ReadyToSpoilYou37.”  He then contacted her through Yahoo Messenger and they chatted several times, discussing the possibility of sex and also the exchange of money.  “We talked about possibly $1,000,” the victim said.

This admission prompted prosecutor Kelly Hicks to ask the victim, “Were you a prostitute?”  The victim answered in the negative, claiming that she was willing to meet with the man she knew as Garcia even without the expectation of money.  But she said when she arrived for the date, Alves wasn’t the man she expected to be there.  Still, defense attorney Timothy Berry asked the victim about the encounter with Alves and about online conversations in which they discussed having sex.  Alves testified that he was supposed to pay the woman $1000, but the amount changed as the sex progressed and he refused to pay.  The woman then threatened to contact police and say he had raped her, he claimed.  But in her closing argument, Hicks stared at Alves, saying the woman involved “is a real victim” of an attack she will remember for the rest of her life”; pointing at Alves, she then said, “That is a real rapist …Find him guilty because he is.”

Jennifer Dritt, executive director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, said casting doubt on a victim’s character or suggesting she somehow deserved what happened are common defense strategies; she also said the case is troubling because of its origins online.  “While most online dating relationships don’t end up this way, you really don’t know who you’re talking to,” Dritt said.  “I think, potentially, they’re very dangerous.  And where money is exchanged, people can have different interpretations of what’s offered and promised.”

Alves, originally from Brazil, told detectives soon after the crime that he had met about 10 other women online in the same way, but denied raping any of them.  As for the victim in this case, Alves told the detectives, “I didn’t want to hurt her.  I am not like that.”  Aside from the sexual battery counts, Alves was also found guilty of false imprisonment, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask and witness tampering.  He is set to be sentenced on February 9th.

I’m very glad to see Alves get what he deserved; like so many other rapists, he clearly considered a whore to be a safe target whom a jury wouldn’t convict him for raping even if they did believe her, and it’s good to see that the jury proved him wrong.  But I have to wonder if the outcome would’ve been the same had his victim been a full-fledged professional rather than a would-be sugar baby.  From the way the article is written it seems the prosecutor and reporter both wanted to call attention away from the fact that the victim fully intended to transact a compensated sex arrangement; the report coyly refers to SugarDaddyForMe as a “dating site” when it’s obviously much more akin to an escort site, and the prosecutor accepted the victim’s rather incredible claim that she was willing to meet “Garcia” even without the promise of money despite the fact that she was specifically looking for a sugar daddy.  Now, obviously it did not behoove the prosecutor to question further because she was trying to convict the rapist; had she been Alves’ defender I’m sure she would’ve tried to roast the poor girl alive.

But what about the reporter?  Certainly it’s possible that he’s a bit naive, but it seems more likely he was attempting to downplay the commercial nature of the transaction in a vain attempt to avoid arousing the “dirty whore got what she deserved” crowd.  But whatever his motivation, it was not really the right thing to do; pretending that a sugar daddy arrangement is a form of dating rather than “hooking lite” perpetuates the myth that whores are intrinsically different from other women and our clients intrinsically different from other men, which is exactly what vice cops, trafficking alarmists and “Nordic Model” crusaders want the public to think.  But such arguments don’t carry the weight they once did; more and more people are awakening to the realization that harlots aren’t really all that different from our amateur sisters, and our clients aren’t at all different from other men.  The author of this Jezebel article set up a profile at SugarDaddyForMe for research purposes and was surprised to discover how normal most of the members were; perhaps she can next be prevailed upon to join an escort site, where she will discover exactly the same thing.

Read Full Post »

I could do without balding old men but my budget couldn’t! –  Lilli

When she first appeared on June 24th, 1952, Barbra Millicent Roberts was called “Lilli” and worked in Germany as a secretary who had no compunction against using her pronounced charms to get money and presents from rich men; by 1955 she had become a full-fledged doxy and made a tremendous amount of money from gentlemen admirers.  She soon became well-known and popular in sexually-liberated Germany, and though her advertising said she was “always discreet,” her wardrobe made her “the star of every bar” and little girls came to idolize her despite the objections of their prudish parents.  Then in 1959, an American businesswoman convinced her that if she came to the US she could be a star; she commuted back and forth to Germany until 1964, when she gave up sex work for good and moved permanently to the US.  Since then, she has worked as a fashion model (and more recently an actress) as famous for her imagination and extensive wardrobe as for her stunning figure, and though her beginnings as a whore still provoke controversy among the easily provoked she is beloved of millions of little girls who know her by her nickname:  Barbie.

The iconic doll started out as a cartoon character named Lilli created by Reinhard Beuthien for the Bild-Zeitung tabloid  newspaper in Hamburg, Germany.  She was a clever, sexually liberated “party girl” and proved so popular that in 1953 the Bild-Zeitung decided to market a Lilli doll.  Max Weissbrodt of the German toy company O&M Hausser designed the doll from Beuthien’s drawings, and she went on sale in 1955.  Lilli was advertised as a doxy (i.e. an escort-level prostitute) and sold in bars, tobacco shops and similar adult businesses as a gag gift for men.  But despite the protests of prudes who felt she was inappropriate for children, some mothers did indeed buy Lilli dolls for their daughters and she soon became as popular a children’s toy as she had been a novelty gift.  Other toy companies capitalized on her popularity by selling clothes, furniture and other accessories in her size, and both Lilli and her accessories were marketed in Italy, Scandinavia and even the United States.  She became such a celebrity that in 1958 a movie entitled Lilli – ein Mädchen aus der Großstadt (“Lilli — a Girl from the Big City”) was made about her; its star, Ann Smyrner, was chosen via a contest in the Bild-Zeitung.

Lilli’s name was also applied to such products as perfume, wine and costume jewelry, but her popularity faded with the decade; the last Lilli cartoon appeared on January 5, 1961 and the American rights to the doll were purchased by the toy giant Louis Marx and Company, who began marketing her in the US as “Miss Seventeen” in 1961.  But several years earlier (1956, to be exact) Ruth Handler, one of the founders of the Mattel toy company, had bought three Lilli dolls while in Europe; she changed the doll’s design slightly, giving her rooted hair and bare feet (rather than molded shoes) and renamed her Barbie after her daughter.  The Mattel version made her debut at the New York Toy Fair on March 9, 1959, a date now used as Barbie’s official birthday.  She was an overnight success, selling 350,000 units by the end of the first year; by the time Marx released its version of Lilli two years later Barbie was so well-established Marx was perceived as the imitator rather than vice-versa.  Marx tried to sue Mattel for patent infringement, but the suit failed and Mattel acquired all rights to Lilli in 1964, at which time German production ceased.

According to Mattel, Barbie’s full name is Barbra Millicent Roberts; in a series of juvenile novels published in the 1960s, her parents were named George and Margaret Roberts and she lived in the fictional Willows, Wisconsin.  Her social circle has included her androgynous boyfriend Ken, her teenage sister Skipper, her friends Kelly, Krissy, Francie, Midge, the twins Stacie and Todd, black couple Christie and Steven and the Hispanic Teresa.  She has had several dozen different pets, a large number of vehicles and careers ranging from model to stewardess to astronaut.  In recent years, a computer-animated Barbie has appeared in a number of videos, mostly based on fairy tales.

But like any attractive woman who dares to be sexual, Barbie has inflamed the passions of losers everywhere.  People with a lot of free time and more math skills than sense have published complicated calculations showing that at 1/6 scale, Barbie would be 5’9” tall, with measurements of 36”-18”-33” and a weight of 110#.  University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland actually announced that Barbie lacks the 17 to 22 percent body fat required for a woman to menstruate; it’s good to know that the Finns are so healthy that University Hospital has nothing more important to do than speculate on the menstrual irregularities of plastic dolls.  Most of this nonsense is based on the ludicrous notion that little girls have such a highly-developed sense of proportion that they can actually perform these ratios in their little heads without the help of calculators, neofeminists or bored Finnish doctors.  And that, in the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, is a load of dingo’s kidneys.  The smaller a representation of the human figure, the more exaggerated its proportions can be without looking abnormal; when the cumbersomely-named “Happy To Be Me” doll was released in 1991, feminists applauded and little girls collectively shrugged; to anyone without a tape-measure, a calculator and an agenda, they don’t look all that different in clothes.  Then the following year, middle-class feminists with no actual problems started spinning their heads around and foaming at the mouth because ONE of the 270 possible phrases “Teen Talk Barbie” might say was “Math class is tough!”  Apparently, these women were concerned that the phrase would magically leach math skills from the brains of young girls and thereby render them unable to calculate the proportions and body mass index of dolls.

The neofeminists’ real problem with Barbie has nothing to do with her figure or academic credentials; they hate her because she is unashamedly sexual, just as they hate all women who are unashamedly sexual.  The campaign to suppress or neuter Barbie derives from the same repressions and insecurities as the campaign to ban porn and abolish prostitution; neofeminists are uncomfortable with any sexual depiction or function of women, even tiny plastic women.  The oft-repeated rhetoric that Barbie “causes little girls to develop unrealistic expectations” (one wonders what caused those same unrealistic expectations in the millennia preceding 1959, but we’ll let that go for now) is a cover for their real fear, that Barbie might help young girls to see themselves as sexual beings rather than androgynous eunuchs.  Child cultists worry about sex rays emanating from any adult who is not completely asexual,  but neofeminists worry about sex rays emanating from hunks of plastic instead.  Note how often the tempests-in-teapots surrounding Barbie are sexual in nature; for example, a Barbie dressed as the superheroine Black Canary was attacked by fundies and neofeminists alike as “dominatrix Barbie”, and alarmists in high places claim the new “video girl Barbie” could help those omnipresent “pedophiles” to make child porn.  Shades of Melissa Petro!  Just because she was a hooker in her youth, the lunatics want to brand poor Barbie as a kiddie-porn producer.  My Barbie certainly would never have done anything like that; besides, she was too busy travelling to other planets, spying on the Russians and ditching wimpy Ken to date my brother’s G.I. Joe.

Read Full Post »

There’s only one thing wrong with wife swapping. You get another wife. –  Scott Roeben

The accepted and more politically correct term for it is of course “swinging”, but frankly I prefer the older term, and it isn’t just because I’m sexually submissive and it’s a lot more descriptive than the rather vague, bland “swinging”.  No, the main reason I prefer “wife swapping” is that it’s a hell of a lot more honest.  Blah blah blah “sexist”, blah blah blah “objectification”, blah blah blah “ignores the woman’s experience”, blah blah blah.  The fact is that, with a few exceptions, most women who swing do so to please their husbands, and so become whores whose price is exactly equal to that of all other women in the “swinging” community.  Rather than exchanging cash, a “swinging” wife accepts as her price the other woman’s services to her husband.  It is a barter arrangement, so “wife swapping” is both accurate and to the point in a way the mealy-mouthed “swinging” could never be.

The line between the two is narrower than you might think.  I’ve known a few married hookers who started out as swingers and then realized that if they were going to do strange men anyhow they might as well get paid for it, and I’ve also known a few retired hookers whose husbands missed the turn-on of their wives with other men and so suggested swinging.  Despite neofeminist obfuscation to the contrary, the real mental line which has to be crossed to become a prostitute is the barrier against having sex with strange men; once one has made that mental adjustment, being paid comes naturally.  Yes, there are sluts who will rant and rave and fume that they’re “better” than whores because they don’t take cash in hand, but since most of them expect gifts, vacations, spending money, etc their posturing is either denial or excuse-making.  And just let one of them get pregnant (because she was too stupid to take precautions, too scheming or fearful to take Plan B and too whatever to get an abortion) and watch how quickly she starts negotiating her price.

There is, of course, one other difference in the United States:  Except in locations where adultery is against the law, swinging is legal while prostitution isn’t.  Wrap your head around that, now:  Both involve women having sex with strange men in return for something, both are often arranged via internet or alternative newspaper ads, both usually involve male infidelity, both are considered shocking by prudes, and both could result in spreading venereal disease if appropriate precautions are not taken.  Yet the one which allows a woman sex completely on her own terms and enables her to directly fund her chosen lifestyle is illegal.  Let the prohibitionists make whatever excuses they like, because they have no clothes on.

Obviously, most women who swing will never officially become hookers; they aren’t brave enough to go solo, they don’t need the money, they don’t want to risk arrest, they like being picky about whom they see, they enjoy the “club” social atmosphere of swinger groups, etc.  And since swingers can be found among all types of people, most swapped wives are average looking just as most of the population is, so even if they wished to turn pro they probably wouldn’t really be able to make much of a living at it.  And it’s probably for the best they don’t or can’t; the professional community doesn’t need a bunch of enthusiastic but completely ignorant amateurs glutting the market and undercutting our prices!

But beside the few swinger/whores, the communities intersect in another way:  couple calls.  A couple call is one way for a husband to ease a reluctant wife into swinging; it also eliminates one potential human factor, and if the wife becomes upset at the sight of her husband with another woman the only consequences are financial rather than social.  Even experienced swingers might occasionally hire a call girl, since this allows them a freer (and usually higher-quality) choice of play companions with no strings attached.  In couple calls the woman’s reaction is usually the “X” factor (though I did have one experience in which it was the other way around), but in swinging trouble can go either way because both parties have to deal emotionally with “competition”.  I daresay everyone who has ever known swingers has heard horror stories of jealousy, drama and the like; there is no way to tell how often such things happen among neophyte swingers, though they would have to be rare among experienced ones or else they would never have gone that far.  The biggest potential cause of problems among established swingers isn’t jealousy but rather rules violations.

In an escort-client relationship, the rules are clear and firmly enforced by the professional, but when everyone involved is an amateur motivated only by emotions there is a great deal more potential for drama and even disaster; it is therefore absolutely imperative that everyone is on the same page and the expectations, etiquette and ground rules are firmly established from the beginning.  Like BDSM, swinging requires a high degree of trust between the partners, and either activity can intensify a strong relationship or destroy a weak one.  And though I do not know this for a statistical fact, I strongly suspect (from personal observations and anecdotal evidence) that in swinging it is the woman who is more often than not the weak link.  The reason should be obvious; while most men have no problem separating sex from emotion and can enjoy shagging strange women for the pure carnal joy of the act, many women have a tendency to become emotionally attached to men with whom they have sex (even some escorts have to wrestle with such feelings on occasion).  If her own marriage is strong this might present no problem as long as they avoid too many encounters with the same couple, but if her marriage is weak she may attach to her lover more strongly than to her husband, with serious consequences for both marriages.  And if she still harbors some resentment for being talked into wife swapping in the first place, those consequences might be catastrophic.

As I’ve mentioned before, I was rather a wild child in university; I experimented, was frequently invited into threesomes and became for a while (at her invitation) the mistress of an older girlfriend’s husband.  So as you might expect, I knew a number of sexually unconventional couples, and among them three with “open marriages”.  I think these are rarer now than they were in the ‘80s, probably because they don’t usually work.  An “open marriage” is essentially swinging without any rules; both parties are allowed to sleep with whomever they want, whenever they want, and as you might expect one invariably does it a lot more often than the other.  In all three cases I knew, the wife “wore the pants” and eventually became involved with a shy, easily-dominated boy in his late teens for whom she eventually left her weak husband; I discussed the aftermath of one of the cases in my column of August 19th.  The reason I mention this is because it demonstrates the need for mutually-acceptable rules to which both partners strictly adhere; obviously these marriages were all “flawed from the forge”, but even a good marriage can be harmed by swinging if the rules are unclear and feelings get hurt.

One final difference between swinging and “hobbying” is demonstrated by two news articles I recently read; the first reports that swinging clubs’ business is way down due to the bad economy, while the second claims that prostitution has actually increased.  Assuming both statistics are correct, I think we can pretty safely guess the reason for the disparity; while swinging also involves the wife (who is liable to nix money being spent on sex when times are tough), visiting whores only involves the husband, who may be no less prone to “let the little head do the thinking” when money is tight than otherwise.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts