The Morality of Prostitution

[Dickhead]

Nah, VT, don't be so paranoid. I think it's just that not everyone has as much time on their hands as we do!

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm curious about the silence which follows some of my posts like the last one. does everyone think i'm a nut, or am i just too politically incorrect, defending the likes of pimps, those shadowy figures so effectively demonized in the mainstream media the same way prostitutes are? don't get me wrong, dickhead, i admire your hatred of abusers and exploiters, i just don't share the notion that all "pimps" fit that category, any more than i buy the idea all prostitutes are "victims".

[The Virgin Terr]

more on pimps, this excerpted from a chapter of a book about prostitution which is a conversation between anti-prostitution "feminists" and prostitute activists. here's the prostitute activists response to the feminist question: what about the pimp?

"feminists have always tried to save us from the pimp. ryan lives with val (both women, both pro-prostitution activists). she takes money from val when she's out of work. technically speaking, she can be taken away for 7 years. it's sort of the unwritten thing- we're not allowed to live with anyone, and we're not allowed to have a mate, and we're not allowed to give them any money."

"you're not allowed to habitually be in the company of a prostitute. that makes you a pimp. this means we're not allowed to have friends, we're not allowed to have lovers. these are the pimping laws they're defending, which is a way of telling us we can't have anybody. we're not good enough, and the only people that would be seen or caught dead around us are no-goods anyway because nobody decent would really associate with us. "

it seems to me the point of criminalizing pimping is the same as criminalizing prostitution. it's not to protect anyone: there are already laws against assault, [CodeWord123], theft, etc. sufficient to do that. their purpose is to make prostitution as difficult and dangerous as possible so as to discourage it.

[PurpleNGold]

On the topic of pimps:

Any person who abuses another individual, presses another individual into work against his/her will, enforces an unfair revenue sharing schedule in which the other individual has no say, coerces another individual into addiction in order to maintain control over that individual or performs any act that harms another individual should be treated as a heinous criminal. This means that most pimps are heinous criminals.

However, I could imagine a situation where a pimp could be a boone for a sex-worker. A pimp might not be forcing the sex-worker into her career. A pimp might just be helping the worker to keep her shit together. A pimp can provide security and marketing for the worker. The pimp could be the person to whom the worker can turn in times of trouble. The pimp could be the sexually non-posessive boyfriend who provides love and nurturing to the sex worker. Is there a pimp out there who does this? I don't know. But, if he's out there, then I don't think he's a criminal.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
can you name any politicians who are publically acknowledged mongers?

Nope. Not a one. But, due to the frequency of political scandals, I believe that the majority of the male politicians are mongers. Probably, the busts on an AMP or prostitute are sometimes driven by a DA who got bad service himself, or one of his friends did.

regardless of personal viewpoint, it's the majority that determines who is a pariah and who is acceptable.

In this case, I think it's a fear of losing one's place in society that keeps people thinking that sex industry affiliates (including mongers and mongerettes) are a minority in the first place. Think about it. How many members does this board have. How many boards like it exist? How many people are there that don't even know about the boards, but participate. Yet, there's a tiny percentage of all these people who would actually stand up and proclaim their views publicly.

[Dickhead]

I have not read the book but I am familiar with story of Loretta and Oliver "Mooney" Lynn. I recently read an interview with her. He qualifies as a pimp in my book. He married her when she was 13 which is repugnant. He beat her regularly which is repugnant. He would not give her any spending money even though he did not want her to have a job, which is repugnant. He did not support the children at times which is repugnant.

And she had the classic battered wife symptoms of being an apologist for him, and still is an apologist for him. I am less familiar with the extent to which he managed and/or pimped her singing career since I am not a country music fan.

RN has spoken of how the laws in WA prevent an SW from having a guy around for security and protection. I have no problem with security and protection and do not consider that to be pimping. What IS pimping is when the guy forces the gal to work, beats her if she doesn't, treats the money she earns as his own, and gives her as much or as little of her hard earned money as he feels like. To that extent it doesn't matter to me if the guy is forcing her to work as a prostitute, a country and western singer, or a cake decorator. It is all pimping and they should all be tortured and killed.

Do I make myself abundantly clear?

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, are you familiar with the country singer loretta lynn's autobiography, COALMINER'S DAUGHTER? it portrays the instrumental role loretta's husband had in initiating and promoting her career. this brings to mind your frequent condemnatory remarks on pimps. do you think there's really necessarily a difference between a man who promotes his wife's career in a "legitimate" field of entertainment as opposed to one who promotes a career for her in sex? why? in either case, the man is facilitating her work, and sharing in the financial benefits. if a guy is not sexually possessive and is fortunate enough to find a mate who is gifted sexually with both looks and enthusiasm, why shouldn't he be able to encourage and promote for her a career in selling sex?( other than the fact that in so doing they are choosing pariahdom for themselves)

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, perhaps i do sometimes distort your stated views by virtue of my own prism of the world. perhaps i'm harder on people who are closer to my views than i am on those who aren't even in the same ballpark, to use an american term, which means aren't even close. i want to radicalize the liberal and ignore the conservative as hopeless. i'm glad you don't take much offense to my criticism. so how 'bout some more, lol? if you don't consider yourself a pariah, then why is it necessary to remain publically closeted? and if "mongers", to use dickhead's term, aren't pariahs, can you name any politicians who are publically acknowledged mongers? generally politicians flaunt something which is popular with a majority of voters such as religiosity, and hide "politically incorrect" behavior such as "mongering", don't you agree? they have no problem with being viewed entering a church, but don't want anyone catching them visiting a "house of ill repute". regardless of personal viewpoint, it's the majority that determines who is a pariah and who is acceptable. so while you yourself may not publically discriminate against "people like us", i think it's incorrect to state we're not pariahs.

[PurpleNGold]

JZ, I figure she might be telling the truth. In fact, maybe she was only telling me about the customers that didn't have sex. But, what you point out is exactly what I was getting at: if that voice is going off in my head, then I need to realize that there is a serious trust issue.

I think that, if she were not active in the field, I really wouldn't care about her past. I would just have to get past that voice so that I could hear about the particularly significant events that she wanted to share that concerned her prior career.

[Joe Zop]

P&G, just for the record, there are a number of working Thai girls for whom I paid a barfine, went and had fun with, and never slept with. For a variety of reasons, including but not restricted to figuring out the girl was half-crazy, a druggie, depressed and moody, very tired, only wanted to eat/dance/talk, etc. Also true with several at my favorite little beer bar in Chiang Mai, where I never dared/wanted to sleep with anyone, as I knew everyone and everyone's history/problems/dreams, and liked just hanging out there, and didn't want anything to change that, but also true in a number of other places. The woman I spent the better part of two months with I often simply took out, and even though we slept together there were a fair number of nights where it was simply that, sleep. But then, as I wrote elsewhere, my trip, though it involved taking advantage of what the country had to offer in terms of companionship, was not first and foremost about that.

So it's certainly possible, at least, that this woman was telling you the truth, but it's unlikely in general terms, as you note. And the issue of trust in a real relationship is simply paramount -- if you're skeptical going in, it's tough to get that little voice out of your head.

RN, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the stereotyping isn't out there, and doesn't have a dampening effect -- we both know it does. But my presumption is that someone who's afflicted with such perspectives would probably not be pursuing a real relationship with a sex worker, current or ex, nor would it likely be happening in the other direction unless the worker had a solid wish for pain.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
The common perception out there is that you can never really be an EX sex worker. All the things that you mention, are things that people will always suspect me of being capable of. I guess it really does worry me a lot, and it's one of the reasons why I said a long time ago that I would almost prefer my partner not to know about my past. I find it unfair that sex workers are automatically assumed to be somehow less trustworthy than other women - but I find it even more unfair that EX sex workers are judged on something that occurred in their past.

I can only speak for myself, and, I'm sure that there are more people, than not, for which your statement is true. But, I know that I could put the past behind me. I don't think I'd want to sit in front of the fire hearing details, but for a woman to tell me that she had been a sex worker in the past or that she had had lots of partners would not bother me. And, I would certainly rather know the truth because I think it's important to know who my partner is and how she's gotten to be that.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
If a sex worker says that she loves you, and that you mean much more to her than her clients do - should you really be doubting her word?
And in another post:
Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive about it, but to me, it seems like this whole thing is led by the stereotype of the 'lying, cheating wh*re'. That the idea that she probably can't be trusted is already planted in your mind, and from that comes the excuse that she is an expert in the art of deceiving men. To put it in (overly) simplistic terms, an actor would not automatically be doubted, because she would be considered a woman at home and an actor at work. But the belief that a sex worker could be playing you like she plays her clients, seems to come from the assumption that she is a sex worker 24/7.

In almost every conversation with a Thai girl that I almost started a relationship with, she told me that her customer had bar fined her, taken her to dinner and to play pool, then, only chatted with her in the hotel room. After the first two or three times, my first thought was always, "I know what you do for a living. Why do you lie to me?" Then, I thought about it and wondered why I should consider trying a real relationship with someone that I obviously don't trust. It wouldn't matter if she's lying to me or not. I don't believe her. That thought, along with some good advice from fellow WSG'ers (JZ included) convinced me to put those thoughts on a shelf.

I didn't doubt her because I thought that she was a "lying, cheating, wh*re." I doubted her because I thought she was just trying to spare my feelings (and avoid any unpleasant discussion that could have arisen).

I would feel the same about any woman who said, "This guy, who is vacationing here for the purpose of getting laid, took me out. He paid a lot of money to feed and enterain me. Then, he took me back to his hotel room and chatted with me the whole night." Yeah, right.

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL! Sorry Joe - I certainly didn't mean that to sound like a personal attack on YOUR beliefs in particular. And I said that I was probably being a little too sensitive about the matter. I do know that's the case, but I just can't help myself sometimes. I think concentrating so hard on all the stereotyping and unjustified bullshit in the Prostitution Control Bill has led me to be even more easily riled than I ever was.

And you are probably right about me taking it more 'personally' than I should, too. The common perception out there is that you can never really be an EX sex worker. All the things that you mention, are things that people will always suspect me of being capable of. I guess it really does worry me a lot, and it's one of the reasons why I said a long time ago that I would almost prefer my partner not to know about my past. I find it unfair that sex workers are automatically assumed to be somehow less trustworthy than other women - but I find it even more unfair that EX sex workers are judged on something that occurred in their past.

[Joe Zop]

I think you're reading too much in here, as well as imparting a greater emphasis than I mean -- and it's not about the stereotype. I'm simply saying that by and large relationships are difficult, period, as people can always find something to worry about, and that this whole issue clomps into that category. It's not necessarily about someone saying they're in love with you -- you believe that if you believe that -- it's about when things get difficult, and when trust and faith become necessary.

It's also simply not about where someone is a sex worker and where someone is just a woman -- as is the case with everyone, we're all more than one thing at a time, and when people look at each other they can see multiple layers. Do you ever "turn off" being a mother? Could someone who knew you ever look at you and not have at least some recognition of that? How would being a sex worker be different in terms of that level of recognition? It's not different for other professions -- when my friends look at me, they also see what I do for a living as part of who's staring back.

I absolutely know people can treat theatre people that way, as I've lots of actor friends, and I've had exactly that conversation several times, both with the theatre folk and their partners/ex-partners. A actress I went to college with (perhaps the most gorgeous women I've ever known -- one play she was in sold out -- which never happened at that college -- mainly because she had a nude scene) who worked in Hollywood and who I still see on occasion in New York, where she's now a producer, has told me of several very similar discussions with boyfriends. An actor is always an actor, on or off the set, as far as people are concerned, and whether or not they're acting at any given instant is a constant issue. And, with some actors I know, this is a very viable issue, as they're always "trying things on" to see how they work or feel. That's part of why they're good at what they do.

I've got a good friend was married to a psychologist, and he used to tell me about her using "the tricks of her trade" as a way of controlling him, and his sense that she treated him like a patient at times, as a case study as opposed to true partner. (Whether any of this was true or not is beside the point, of course.) I've been accused of mining relationships for writing material, and listening to someone as if they were a potential character in a book. (True on occasion, on actually almost all occasions, but not that specific case.) If someone is not secure, they look for reasons why that's not the case, and let's face it, it's rather easy to find them in the instance of a sex worker.

So relax, RN, I'm hardly saying this is a death knell for all your future potential relationships! Cripes, please recall that I also said I didn't see this as being a problem for me personally, and that I could absolutely picture being involved with someone who was/is a sex worker, as to me that's a secondary issue.

[Rubber Nursey]

I do understand what you're saying, but I still think it's terribly unfair. What you're saying is that a sex worker would be treated as guilty until proven innocent - that you would presume she was 'faking it' unless she could prove otherwise. And if you are so convinced that she is such an expert at misleading men...how would she ever do that?

You mentioned actors in your post. I just can't see people treating them in the same way. If you met a woman who worked as a theatre actor, for example, would you doubt her word when she said she was in love with you?

Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive about it, but to me, it seems like this whole thing is led by the stereotype of the 'lying, cheating wh*re'. That the idea that she probably can't be trusted is already planted in your mind, and from that comes the excuse that she is an expert in the art of deceiving men. To put it in (overly) simplistic terms, an actor would not automatically be doubted, because she would be considered a woman at home and an actor at work. But the belief that a sex worker could be playing you like she plays her clients, seems to come from the assumption that she is a sex worker 24/7.