The Morality of Prostitution

[Joe Zop]

So, RN, to some extent the approach you (and most in the game) use is in many ways akin to the classic statement made by guys -- it was just sex, it didn't really mean anything. I'm not at all saying that to make any kind of judgement, quite obviously, but it's a kind of interesting firewall between the act and how we define what we do and who we are. I find it intriguing because of the way that so many of us, men in particular, so aggressively do identify strongly with what we do being who we are, but here the disconnect is as important as the connection can be in other situations. As you've described it, it's very much the way an actor or actress also approaches things, becoming the role, looking at it as something that is from a part of something within themselves, but not being the overall balance of who they are. Except, in this case, rather than integrating the how the act involved manages to redefine them (which it seems like actors always are talking about) and having that experience be cause for further journey, here's the barrier is important to the health of the psyche. I'd say that makes a great deal of sense particularly in an equation where sex workers are deingrated as "sperm receptables" etc. -- how does one process that in terms of personal identity?

I guess I'm just musing on this more than anything else, in terms of how we do or don't intergrate acts we engage in, particularly socially unacceptable ones, into who we are. I find that particularly affecting in your statement about being uncomfortable about the number of sexual partners you've had outside of work -- if that is something where you find yourself questioning yourself in terms of choices, values, identity, etc., just imagine how it would be if you truly had to incorporate the greater number into the equation, as opposed to basically dismissing it as not counting against who you are but instead being a byproduct of the work you did.

Since you've defined yourself as being uncomfortable with the number of partners you've had outside of work, how then do you end up viewing the men in the pay-for-play equation, who are certainly not engaged in this on a work basis? Is it "just sex" or does is say something else about who they are, in the same way your number of "non-work" sexual partners does?

[Darkseid]

Actually I would be honored to be THE NUMBER ONE if she chose me out of 5,000 guys. To top off the benefits, she would be a much better and more experienced lovwer than a prude that never had any or much less give you any.

[Prokofiev]

. I never worry about how many lovers my ladies have had. I worry about how many of them were better lovers than I!
If a woman has had only two guys, but they were both better than I and she remembers that - well that's a problem. But if she's had 5,000 men and I'm number #1, that simply feeds my fragile male ego and I feel great. So ladies, always tell your guy he's the best and that solves the numbers problem. You can tell him that you HAD to have that many men in order to find your one true love . . .

[Darkseid]

some of the prostitutes in the rld in holland have this same mindset. in fact some of them are married and still work in the windows with their family's and husband's knowledge of it. the dutch are not over-morality conscience, unlike the americans. this over-morality conscience society of america is very hypocritical. american men want virgins or women with less than 2 past partners yet they have had sex with over a hundred. this is bullshit! i don't care how many partners the woman i am with had. in fact all women probably had many past partners and hide the bones in their closets and say they had only 2 because they are scared of admitting it to this prudish american, prudish british influenced, society. i admit i have had maybe over 20 sexual partners in the past who are not prostitutes. most of them are women i met in my travels. who am i to say that a woman i meet can't also have more than 20 also?
i hate hypocrisy in all forms. most of the politicians that ban sex in america are hypocrites. look at former mayor guliani of new york. he bans 99% of the strip clubs and porn shops in the city hoping to bring crime down but the opposite happens. [CodeWord123] skyrocketed in this city by 60%. he bans the sex fun for the citizens of new york but rudy cheated on his wife and had an affair. see the hypocrisy of the prudes!
everybody cheats and it's because no man is complete. i have some qualities that i can offer a woman like being handy, having stamina in bed and sexually experienced, being able to listen and help, technical knowledge. but there are things i also can't offer a woman that another guy could like wealth. i am for open relationships but i must know the other guy. as far as marrying a prostitute, i would. i would take a prostitute over a conservative prude anytime.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hmmmm that is a really difficult question Joe, and I'm not all that sure how to answer it. Well I can kinda answer it...but it's gonna make me sound like a bit of a psycho. *grin*

It's just that I never saw my work as part of my sexlife. Yes, it most certainly influenced my perception of what sex "is", and it definitely showed me things about my sexuality that I either didn't know existed or had tried to deny, but I have difficulty associating the sex I had at work with the sex I had in my private life. It's as if "she" (my work persona) had sex with all those men, and then related the information back to me second-hand. Does that make any sense at all?? If you ask a married hooker whether she has ever played up on her husband, she will say no. Then she'll add "Oh, except work of course...but that doesn't count". Any ordinary person would say that over 4000 extramarital partners DOES count...and yet in the average sex worker's mind, it doesn't.

As far as actual numbers go...yes, it makes me gulp to think about it. Not because I am ashamed or feel bad about it...to tell the truth, it means nothing to me at all....but because I know by the "standards" that you mentioned, I am a S*UT in the eyes of many! (It also means the chances of running into some of them on the streets in this city are VERY high!! LOL) But something you might find interesting, is how my opinion differs when it comes to my PRIVATE life. I hadn't thought about it too much until now, but in all honesty, I get embarrassed about how many men I have slept with outside of work. Not guilty, mind you...just uncomfortable. It's as if work is a perfectly good excuse...because having sex with men was my job...and yet having sex just for the sake of it, is bad.

There was a "roving reporter" article in a recent woman's mag, in which they went around the streets asking men how many previous partners they felt was "acceptable" for a prospective girlfriend to have had. The majority said 2, and the point at which it became unacceptable was 5. For a couple of others, the absolute MOST they would accept was 20, but they would apparently be concerned about her "morals" if it got that high. (So much for the sexual liberation of women, huh?!) I passed that number before I even left my teens.

With regards to prostitution, clients don't seem to mind that the hooker they are sleeping with has slept with thousands before him, BUT if you ask men whether they would MARRY a hooker...they often say no. Her past sexual history is usually the sole reason given. I think that men...in the same way that hookers themselves do...seem to separate sex work from sex. (And in the case of men, they seem to separate hookers from "normal" women). What's ok for a prostitute is not ok for a "good" woman...which is exactly the way I feel about the number of sex partners I've had. Weird, huh?

I'm sure I've probably learnt something much more interesting about myself from the whole experience, but I can't think of anything right now. The only issue that springs to mind immediately, in the discussion about actual numbers, is the double standards in society and that I'm still made to feel bad about enjoying sex.

[Joe Zop]

Ok, RN, since you did your math bit in the "Safe Sex" section, I'm really curious about your personal reaction to the number you posted. How do you think about that? How does that relate to who you understand yourself to be? I ask this here because I do think it's very pertinent to the topic.

I know when I think about the number of women I've been with I consider it in several ways. First, I draw a line between those experiences where there was just sex involved and where there was something more. The latter number is, naturally, astronomically smaller and each of them is soaked with significant information about who I am/was, whereas the "just sex" ones are not so much. The "just sex" ones do clearly say things about me, but the things they say are absolutely less about my partners and more about me. Obviously, in total they also say something about my relationships as a whole. (And let me be clear, I'm not implying that what any of this says is negative.)

But still, given that the numbers I've been able to find say that a man in the US will have an average number of sexual partners numbering six, and a woman two, I'm left with several things. First, more reinforcement for the fact that try as I might, I'm just continually getting further and further away from being normative (in more ways than this!) Second, that I very clearly have different avenues (or levels, I suppose) of sexual expression than most people. Third, that the basic societal structures set up for sex are clearly ones that don't exactly take me into the equation.

I wonder in all this whether I've managed to learn anything "non-normative" about women, or even myself. And I'm curious about your sense of the same things, and how you approach the issue for yourself. Which means I guess (at its core, to be on topic) that the question is whether prostitution actually teaches anything to those who engage in it, on either side of the equation.

[Joe Zop]

Well, the extension of sunset clauses is a pretty common tactic, as it's a political way of saying we either haven't really figured things out yet or we acknowledge that we're not ready to deal with this right now. It sounds as though Ms. Roberts is on the whole a fairly shrewd politician (I originally misspelled this as plotician, which also seems appropriate) and one not to be underestimated. Parliment does sound like the best avenue, overall.

While I'm mulling the Westminster system as a process, I can only say this: it never ceases to amaze me the process we go through at times simply to fuck.

[Rubber Nursey]

The last legislation that got through, for all intents and purposes, was a political stunt. It was branded a "band-aid" measure from the word go. The Government at the time had massive demands being placed on it from highly organised residents groups...groups which included politicians who lived in that particular area. Even though the opposition Government opposed it, they eventually caved to shut the residents up. They had a few things wiped out of the draft...things that were quite obviously expendable anyway...and then forced the Government to institute a two year "Sunset Clause". This forced the policy makers to admit that the legislation was bad but it would have to do, and they would have to completely dispose of the law in two years time and create new stuff. This year, Michelle Roberts...the very woman who demanded the inclusion of a Sunset Clause whilst in opposition...requested and received an EXTENSION of that Sunset Clause. The laws were supposed to become void in August, but now we have them for another year. That same law is expected to become part of the new legislation that Michelle Roberts is responsible for. You see why we are so confused??? LOL

This year's reform efforts have no obvious support though. The residents groups that caused such a stink last time, are opposed to these changes. The Church is opposed (and they are the BIGGEST factor in this State), the Family Associations are opposed (but then again, they are opposed to everything), health and welfare services are opposed, and obviously the sex industry is opposed. The opposition Government has openly criticised the current Government in the media. I think they are basically relying on the apathy of the public...and that after the media furore dies down, people will forget about it and they will be able to do what they want with it. The thing is, the woman responsible for this draft has many avenues for deceit. The buck stops with her at lots of points in the process. For example, she is offering the draft for community consultation (which didn't happen last time), and yet we have been told that ultimately, community input can be ignored if they so choose. There is no mechanism in place that guarantees that any submissions received will even be acknowledged. There is no accountability to the public. (You gotta love the Westminster system). The best we can hope for is support within actual Parliament when the time comes for it to be debated. We are gaining ground in that respect, and already have some really valuable allies on the "inside".

We also have a contingency plan in the case of failure. If the draft WAS to be approved, then we still have a few tricks up our sleeve that will hopefully tie the Government up in so much red tape, that the laws will never actually be put into practice. Hopefully it won't get to that stage though! Our focus at the moment...before the draft is released....is community education. We need to arm the community with the facts, so that they understand exactly what they are commenting on and what effects their decisions could have on THEIR lives, not just that of sex industry workers.

[Joe Zop]

Well, if the previous legislation went through then there actually had to be support for it, even if there was loud opposition. I've dealt with lots of amazed folks in my field who have lost policy and lawmaking battles and simply can't understand why, and it's generally because they're counting their support and overestimating its true strength in the big scheme, as opposed to looking at the strength of the opposition and how that opposition might be stronger. If they expect to pass legislation and it's done by vote and not by fiat, it means they expect to get support from somewhere. The trick is to find out where, and work on/attack there.

Count the snakes and bugs, and also know what areas of the legislation are most important to various parts of the opposition and why. Figure out what you can give them so that they get what they want out of what you want. You're going to have to give some things up -- that's the nature of the political scene and why there's stuff in the draft that will be given away -- so prioritize. Complete and utter idiocy is pretty common in writing laws, but passing them requires understanding the dynamics of self-interest.

[Rubber Nursey]

The thing is...the previous Government had minimal support for THEIR legislation as well, but that one went through even though they were under heavy fire.

In talks with us, the Minister has made it quite clear that they intend to do this and that regardless of what we say, it will happen. I'd like to think that this is some sort of deliberate political stunt that will just "disappear", but something tells me there is something else going on that we don't know about. I feel pretty sure that they have full intentions of trying to pass this legislation...

[Joe Zop]

If that's truly the case then it's all for show, and it's not a fight they plan to win.

[Rubber Nursey]

There ARE no allies on the other side that I can see. That's what's so damn confusing. It's just the Police Minister's office against every other inhabitant of the state. It's bizarre!

[Joe Zop]

So who are the allies on the other side? Is this legislation an actual fight or just a straw man set up to be knocked down?

[Rubber Nursey]

On our own, we are armed and ready to fight...with submissions, community forums and a pretty big media presence. Along side us we have some really big names in the health field, community services and would you believe....a couple of Christian churches and a few pollies from the offending party! We also have HUGE support from the political party that holds the balance of power in Parliament when it comes to Cabinet decisions. As a matter of fact, workable sex industry reform AND consultation with the sex industry on the matter, has become one of that party's top priorities. All of that should help.

We also (in a fashion) have the church and the rest of the community on our side...in that they don't approve of the reform either. They are fighting it for different reasons of course, but ultimately it's still a voice against the legislation. We can deal with their arguments later.

This Government WAS supposed to be the more "liberal" of the two...and two years ago when the previous Government created the Prostitution Act 2000, these guys fought it tooth and nail. We presumed that was a good sign. However, pollies being pollies, they have now done a complete backflip on that particular piece of legislation, and decided to include it with the new stuff. Plus even more nasty stuff! Our happiness at disposing of the more conservative Government was pretty short-lived. Most of us didn't vote for them though...we voted for the party who is now backing us in our fight.

[Joe Zop]

it sounds as though this whole thing is more political than legislative, and that it's a way to get news time and attention as opposed to really thinking about anything happening. the scourge of television and electronic media is the ability to use soundbites as a way of conveying persona as opposed to actually having to look closely at issues. that process is, unfortunately, all too common in the political arena, and done in truly cynical ways at times. our congress, for example, repeatedly passes legislation around free speech they know to be unconsitutional because of how it makes them look -- tough on "insert issue here" -- basically figuring that the courts will all sort it out; it will take a few years, and then they'll go through it all over again. it's just a game about sending messages, even if you know the message you're sending won't ever become real. but if you're one of those affected by such idiocy, it's far from an amusing process.

my comment on the misleading was based on something you posted a while back in a more hopeful tone which seemed to indicate that this was a more liberal regime. my mistake.

the question now, of course, is who actually are your allies going to be in this fight -- who will make the changes in the draft legislation, who will offer an alternate approach, etc. how together are your allies politically in this regard?