The Morality of Prostitution

[The Virgin Terr]

i've been away for a while mostly because of difficulty in logging in to the new system, which u'll note has forced me to drop the y off my name. anyway, i got a laugh out of philip's coining of the phrase "differently charismatic" several weeks ago in reference 2 the proliferation of "politically correct" speech in our language recently; it's an apt description for those of us lacking in what i guess may be termed mainstream charm. how about "charismatically challenged"? also, philip, for someone who claims 2 have never been in the u.s., u have an impressive knowledge of it as evidenced by your recent reference to missouri as the "show me" state.

in reference 2 joe's recent query regarding how experience with the sex industry changes someone, for me i'd have 2 say it has had a positive influence of humanizing beautiful women, in that i've been able 2 experience intimacy with them which previously had been unattainable. simply being able 2 physically touch someone freely has that effect. not being able to has the effect of making them seem ethereal. i much prefer perceiving and experiencing them as real human beings.

i have a new question for you all: have you supported in the past or would you support in the future any organization devoted 2 decriminalization? it's a dream of mine 2 create or help create such an organization, perhaps based on civil disobedience and defiance of current laws and mainstream attitudes. i wonder just how much latent support for such activity exists among the millions of people who currently secretly support the sex industry via their direct participation in it?

the virgin terry

[Joe Zop]

And that's not even to deal with the different things ILY means based on cultural context...

Actually, I think the idea of counterfeit money is a perfect metaphor in this thread -- after all, prostitution has a great deal of that currency as a necessary and welcomed part of its equation. Monopoly money is perfectly acceptable tender as long as everyone's playing the same game. (I know that Terry's against that, but his is a brave and quixotic quest, I think.) I don't at all disagree with you that women can at times be blind to who actually cares about them, but we men are every bit as good at misreading signals. (I had a conversation a couple of years ago with a woman I knew who worked as a stripper and she told me she'd tried to get me to sleep with her for years, but I apparently wasn't interested. Clueless, oblivious and dazzled is more like it.)

RN referenced being in "the life" helping her discern "woman-hating losers" better; certainly I know tons of women who desperately could use the same skills. At the same time I could also wish some of my buddies understood that there's more to a relationship than big tits, as their attraction to top-heavy emotional cannibals astonishes me.

Of course, within the context of my original question, I also consistently see both men and women who enter into the sex industry in search of something (and sex is usually not really it, though it's involved) and end up disappointed that they didn't find it. For men, that can be an intimate relationship where they're somehow "special" beyond the time limit of time purchased, and for women it can quite often be some level of, how can I say it, maybe self-worth or reinforcement of self-image? (Not at all discounting the economics, of course.) I'm constantly amazed by the number of absolutely stunning women I've met in the biz who start out a conversation about themselves by reciting a list of their bodily flaws. Of course, as RN's noted in the past, it's also an industry where your desireability gets measured in that way, and where like it or not you've got some degree of an expiration sticker pasted on your nether cheek, at least for some clients. At the same time, if you look at the archives of some of the conversations on this board, the number of men who feel "cheated" because sex workers somehow take advantage of them emotionally or financially is astounding if all they're after is sex.

But of course we all remember the slights more sharply than the praise :-)

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
I agree that we’re all bozos on this bus, and the corresponding male error is perhaps to assume that a woman doesn’t love us if she’s not jumping into bed. I don’t make that one myself, because I’m comfortable with the idea of platonic love. I would still maintain, however, that paying attention to the three magic words at the expense of actual behaviour is a dangerous and even self-destructive thing to do. For every predatory man who tells them ILY just to get their pants off, there is another man who gives them real love in action, but is shy of saying the words. I don’t see why the words ILY should be a miracle cure for insecurity and uncertainty – I suppose I belong in Missouri.

How did we get into this in the MoP context? Ah, yes, it was that everyone has their “price”, and in this case some seem excessively happy with counterfeit money. With the debates in “American Women” in mind, I wonder if people find that the legendary Brazilians and so on pay less attention to the words ILY and more attention to actual caring and considerate behaviour? Myself, I have no idea.

[Philip Augustus]

Juliet puts in her two cents:
"Attention, affection, companionship, validation, etc. I think people sometimes pretend it's all about money or sex because
they're afraid to admit that they long for these other
things......"

[Joe Zop]

Not at all to derail the conversation, but...

In regard to the whole "I love you" thing, I tend to think that men and women approach that in rather different ways -- first, men all too often approach "I love you" in the way Americans do when they say, "I'll be with you a bit later" which is a meaningless way to get what you want, in the latter case a moment of breathing space or blowing someone off and in the former, laid. It's a rhetorical device without meaning if it's said too easily. I had to break myself of the habit of saying stuff like "in a minute" when travelling abroad, because people take it as a real promise as you're outside of the societal context where it's supposed to be meaningless. (I spent a couple of hours in Nairobi fulfilling casual promises to see merchants' wares because they came up to me days later and reminded me of my "promise" to come over.) Women trying to figure out guys' intentions are like those inhabitants of other societies seeking the true articulation of feelings from men who are unused to that kind of expression -- there are implications of committment and continuity involved, and I think it's understandable in a relationship to look for those. I think for women the statement often means, "You're someone I'd want/consider having children/a nest with" whereas to men it means, "I dunno about the whole family raising thing, but I'm all in favor of repeated creative attempts at conception, especially if there can be elevators, whipped creme, or weird positions involved." Or else it means, "I'll tell you what you want to hear; now can we please talk about something else, since this self-examination stuff hurts?"

Honestly, I don't think it's fair to rip women for wanting to hear it -- why should they be taken to task for being just as insecure and uncertain about where they stand as men? Why should they have to be the ones who aren't clueless when they're faced with guys who would say absolutely anything to go to bed with them? To quote Firesign Theatre: we're all bozos on this bus.

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Another great essay!

I’m neither a happy nor a mean drunk, alcohol in quantity makes me sleepy or maudlin – but I understand what you say about “being around the sex industry” making you tolerant and benevolent. I would claim to be a fellow-exception to any general rule that it ramps up my frustration level. OK, it has happened that I have fallen unhappily in love with a provider in connection with getting laid, but I don’t see why that’s any worse than falling unhappily in love with a non-provider in connection with not getting laid.

Regarding Dickhead and his “price”, you are so right to classify the words “I love you” as a price. It is perhaps my greatest indictment of the fair sex that, given a choice between the honourable man who demonstrates love in action and the cad who says “I love you”, they almost invariably choose the latter. And then they call us shallow! I like what you say about the simplicity of knowing everyone’s price-tag.

You’re also right about “control and place in the world”. Critics of the scene say it’s about power, and of course it is – but power to do what? I don’t want the power to hurt or humiliate a working lady, but given my background I do appreciate the power to say, “I’d like you, please, let’s go”. That’s my “power to choose”. I guess the feminazis don’t understand or care about the difference.

Even more I like what you say about “trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible”. It’s too much game and façade. (Someone once said to me, in a tone of astonishment: “Philip, you’re the same person with everyone you talk to!” Eh? And who else would I be?) The girls may have to present a false personality, but I think that in the brothel I myself can be….. ultimately authentic. Or what RN calls “primal”, a good word that. Unclothed in every sense.

[Philip Augustus]

To RN:

"Youth is wasted on the young."
-- George Bernard Shaw :-)

You obviously like to build others up, a nurturer. Isn't it depressing how many people seem to think that there is only a fixed quantity of self-esteem in the world, and the more others have, the less there will be for them?

[Joe Zop]

Well, those are all intriguing responses. I guess I asked the question for a couple of reasons (beyond rekindling the fire in here a bit) -- first, because there always is an undercurrent of frustration that drives this board, with men on the hunt for women to have sex with, the difficulties in easily obtaining that, and that frustration ends up expressing itself in a variety of ways; second because I wonder how this affects the core differences in the way the sexes view the sexual act (men tending to think of it first and foremost -- and at times exclusively -- as a physical act, women tending to think of it as an expression of intimacy); and third because, I guess, I wonder if we think about what kind of "drunks" we become when we have a lot, whether it's the mean or happy drunk. In this case sex being the drink of choice.

RN, I absolutely agree with you that the whole "something in return for sex" argument is a silly one in that both sides are equally culpable (trying to determine high moral ground between the vendor who wants to get the highest price for merchandise and the seller who wants it as cheaply as possible is a silly exercise, but more to the point here is how one places oneself in this rather than that role and the whole mercantile framework) but I bring it up because at its core it's an expression of Dickhead's very straight-forward statement that everyone has a price.

On a basic level I do tend to agree with Dickhead's statement, though it depends on what we mean by price, of course, be it $$$ or flowers or jewlery or a home-cooked meal or a car or the words "I love you" or a ring or looks or pheremones or whatever. Unlike his reaction of making the decision more simple, for me it makes it more complex and difficult, knowing that since everyone has a price so do I, and that becomes part of the equation I need to understand in any situation. Part of the delicate negotiation in any relationship is determining the price and then the willingness/ability to pay. I think Philip's response, which basically wishes for mass infiltration of sex professionals into society as a way of counteracting his programming about the attainability of "normal" women, is another guise of a similar sentiment -- how to somehow make everyone be available, in other words, how to have an equation that gives you a chance to be with who you want and to have clear parameters about how that might happen.

RN, the aspect you bring up about single girls who charge for it in their personal lives, and your occasional impulse to do the same, is exactly what I was getting to. You note that you kept work and lovelife separate, but what's the implication for those who don't, or even by the thought that that's a line that's attractive to cross? If one defines interpersonal relationships strictly in a mercantile framework, where does sentiment, attraction, mutual interests, etc. end up ranking on the scale of things? I know they're still there, but both parties in the equation inevitably have their own ranking process. It seems to me that by bringing money into the equation the issue of power is brought front and center, one way or another.

I also think this board clearly demonstrates that your statements about the male psyche and insecurity are dead on. Men constantly see themselves as being at risk because they are placed in the role of aggressor, which means they are regularly facing failure and trying to deal with the consequences of it, as well as needing to go at it again. (I think, as an aside, that's why baseball is such a popular sport among men -- where else can you fail seven times out of ten and be a superstar?) This insecurity is bred by being at risk of being rejected, not to mention issues of sexual ability (women can get by with lube, even if that's somehow seen as a horrifying cheat on arousal whereas men need to get it up, hence the million threads on viagra, even among those in their twenties) where men's dysfunction is impossible to camouflage, unlike women's. All this leads to a desire to have everything simple and quantifiable -- hence the desire to simply know what someone's price is, so it's possible to say, not worth it, too much, or hooray.

It's interesting, Philip, I was never a particular socially comfortable person growing up (used to say I never said a word to anyone until college) and though I've decidedly gone in the opposite direction in that though I regularly speak to groups I'm still basically an introvert at heart. My experience is one of really never being much involved in the dating scene, never really pursuing a formally defined "girlfriend" per se, but having some nonetheless. I think I went on three formally defined dates in my entire life, and found that process incredibly difficult. I found trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible, and having sisters who pretty well did the same didn't help any. (Thank the gods I somehow managed to fall into a decent marriage.) But I never really thought of anyone as unattainable on an a priori basis, and I guess still don't. I wonder if somewhere underneath all this lurks our sense of our place in and control of the world -- I was raised to believe that not only could I do anything, I'd better not settle for less than spectacular, and that the whole equation depended not on the world or other people, but on my own ability to harness and focus my abilities. (Oh yeah, btw, talk about a double-edged sword -- rah-rah, go get them, but don't screw up. Nice way into RN's insecurity stew.)

I think your point about facade and RN's about understanding the male psyche are parallel tracks.

Finally, to try to bring this rambling mess to a close, I'll return to my drunk scenario as a way of taking on my own question. I'm someone who, on those rare occasions I get blotto, am basically one of those love-the-world drunks as opposed to the aggressive kind. I find that being around the sex industry has had a similar effect on me, in that I've probably become more rather than less tolerant of people's needs, motivations, and foibles as they seem all to come from the same package of ingredients, all of which I also contain. But my general view of things, unfortunately, is also that most folks I come in contact with in the sex industry, on either side of the client/provider divide, tend ultimately to get their frustration level amplified rather than reduced, and that inevitably has an affect on their outlook.

[Rubber Nursey]

Philip,

re: "sexual confidence is a positive-feedback process"

You are sooo right! People always say that sex work is degrading and destroys your self esteem, but in reality....who wouldn't gain confidence in themselves and their ability when they have clients telling them that they are amazing, every working day??!!

And for the boys, I have had regulars that came to me shy and (...ummmm how can I say it..."unskilled"), and I watched their confidence (and technique) develop and improve over the course of time. I didn't lay back and fake it like many women will do. If he asked me if it felt good and it actually didn't, I would say "It feels so much better when you do...." Being able to bring me to orgasm would then give him the confidence to try bigger and better things, and ultimately it would give him the confidence to try it on the "outside world" with other women. (As Dickhead mentioned)

As for wishing that you could turn back time and learn earlier what you now know...that makes two of us! If only I had this 28 year old experience while I still had a 19 year old body....
LOL

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

As usual, I will say that I obviously can't speak for all women in the industry...but I will speak from a personal point of view.

"Do women involved in the industry start to look more at men in terms of being cash machines"

I certainly never have! I guess it all comes down to the girl's ability to distinguish work from "real life". A person who advertises that she is available 24 hours a day, fits her personal life around her work schedule and has no romantic involvements may very well find herself looking at all men as a potential "ATM" I would think. I also know single girls who would would rather charge for it in their personal life, than "give it away" and get nothing in return. (I have to admit I have felt like that many times, but haven't actually acted on it...I preferred to keep my work and my lovelife separate).
I was not a 24 hour prostitute. When I was at work I saw my clients as clients... like any person in ANY business, I viewed the men walking in the door as a source of income. But when I left the workplace, I just saw them as men.

"in what way does being involved in the process of prostitution change or shift one's attitude about the other sex, if at all?"

As I have said before, my time in the sex industry gave me an insight and understanding of the "inner workings" of the male psyche that no university course could every compare with. I can spot a woman-hating loser from a hundred yards (and not end up dating him like I would have in the past!! LOL) and I tend to be able to empathise more with men and see things from their point of view more readily than before.

I think sex workers get a rare glimpse of men that other women will probably never see. I guess there is something almost "primal" about meeting someone solely for sex and nothing else, as well as it being completely anonymous, and that environment tends to encourage a sort of raw honesty. They share things with us that they wouldn't dream of saying to people that they know. The most important thing I learned? Men are just as insecure as women are. That may sound strange, but right from childhood we are taught that men are strong and fearless and dominant and always more "powerful" than a woman. To discover the reality behind that myth...that men are also often insecure about their bodies, their looks, their ability in the bedroom...really changed my perception of men, as well as my perception of myself as a woman. I guess I feel like I am on a level playing field with men now, and that has improved my relationships with men no end.

Keep in mind of course that this is coming from a woman who always felt "empowered" as a sex worker....obviously a woman who was hurt by prostitution would feel very differently.

By the way....
With regard to the "women always want something in return for sex" debate, I find that a truly ridiculous sentiment. Who is really the "prostitute" here? The woman who will only have sex if she gets jewellery and a fancy car....or the man who will only spend money on a woman on the proviso that she gives him sex?? "I will only give you sex if you treat me like a queen"..."I will only treat you like a queen if you give me sex". Am I the only one who sees that both parties are as conniving as each other?????

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Interesting question, high pockets. What comes to mind first is this: I spent my formative years in a succession of unilateral loves (maybe I should have picked Dante for my handle instead) and learnt to regard at any rate all normal women as outside my reach. In my day, if the girls didn’t fancy you back they weren’t straight or charitable about it, but rather offensively moralistic – how dare you think of me Like That (ewwwww), I’m not that kind of girl. Many would even pretend to be virgins; God save the mark, I believed them.

When, some years ago, I found a WG whose day job was aerobics teacher, I wondered whether any of her class were in unrequited lust for her, and if so how they would react to meeting her in a brothel. And what the class would be like afterwards. It was a further titillating shock the day I found moonlighting law students (the only time the client gets to screw the lawyer, huh?), of whom one wanted to be a Q.C. Maybe she will end up as a judge and chair royal commissions, or become a Cabinet minister; I sincerely hope so! Again, I can only identify with the poor nerd who sits next to her in the university library and yearns hopelessly. And so I fell to wondering whether any of the girls I had desperately fancied in my youth, or been in world-without-end love with, had been moonlighting in brothels or as escorts. And about what my life would have been like if I had known this – and been generally less “innocent”, because I also took couples’ facades at face value. The couple who go to the Paris clubs so the husband can watch the wife being gang-banged was equally off my mental radar-screen.

The effect is inter alia a sense of bitter regret for a repressed youth in the wrong culture in the wrong epoch, and consequent total misapprehension of the way the world actually works. Since sexual confidence is a positive-feedback process, I wish I could have had a decent education from an outstanding courtesan before the provincial prudes and feminist harridans messed with my head. If you can steal a time-machine, RN, we’ve got a deal!

To focus more on Joe’s question: in (over)reaction to this, it is something I now tend to wonder about any attractive woman, whether she has a second job. I am aware, as I used not to be, of the variety of day jobs that are supplemented in this way. Not so as to despise her for it, of course. Just speculating. Whether this has corrupted me I find difficult to say: since I’m outside the market for amateur partners in any case, I don’t think it’s made me a more unpleasant person, though I could, alas, be wrong about that.

[Dickhead]

Everybody has their price, be they M or F, SW or not. The hobby has reinforced my vague notion that this was the case. Another thing I have noticed is that when dating or trying to pick up, I decide a lot quicker whether I'm interested in performing delicate emotional surgery, or not. Also I find I am more relaxed when I go to bed with an [alleged] "amateur" for the first time, at least partly as a result of my experience with numerous professionals (well, and some of it could just be getting older, maybe, possibly, perhaps).

I was in Mexico for a while but mostly I haven't been posting cuz the subject matter's been less interesting on the new board.

DH

[Joe Zop]

Glad to hear things are going ok, RN. Kinda figured you were moving, after your previous reports in that regard. (And for the record, I'm only 6'2" or 1.88 meters tall, hardly a giant in any way...)

Ok, I'll try to start a discussion going here again...

One of the recurrent themes on this board, not simply or so much in this thread, and elsewhere in discussions men have about women, is the whole idea that women constantly "want" things from guys, expect them to an inordinate degree, and that basically the only thing they tend not to want is what guys will gladly give, which is sex. Now, I tend to think this says as much about guys as it does women, as well as societal role, but it does bring up the whole issue of expectations and attitudes around "paying" for sex both inside and outside of the industry. In prostitution it's a given that there's exchange involved, but that only seems to help things somewhat, as women are still characterized as money-grubbing wh*res, as though somehow there should be something else involved in the exchange (though I don't know what -- gratitude for getting screwed would seem to be something for the male side of this particular equation.)

So here's my question, and I'll toss it out to RN as the resident spokesperson for the fairer sex (though as I note fairness seems to be lodged somewhere in the complaints) as well as my fellow punters -- in what way does being involved in the process of prostitution change or shift one's attitude about the other sex, if at all? Obviously, I'll couch this by acknowledging that this opens the door for gross generalizing, and I'll note that this occurs to me as an aftermath of our last exchange on the old board, and that there may be a degree of chicken and egg involved, but anyway... Do women involved in the industry start to look more at men in terms of being cash machines, or as the discussion in the Thai section would say, as walking ATMs? Do men start to think of all women as having their price, and as only being after money? How does this affect people when they operate outside of the parameters of prostitution, if at all?

Since this is a thread about morality, there are moral conclusions one could draw from pretty much any answer...

[Philip Augustus]

PS -- meant to show that "wh*r*houses" was the writer's word not mine, but was having big problems getting post through and it used an earlier version.

[Philip Augustus]

Great that you're alive and well and housed and OK, RN -- pity you don't have a dog, but you can't have everything! Good to see Fedup, too.

This reminds me of the way they say women who live together synchronise their menstrual cycles -- we're all bonded.......

No, I didn't think you were ignoring me yet, RN -- I've been ignored by experts and you don't make the grade ;-) It was only a day or two.

I didn't fancy joining the Nashville discussion, too specific -- I've never been to the States, and for the same reason I don't post to American Women. What state is that story from, Fedup?

Just finished a SF novel that has, tangentially, high-tech *****houses and stuff (VR); and the assumptions seem to be that all the customers are sadists and the girls what one would expect when that is so. I think we should send him (he's a Brit) to Blore House to improve his education......