Meth-fueled prostitution in the Rockies
| April 26th, 2005Via Mark Kleiman, this very readable six-part series about a wealthy businessman and pillar of the community, Dick Dasen, who over the years paid “hundreds” of women to have sex with him. At first, he met the women through abusing his position as a volunteer credit counselor. Later, he quit doing the credit counseling and instead paid women who were already taking money for sex from him “referral fees” for finding new recruits.
Unsurprisingly, this turned out to be an especially tempting deal for young, female meth addicts.
At some point in the last few years, the appointments had gotten out of hand. Huge sums of money… estimated between $1 and $5 million total … were flowing out. Dasen told police that he had paid some women as much as $100,000. The women involved referred to themselves as “Dasen girls,”? and they recruited among their friends, taking payments of as much as $2,000 just for bringing in anyone new who was young, thin, reasonably good-looking, and down on their luck. Since methamphetamine is perhaps the greatest luck-destroyer on earth, many of the girls came into the circle by way of using the drug. So much of the cash flowed directly back into the methamphetamine trade, law enforcement officials say, that Kalispell, population 15,000, experienced a big-city style epidemic of addiction and all that goes with it — crime, domestic abuse and violent conflicts over drug deals and money.
Dasen used the money to play power-trips with the women. And it doesn’t appear that the women were able to use the money to improve their lives much:
Another part of the power, Jenna and Summer said, was to stop payment on the checks that were written to the women for sex. “You’d go to cash the check, and the bank teller would say there was no money in that account, and then you’d go call Dick, and he’d be out of town,”? Summer says, “and it would be right when you needed the money the most.”? And then they would wait, as long as it took, for him to call them back and tell them the money had been deposited to cover the check. “That’s how I finally lost my trailer,”? Jenna said. “The money didn’t come through in time, and they foreclosed on it.”?
There is little doubt that the flow of money, when it did come — and it usually did, eventually — was not the lifesaver that everyone imagined it would be. It seemed like just another trick, kind of like the meth they all bought with it, that seemed like it would make everything alright, but actually it just disappeared, wrecking your life in the process.
“I don’t know of anybody who did anything positive with the money,”? Connie said. Thousands and thousands of dollars went into local keno and poker machines, hours and hours spent sitting, high on meth, staring at the blinking lights, smoking.
The end result? Some of the women who came forward have been arrested for prostitution, or for recruiting. Dasin himself is facing a trial, and it’s possible he’ll be able to wiggle out with a slap on the wrist - it’s a safe bet that he’ll have the best legal defense available. The most serious charges involves sexual encounters with underage girls. Maybe Dasin will spend a long time inside a prison - I think he deserves it.
But what if Dasin had been smart enough to avoid involvement with underage girls? Then he’d be facing virtually no serious charges. That disturbs me. The power dynamic between a broke meth addict and a sober millionaire is like a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Woody Allen; taking advantage of that power dynamic to negotiate for sex is despicable. I’m not sure that the resulting sex in that situation is rape, but I can’t call it fully consensual, either. We call sex between an adult and a 14-year-old statutory rape because a 14-year-old is not able to genuinely consent to sex, even if she thinks she wants to. By that standard, can a meth addict be said to genuinely consent to prostitution?
On the other hand, at least one of Dasen’s “victims” would be pissed off by my view:
You know, everybody’s talking about Dick, how he gave us all this money and made us victims, like we can’t take any responsibility for ourselves. I don’t buy that. I’m a grown woman and I’m responsible for what I do, and for what I did with the money. You ask if I’m pro-Dick Dasen, and yes, I am. Dick for Mayor! I notice nobody is asking if just maybe Dick is a victim of all of us. How come nobody’s asking that?
So what kind of punishment should men like Dasen get?
The legal penalties for sex crimes with underage girls are fairly clear, and severe. But what should be the sanction, legal or otherwise, for enabling addiction, for feeding the meth economy, for taking advantage of weak, desperate people for your own gratification, for abusing a position of trust?
My instinct is that men like Dasen deserve whatever punishment the law can make stick. But I’m skeptical about how “victimless” crimes are enforced in real life; there’s a lot of evidence that the people arrested for such crimes are disproportionately non-white and poor. (That’s one reason I don’t favor handgun bans). Dasen’s story is making the news because a rich, white man being charged with these crimes is a novelty.
Plus, is it really practical to make “enabling” a crime? In law, I think people should be responsible mainly for their own acts, not for acts by others.
I don’t have answers. But anyone who (like me) favors drug legalization or prostitution decriminalization should be willing to think hard about this story. As the reporter asks, “what’s the lesson of a case in which a long series of ‘victimless’ crimes somehow resulted in a lot of victims?”
April 26th, 2005 at 12:53 am
It sorta reminds me of “God Bless You, Mister Rosewater,” by Kurt Vonnegut. That is, if Elliott Rosewater had been a manipulative, power-hungry sexual predator.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Careful. You’ll end up thinking that women deserve special legal protections under the law, because they’re more vulnerable to this sort of thing than men are. And then you’ll have to get married and go to church and shake your fist at the hippies, like the rest of us conservatives.
There does seem to be a hole in our legal system that lets genuinely slimy SOBs like this guy walk, or get wrist-slapped. Frankly, it’s outrageous. Let’s strengthen the laws and put bastards like this guy in a deep hole for a long time.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:00 am
As the reporter asks, “what’s the lesson of a case in which a long series of ‘victimless’ crimes somehow resulted in a lot of victims?”?
They’re victims because it’s a crime. If it wasn’t, they’d have to get licenses for being prostitutes, and the profession could be regulated, like it is in civilized countries. The same goes for the drugs.
I’m not making a libertarian argument about this, I’m making a utilitarian one. Drugss and prostitution, when illegal, result in distribution and commerce being controled by criminals. If we remove the crime, we remove who controls the distribution, and then the government ahs some say in how things can be sold and to whom.
Yeah, people will destroy themselves when they’re legal. Those are from the same group of people who’d do it if it was illegal. But in removing the criminality, we can treat them for a disease, not ruin thier lives through jail.
Robert is totaly wrong. Strengthening the laws against victimless crimes has never done any good. I don’t have to make that into an argument, history is as good an example as I need.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:09 am
On the moral evolutionary scale, this Dasen character is somewhere between a fresh, hot, steaming pile of cowshit (infected with 0157:H7) and the smelly ooze found on the bottom of well-used Dumpsters. At the very least, there needs to be a list available to organizations that serve vulnerable constituencies so they know who has a proven record of ethical violations….something similar to the sex-offender lists that keep known sex-offenders from volunteering in schools. I mean, it looks like this guy got his start from volunteering as a credit counselor; my feeling is that he knew from the start this would put him in pole position to exploit vulnerable poor women.
Now, as for the woman who is unwilling to call herself a victim, I think that’s a good sign for her. Her attitude about responsibility means that she is probably ready to make that first step towards getting off the meth. I think her comment is less about him and more about her state of mind.
But I don’t understand something here…..if he paid “referral fees”, how is he invulnerable to charges of pimping? Or are there no laws against pimping there?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:34 am
Yep, the conservative method of “protecting” women works so well, I don’t know why we questioned it. Clearly, rounding up prostitutes periodically for short stints in jail and then releasing them back to pimps has always protected women in the past–from jail and from pimps! Also, don’t forget the importance of guarding the chastity of middle and upper class women, so that demand for prostitutes skyrockets.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:46 am
And let’s not forget about the sexual double-standard for men and women; the one that allows married women to like sex, but not “that” kind of sex…that’s what mistresses and prostitutes are for!
Whaddya wanna bet that during all this time, Dasen was taking “respectable” women, you know, those in his own social class, out on dates, while he was using prostitutes for the kinky stuff he liked on the side.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 7:00 am
According to the article, he is married and an elder in his Lutheran Church and his business was called “Christian Credit Counseling”. But you could have guessed that I’m sure. I didn’t see any information on his political leanings, though.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 7:08 am
The law is rarely a precise instrument. An anti-enabling law that made it illegal to facilitate drug addicts would only fall on poor people — usually the parents and partners of addicts. Recipe for disaster if you ask me.
This case is the best single scenario I have heard for the Swedish approach: decriminalize prostitution, while retaining criminal sanction for paying prostitutes.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 8:26 am
One of the thing that’s not really explored in the series is Dasen’s apparently full- role in the exploitation of these women and their families. He made his money in the town’s transformation from a center of industrial and extractive employment to a low-wage service economy, and in addition to his credit counseling business, his finance company held the notes that constituted many of his victims’ money troubles. If his enterprises had paid decent wages, none of this (or less of it) might have happened. A sort of microcosm of pathological capitalism.
This comment was written by paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Couldn’t he be prosecuted for fraud and passing bad checks? I mean, if his checks to these women weren’t clearing, and he did this sort of thing routinely, I’d think he committed the sort of money-related crimes that can actually carry some heavy penalties.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 11:34 am
How exactly would decriminalizing drugs or prostitution have changed anything in this situation. You still would have drug addicts doing anything to pay for their addiction, including selling themselves for sex.
The reality is that these women would have been vulnerable to this man regardless of whether drugs were legal or not. Meth is not that expensive and decriminalizing it isn’t going to change the economics of being a meth addict. So you still have people who will do anything to buy some more meth, including having sex in exchange for drugs or being paid so they can buy more.
Does making that sexual transaction legal prevent it from taking place? Does it change the economics of it?
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Decriminalizing prostitution, “regulating” the prostitutes is all about making them safer and more accesible to the johns, not really about protecting the prostitutes themselves. No law will ever change the fact that prostitution, legal or not, is the most pernicious type of exploitation possible- sexual exploitation. Not rape, although prostitutes are frequently raped, but definitely about as unethical an act as a person can commit.
Soft treatment for johns, like the millionaire in the post, is probably the purest and maybe oldest form of sexism, when any objective examination of the morals of the the sex trade could only conclude that paying for it is worse than selling it. Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz asked the question long ago- “Which is worse? She who sins for pay or he who pays for sin?” The answer is obvious.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Elena, a good number of my friends are, in fact, prostitutes in one end of the buisness or the other. I’ve found it to be true that in counrties where prostitution is legal, a reasonable number of prostitutes are relativley OK with what they do.
It’s in nations where it’s illegal that it becomes a criminal enterprise run by men who’re probably commiting plenty of other crimes as well.
Legalization does not make it perfect, it makes it more safe for the prostitutes as well as the customers.
Res: Ipsa: yes, making a transaction legal changes the economics of it. You can regulate how much the prostitute makes from a transaction, mandate STD testing, drug testing, and other things that make life safer for the prostitute.
I tend to prefer a harm reduction model, rather than one that will just push the process underground and into the hands of criminals. It’s not something i feel a need to debate, because anyone can go look up figures about what life is like in an area where criminals control prostitution and what it’s like in an area where it’s legal.
The total legalization of prostitution makes prostitutes safer. If you want it illegal because you think it’s moraly wrong, you’re going to be making sure that criminals are in control. People like Dick Dansen are created by prostitution being illegal in just the same way that cocaine being illegal made people like Manuel Noriega possible.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I would argue that where there are drug addicts, there will be a blackmarket for prostitution, even if it were legal. Those women didn’t have sex because they were trying to make money or even appease a pimp, from what I can tell. They were prostituting themselves because they were an addict. Legalization would not create a barrier for entry and they would be providing $10 handjobs in the alley even if there were legal brothels. Thus, legalization does nothing to help these women.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
[…] bad choices. I think there’s an interesting interaction with Jane’s post and this post over at Alas, a Blog. Wealth Kalispellian Dic […]
This comment was written by Word Munger » Do we choose to be poor?.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Paul makes a very good point that is lost in all the debate about leaglizing prostitution and drugs–that it was Dasen’s active role in the maipulation of the local economy that set in motion the conditions for his “crimes”–and, frankly, is the true criminal act.
Think of it this way: from an economic perspective, sex work (including prostitution) is a kind of service industry work that seems to rise when there are dips in less intimate, legitimate service industries in an area.
Yet unlike other service industry jobs, a woman is not likely to put “escort” (a polite name for prostitute in many instances, and considered a legal occupation) or “exotic dancer” or “professional dominatrix” or “adult entertainer” on a resume that she might submit to the local Wal-Mart or for a button-down job in an office.
Whether it is legal or not, sex industry work carries a social stigma that legalization will not erase. The perception of sex for money is negative in the minds of most people, and changes in the law will not affect these long-held biases.
Subsequently, for most women, sex industry work is a worse dead-end career than fast food.
That is, unless she is of the middle or upper classes and can chalk up her forays into exotic dancing as youthful experimentation–and can put down that summer internship at the local youth center instead of her time at the local go-go rama.
Yet some feminists will argue that women have the right to engage in sex work and it is empowering. After all, women are gaining money and, in some instances, admiration from the transaction and are therefore gaining power.
That is how the woman above can say she thinks Dick (wow, what an apropos diminutive) is the “victim” and not herself. She gained from the transaction, and whether or not he manipulated her or the economic conditions of her situation is of little consequence.
But, if one does not have options, is sex work then economically empowering? If the choice to engage in sex work is otherwise curtailed, is the choice to do so then free and empowering?
That Dasen is charged with *any* crime in this case is, as you say, a novelty, since, from a capitalist and feminist perspective, there really were no crimes, or victims, at all–just happy empowerment for all involved.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Would legalization help these women? I can’t say, because that’s a hypothetical, but at least they’d be getting regular STD checkups under most systems of legalization. They’d also be safe if they went to the cops about an abusive john or pimp. If the drugs were legal, the wouldn’t have to go to a criminal to buy them, and couldn’t be blackmailed by one that if they reported him, they’d go to jail.
Again, on the harm reduction model, I don’t claim that it’s perfect, just better. So it becomes a question of what you’re looking for: accepting nothing other than perfection, with the alternative being the current system; or a model that seeks to reduce as much harm as it can while admiting that it can’t save everyone.
Which is it to be?
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
It’s hard to know what the answer is, but I am not sure legalizing drugs or prostitution is the answer. My sense is the people who suggest that are people who have spent little time with $20 prostitutes and hard-core addicts.
The problem, truthfully, is not the prostitution but the drugs. Were it not for the drugs, those women probably wouldn’t have been turning tricks. In fact, most prostitutes and sex workers wouldn’t be taking money for sex if it weren’t for addiction and the need to pay for an addiction. The stripper working her way through law school or the empowered sex worker is as much of a fantasy as Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman.”
So what to do about meth? Is decriminalizing meth going to erase the addicts and eliminate the black market for drugs? Are all those garage labs in Missouri and Arkansas going to shut down if it is legalized? No.
My reluctance to accept the fact that decriminalization is the answer is that I’ve known a lot of addicts whose “rock bottom” experience for starting recovery was getting busted or doing time. Sure they relapsed, but so do queer tweakers in NYC who try to come off meth.
I am not sure whether some of the people I have worked with would have gotten clean if they hadn’t been arrested or done time.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Legalization of prostitution (or meth for that matter) is pretty much irrelevant to what happened in Kalispell. Women who made sexual arrangements with one man in return for large (by their standards) chunks of money wouldn’t be registered as prostitutes any more than a girlfriend or common-law spouse who happened to receive much of her support from a man.
If not for the meth angle — if Dasen’s women had otherwise led unremarkable lives — would the case and people’s feelings about it be the same? Different in degree rather than kind?
This comment was written by paul.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Personally, I’d agree with nolo - if you’re going to engage in transactions that are, frankly, illegal, you should at least pay the fiddler* in a timely manner. I’d say attack the financial angle, and not just because it seems the only avenue available. Anyone else who’s been on the receiving end of fradulent business practice and continual check-bouncing by employers? That alone is plenty for me to get angry about.
(Of course, by taking illegal employment, these women probablyassumed they lost any legal right to complain about this (if they’d thought about it in the first place). That’s where legalization would make a difference; but I do wish someone would step in on these nitty-gritty money matters.)
This comment was written by Painini.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
In a sense, then, what they did is already legal. The money was part of ongoing relationships that were sexual. One problem with laws against prostitution is they are class-based. Poor women who exchange sex for money are whores. Upper class women who do it are mistresses or even trophy wives.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
To tag onto what Amanda says and to comment to Josh Jasper, alot of middle-class women who enter into prostitution enter as escorts. The can easily claim their occupations as adult entertainer and rarely risk busts if they are either in an agency that is on the up and up or are quietly independent and regularly pay their taxes. Some agencies already require regular testing, or, in the case of independents, women get themselves to to clinics or have trade-frendly physicians where they test regularly.
When the money is good enough, and one is not living hand to mouth, there’s alot of incentive to keep oneself healthy.
And, at the level of well-paid escort, there is much incentive to not use heavy drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin (although there are many pot-smokers and pot-smoking is see by some clients as an “enhancement” to the interaction).
The biggest problems in prostitution are mostly among working class, working-poor and poor women. Prostitution on the level of streetwalker is indeed a social class problem. Most streetwalkers have a higher risk of disease because, in some cases, johns will not pay them if they use condoms. They fear going to free clinics for testing, or don’t know where they are, or don’t think about disease factors. If they are drug addicts, they *certainly* aren’t going for any sort of testing anywhere.
It’s very sad, and I do not believe that any legalization would change any of that. There is an entire subculture around streetwalkers, as there is around escorts, that perpetuates certain ideas about condom use and about STD testing that might not be changed even if the law changes.
Subcultures are hard to change.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
It’s hard to know what the answer is, but I am not sure legalizing drugs or prostitution is the answer. My sense is the people who suggest that are people who have spent little time with $20 prostitutes and hard-core addicts.
Well, you’d be wrong in my case. I have spent time with people who’ve been (are not now, thank goodness) hard core drug addicts and low cost prostitutes. I’ve *also* spent time in places where prostitution and drugs are far more tolerated.
Yes, there are still drug addicts and low end prostitutes who rent themselves for drug money. Nothing I can think of will solve that problem.
But here’s the difference: all of the prostitutes where it was legal worked for themselves, not for a criminal. The drug addicts in countries where it wa legal could get help easily, and with little stigma. Here, the oposite is true.
What I want is for thigns to get as good as we can get them. I know what works. I know it because I’ve seen it, and anyone who cares to pay attention can see it. If you’re not interested, or if there are other priorities, then that’s where we differ. My main priority is keeping the victims as safe as I can get them. Legalization is the only way I know of to improve things.
Any better ideas are welcome.
As for the meth labs, hell yes they’ll end up shut down. If it’s legal, only an idiot would buy from a criminal. Addicts are people, just like you and me. If we give them the chance to buy drugs in saftey, they will. No one enjoys buying from someone who might kill you if you look like a cop.
Tish G: subcultures do change slowly, but when I’ve been in a country where prostitution was legal, I saw a massive decline in streetwealkers. They weren’t totaly gone, but there were less of them. See, the johns also appreciate not dealing with a criminal as well, and will go to someone they know has had regular STD tests in favor of someone they know who hasn’t.
I don’t know what to tell people who don’t belive me other than head out to places where it’s legal and see what you can see. It’s not pretty, but it’s an improvement.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Res Ipsa asks:
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.How exactly would decriminalizing drugs or prostitution have changed anything in this situation
An end to drug prohibition would decrease or eliminate the violence that happens on the side. (”…violent conflicts over drug deals and money.”) Murderers could no longer dominate the market. Then you have the fact that people have started meth on the not unreasonable assumption that the authorities lied about it, the way they lied about pot. And oh yes, prohibition favors hard drugs — smart sellers try to reduce the size of contraband. Compare Prohibition-era moonshine with lite beer. (Okay, not the best battle cry in the world, but you see my point.) I don’t know how a change in sex prohibitions would affect the situation, because I don’t know exactly what I’d change. But I know that if I made the law, these women wouldn’t be in jail right now. And if they didn’t actually get help from the authorities, at least they’d know they could go to the cops without anyone demanding free service.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 4:32 am
Josh–
You seem to like the “happy hooker” image and don’t seem any more willing than myself or others to look at the opposite side of the argument.
As for what goes on in other countries, I do not believe that our country, with its unique social structure and mores, should necessarily look to other countries for guidance on moral issues such as the legalization of prostitution (the differences between the U.S. and America was slightly more illuminated with all the discussions regarding the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI.)
I also don’t think that our country, with its unique social structure and mores would change all that much with the legalization of prostitution. Further, what may be considered is the effect of the legalization of prostitution on other social service sectors. Educational opportunities and funding for those opportunities might be curtailed if prostitution were considered a viable career choice for a young woman.
But consider the twisted logic of that: give tacit approval for a woman to sell her body–her most intimate physical and emotional being–because it is a good career choice.
In my mind, that is capitalisim at its worst and most dehumanizing. The idea that sex is “just sex” and nothing more denies the fact that men and women are wired differently when it comes to sex, and that many women who consider this line of work more than likely have a personal issue that motivates them to pursue sex work. (and that is *my* experience both in the sex industry and out of it.)
Gad! when will men stop thinking that sex work is all fun and games and the women who participate in it are just in it for the fun of sex? When it comes down to it, prostitution, and sex work overall, is acting. It is not real sex at all.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 5:01 am
A more compassionate strategy for dealing with streetwalkers might be providing them with halfway house type of accommodatons that might function as permanent addressess. Johns would not be welcome (that would make it a brothel) but the “homes” would provide a permanent address that could function as information to put on an i.d. (many streetwalker/drug addicts do not have permanent addresses and are often busted for vagrancy).
yeah, sure….in a perfect world….
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:02 am
You seem to like the “happy hooker”? image and don’t seem any more willing than myself or others to look at the opposite side of the argument.
No, I don’t. Flat out not true. Any argument you take from that assumption is just not true. Did you miss the part where I said I know people who were, in fact, drug addicts and streetwalkers? I also do know people who were the happy hooker type. I know the whole spectrum, including the people in betweeen.
I’m willing to look at any idea that fixes things. If I have any evidence it does. What alternate solution are you providing?
In the meanwhile, stop trying to use a strawman argument by painting me to be some caricature. You have no idea who I am, who the people I know in the sex work industry are, and what the stories they have are.
Until I tell you, you’re just making things up in order to win points for the gallery. If that’s all this is to you, I’ll bow out. I don’t have conversations with people who treat me that way.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:55 am
I’m sorry, but I have to quarrel with you here–says who? This notion that men are humpity dogs and women are moon-eyed romantics does no one any favors. I’ve had my share of sex for sex’s sake and I dare say that most men would speak highly of their emotional investment in their sexual relationships. It’s all-around insulting to both men and women.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Let’s strengthen the laws and put bastards like this guy in a deep hole for a long time.
Sure. Specifically, what laws shall we “strengthen,” and how would they enable us to put bastards like this away?
The idea that sex is “just sex”? and nothing more denies the fact that men and women are wired differently when it comes to sex,
Speak for yourself, Tish. Personally I’m not ‘wired that way,’ and as a young woman, I ran into hella trouble running on your assumptions.
Speaking of assumptions, don’t pretend you speak for sex workers if you’ve never been one.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Josh…not meant to paint you as a straw man, nor to paint you as a charicature. Perhaps you are giving my words more power than they have in the first place.
The reason I did not offer solutions has more to do with your insistance that because you knew the sex industry that you were positive you knew the correct solutions. As you so blasted me, I, too, can say that you do not know me, where I’ve been, the people I’ve known, etc. No one here was providing an opposing view to your firm opinon and I did not see anything wrong in providing another viewpoint on the issue from another person who knows the sex industry.
Think of it this way: two people can go to China and see two different things. That you may have gone to Hong Kong while I went to Bejing does not mean that your viewpoint of the place is superior to mine. We know different ends of it and have come to different conclusions about it, that’s all.
Yet, in general, there seems to be some reluctance to say that there is an another viewpoint to the idea of the legalization of prostitution. Are we all supposed to march in lock-step just because we are more left-thinking than right?
Frankly, I didn’t think wearing a brown shirt was part of all this.
(Be that as it may, I am quite puzzled by the point that began with “Until I tell you….” that’s a bit, um, domineering?? and doesn’t leave much room for gentelmanly debate)
As to proffering a solution, I do not believe that, in this country, there are any true solutions to the problem of prostitution. Acknowledging that it is a multi-layered problem, where the upper echelons are far better off than the lower is a way of acknowledging that the problem of prostitution is part of a larger schema of society and is socio-economic as well as moral. People in general need to see and understand that streetwalkers are part and parcel of a larger issue. Sex industry work, of which prostitution is part, is not particularly glamourous nor particularly rewarding, nor should it be posited as a valid career choice for women.
Until we can see the larger picture of sex work, a picture most people would deny because it seems to fly in the face of what most popular media would like us to believe about sex work, simply decriminalizing prostitution isn’t necessarily going to help the streetwalkers nor will it necessarily decrease crime in an area.
When the Numbers Game became the State Lottery, did it stop organized crime? When Off-Track Betting started, did it stop bookies?
(Nor will decriminalization help women who are part of the burgeoning white slave traffic from Eastern Europe and Mexico. We have white slavery laws, yet no one seems to want to enforce them.)
Amanda….my point is in reference to sex workers and sex work. Many men will use the argument that sex workers are in it because they like sex, when, in fact, that isn’t quite the case. Sex work is a form of acting, not a form of sex (as rape is a crime of power, not of sex.)
Yes, women have sex just for the heck of it and yes men can get all mooney-eyed at times, but the idea that women and men are exactly the same when it comes to sex (as many feminists have wanted us to believe) isn’t quite the case in all instances all the time.
And it is an argument that can be used as part of the “she was asking for it” defense.
I personally find the idea that men and women are equal in sexual thinking to be kind of insulting and reductivisitc. We aren’t–and there are indeed gray areas. That’s the marvel of human existence.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
mythago….and never assumed someone has not worked in the sex industry if you’ve never seen their resume…
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
He was referring to you making assumptions about his experience or beliefs without any knowledge of either–just like you complain about mythago doing.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
What are these “differences” you speak of? I don’t think you need to invoke an insulting stereotype in order to make the point that people come up with lame justifications. Most men are quite aware that sex workers are acting, and the few that deny it do so more to protect their fragile fantasy that the woman really likes them more than anything.
I’m not buying the whole, “Well of course you’ve had sex just for sex, but you did it a little less than a man would.” Says who? If that’s not the difference you’re referring to, please spell out what it is.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
It seems pretty clear to me that the number of female prostitutes used by men versus the number of male prostitutes used by women shows there are obviously some major differences in the ways men and women view sex acts without emotion. What else could explain the severely lopsided gender distributions of prostitutes and tricks?
When a nation gets economically poorer, the women are forced into prostitution but the nation’s men are not. Prostitutes are made, not born, and it is men who make prostitutes of both the male and female kind, though much more the female kind.
Amanda, when I watch The Color Purple I’m quite aware Oprah and Whoopie are really doing just fine, but being a human being means I easily suspend my disbelief to get what I want from the movie. Don’t you cry at some movies even though you know it’s only actors acting?
Prostitution is less about sex than power, just as the adage about rape goes. Hugh Grant could get 10 free blow jobs by gorgeous women who aren’t his supermodel girlfriend every night, but they’ll never satisfy his desire for superiority like paying a brown-skinned drug addict street hooker to suck him off does. As a woman friend who helps prostitutes transition out in San Francisco once said, “Men don’t pull over on Capp Street because they want the sensation of their dick being sucked, they pull over because they want the sensation of degrading a woman, of her sucking his dick because he told her to do it.”
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Just to clarify, I don’t think it’s possible to engage in sex acts without *any* emotion, but the masterbatory sex men engage in with prostitutes is qualitatively different from the sex they have with their wives and girlfriends. About 60% of tricks in the US are husbands and long-term boyfriends with steady access to that kind of emotional sex with their partners, but the emotions of dominance and superiority they seek with prostitutes are a whole other thing.
In March I attended a conference in Chicago where the following quotes from tricks taken from a very recent research comes from. Prostituted sex is far from ‘emotionless’ for tricks:
“?She gives up the right to say ‘no’. I own her that time.”?
“Guys get off on controlling women. It is paid rape.”?
“You’re making them subservient.”?
“I think about getting even.”?
“Prostitution takes away a part of themselves they can’t get back.”?
“Sometimes I feel it’s wrong but I try to block that out.”?
“I’ve never tried to rescue a girl. You can get killed doing that.”?
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
piny….thanks for clairfying that. I really wasn’t sure.
I guess I just have a bit of difficulty when I hear someone claim to be the *only* expert on this or that. I’m willing to give props for the opinions gained from experience, but I like to know there is room for additional opinions, also gained from experience on a particular matter.
Amanda….I’m really not all that sure that many men understand that sex workers *are* acting. As sex work has become more mainstream, or in a strange way, accepted (I’m talking porn acting, dancing, posing for magazines, and pro-domming) there is a belief that all women who are doing it are doing it because they “love sex.”
Through conversations I’ve had with women who have worked for over 20 years in professional dominance (a form of sex work once considered the province of former escorts), I’ve learned that there are some practices that were once strictly performance and are now often inisisted upon being acted out *for real.* There were, and still are, certain codes of ethics and rules within that world and it was interesting to hear how so many pros were finding their job more difficult because of the demands from clients for more reality.
With regards to the other point you mentioned, that’s *definitely* not the difference I’m speaking of. It’s never a matter of a woman doing it “a little less than a man would”
(although I’ll admit I’m not sure what you mean by that). My concern is that women and men think their attitudes and ideas about sex are identical at all times because sex and sexuality are perceived as being merely gender constructs that can be easily socially manipulated.
I think we can gain clairty on how sex and sexuality is beyond gender constructs by generationally “comapring notes.” I have a friend in her 20’s who writes a wonderful blog about her sexual exploits. In a recent entry, I thought I was reading something from my own 20’s–roughly 20 years ago. I found it strange that the more things seemed to change–clothing, media, education–the more things such as the attitudes of both the young men and one of the young women, had stayed the same.
We grew up in completely different generations, with different influences, yet when it came to this particular sexual situation, the attitudes and outcomes where the same. It was freaky.
I also recently caught a tv broadcast where a 15 year old was stating that 15 year olds today were “more mature” than they were 10 years ago. Yet I succinctly remember similar arguments 10, even 20 years ago.
What has changed is media and the way childern are raised. What may not have changed is how human beings physiologically and psychologically mature. Some 15 year olds might be more mature because of family factors, yet there is part of them that is still 15 years old.
But this does not mean that we are locked into a biological determinism that is free of gender constructs. Not at all. We can make efforts to change ideas and attitudes about how we view the other gender, but the changes are often glacial and sometimes it is our biology rather than our socializtion that hangs us up and keeps us repeating history.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
and never assumed someone has not worked in the sex industry if you’ve never seen their resume…
What sex worker puts that on her resumé?
We’ve beaten the pro/anti-legalization argument to death before, so I’m not going to turn the horse into smaller bits, but this just struck me as ridiculous:
Yes, women have sex just for the heck of it and yes men can get all mooney-eyed at times, but the idea that women and men are exactly the same when it comes to sex (as many feminists have wanted us to believe) isn’t quite the case in all instances all the time.
“Isn’t quite the case in all instances all the time” is meaningless because we’re talking about groups. Of course it’s not the case that any random woman and any random man have exactly the same feelings about, and reactions to, sex. That’s quite different than your original statement that men and women are “wired differently,” i.e. that all men and all women, save for perhaps a few weirdos, are biologically hard-coded to view and experience sex differently. Feminists decry that because it’s sexist bushwa.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Actually, there is an alternative explanation that we have ample evidence for–men, as a class, have more power than women. And one thing the powerful do to the powerless, historically speaking, is treat their bodies as objects to be bought, sold and used. Sexual slavery, for instance, is only one kind of slavery in this world.
If there are inherent differences, they probably don’t have near the effect on society that male entitlement does. If, by some miracle, everything reversed itself and women dominated men, prostitution would be a very different beast than it is now.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
….there might not be a resume, but there may indeed be a blog profile–or a c.v. If there are curious ones, I think I’m hyperlinked :-)
one thing always boggles me, though, is the idea that everything that is one way in the world today might be somehow differnent/better if women ran the world. Having spent 3 years in a wonderful women’s higher education institution, I have seen the way women bully and exploit one another. Matriarchy does not hold a hedgemony on benovolence.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Josh…not meant to paint you as a straw man, nor to paint you as a charicature. Perhaps you are giving my words more power than they have in the first place.
You claimed that I thought something that was not true, and sued it to create an argument around. That is called a “straw man” argument. I can’t see how that wasn’t your intent, especialy when I made it pretty clear that the whole “pretty woman” thing wasn’t where I was coming from. This has nothing to do with me giving your words any power.
The reason I did not offer solutions has more to do with your insistance that because you knew the sex industry that you were positive you knew the correct solutions.
Actualy, I can show you statistics from countries where it’s legal. it has nothing to do with my own perceptions. That was the point I’d made. That criminalizing something puts it into the hands of criminals. De criminalizing takes it away.
Prohibition should be evidence enough of this.
Am I positive this is the correct solution? No. I welcome anyone to provide a better solution that saves more people than mine will. But I don’t like solutions that come based on moral disaprobation in stead of a harm reduction model.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Josh….
When it comes down to it, we have a different way of viewing the issue. It’s really as simple as that.
I still maintain that looking at other countries and how they have found some kind of a solution to the problem isn’t necessarily the greatest guideline for how we do things here.
Rather, we might want to consider the situation in various parts of Nevada, where prostitution is legal to some degree or another. We might also want to consider what various states consider acts of prostitution. Strangely, it’s quite varied from state to state–a factor that kind of muddies the legalization or de-criminalization arguments.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
how prostitution laws vary from state to state also confuses alot of people on what exactly constitutes prostitution. This confusion may be what leads people to reduce prostitution to a “sex crime” rather than a crime done out of economic necessity.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Strangely, it’s quite varied from state to state
It varies from state to state, as does criminal law, but is it “quite varied”?
Actually, there is an alternative explanation that we have ample evidence for”“men, as a class, have more power than women.
Also, more money, and more social support for seeking no-strings sex.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 5:40 am
I still maintain that looking at other countries and how they have found some kind of a solution to the problem isn’t necessarily the greatest guideline for how we do things here.
Rather, we might want to consider the situation in various parts of Nevada, where prostitution is legal to some degree or another. We might also want to consider what various states consider acts of prostitution. Strangely, it’s quite varied from state to state”“a factor that kind of muddies the legalization or de-criminalization arguments.
I think Nevada is a horrible example, because it’s set up so that only certain limited employers are in control. I agree on the patchwork of laws problem. I think a federal law decriminalizing it should be enacted, and we could leave the regulation up to the states, as long as they kept certain sensible rules.
It’s interesting that no one here seeems to know about the fairly large world of gay male prostitution. Sure, not too many heterosexual men are prostitutes with women as clients, but gay, bi, and even self identified heterosexuals are prostitutes for gay men.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Myth, I would see those as part of the power package. The way that Republicans suddenly tolerate drug use, prostitution, infidelity and homosexuality when it’s the upper class who does these things is indicative of that entire mindset.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 7:40 am
“Actually, there is an alternative explanation that we have ample evidence for”“men, as a class, have more power than women.”
But there are many women who have power over many men and who don’t seek to sexually abuse disadvantaged men the way men of all classes, from very rich to very poor, seek out and sexually abuse vulnerable women and girls. It is entirely possible for six athletic teenaged girls to shove a mini baseball bat inside a mentally impaired boy’s rectum, but teen girls don’t seem to have nearly the will to commit such acts as teen boys. Women with a lot of money don’t travel alone to Thailand with the frequency single men with the same income do. I don’t know if it’s more nature or nurture that makes so many men look at a poverty-stricken, hurting woman and see not a human but a thing that can be made to let you shove objects in and out of its delicate body parts for drugs, money, food or shelter, I just know women don’t look at homeless, drug addicted men that way.
While I agree with you on “If there are inherent differences, they probably don’t have near the effect on society that male entitlement does.”, I don’t think you can really say with any certainty, “If, by some miracle, everything reversed itself and women dominated men, prostitution would be a very different beast than it is now.” if by that you mean women would exhibit the same propensity for sexual violence towards prostituted men that men currently brutalize sex working women with. If such a sci-fi fantasy were possible, I could be convinced some women might visit male prostitutes, but I don’t believe the tables would turn exactly and that women would exhibit the same phenomenally high levels of sexual torture, mental abuse and violence towards men.
As things stood last I knew the numbers, men commit 97% of sexual assaults and commit 90% of all violent crimes. Through all history, though many oppressed people have risen to battle against their aggressors, has an army entirely made of oppressed women ever risen as a group to physically free themselves from the men who held them down? I don’t know how much is nature and how much is nurture, and I don’t think it’s terrifically important to know, but I believe men’s propensity to violence is the characteristic that most distinguishes men from women in a species-wide sense, and I believe prostitution is both a literal system and codified expression of male violence.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 8:07 am
myth….ah, using the old liberal male tactic of picking apart someone’s wording to make a point :-)
I could also say the laws against prostitution are strangely varied–as are many public morals laws, sometimes the basis of prostitution laws, are still on the books but not enforce.
For instance, in Boston, you’re not allowed to kiss your sweetie on a sunday. But I don’t think it’s a problem in New York.
In Massachusetts, if you brandish a wooden spoon in an attempt to “spank” someone, and a cop sees it, he can arrest you, even if the act is consensual. If you are wearing a strap-on in the process of doing it, you could get arrested for prostitution because, in Mass, if you are wearing a strap-on it is assumed you will penetrate someone with it (even if you’re just threatening it–oops! that could be assault too) and if you are penetrating someone who may have just paid you to spend time with him, well, then you are committing an act of prostitution.
In other states, you can penetrate someone with an inanimate object and get paid for it, and have it not be prostitution. In some states, whether you can advertise this or not varies from county to county. In other states, only the female receiving money for being penetrated becomes an act of prostitution. In the case of men who take money for being penetrated, the offense is not necessarily the taking of money inasmuch as it is a violation of sodomy laws.
The massive tangle between laws regarding who gets penetrated when, where, and with what, and if money is changing hands it, may make any broad-sweeping federal legislation difficult to implement.
Heck, if you can’t even buy a dildo in places like Alabama, Texas, or in Massachusetts (because you might use it for “self abuse”) without it being labled “for novelty purposes only,” it will take a great deal of discussion for us to come to any conclusions about prostitution.
And, with the recent unveiling of Senate Bill 51 (select Bill Number and enter S51), there might be some larger fish to fry on the federal level.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 8:42 am
Samantha: What about the fact that many more men than women visit dominatrices? (I don’t even know the male form of “dominatrix.”) Men pay women to exploit sexual power over them. Doesn’t that show, despite everything you’ve said, that men actually want to take on the submissive role in the relationship?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 9:16 am
No, women with power looks at such women and use them as nannies and housekeepers, paying them sub-standard wages and exploiting their powerlessness . In the cases of domestics being treated like slaves in the U.S., it is almost always women who have taken away the passports and visas and control the workplace.
That women don’t act out against men but choose women as their victims doesn’t make it any less noble.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Res Ipsa, you’re ignoring the double standard and the sexual exploitation of prostitution to make that comparison. Also, the complete and utter dehumanization.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 9:57 am
I don’t see how a handful of tricks (themselves are not a majority of men) preferring to use their greater economic and social power to make prostitutes perform exactly the sex role men want them to do discounts everything I’ve said, or even anything I’ve said. The power never leaves the man’s hands because he has the money that controls everything, including the actions of the dominatrix. It’s still his game played by his rules.
Res Ipsa, we’re talking specifically about gendered sexuality and prostitution. I’m fully aware women can and do abuse power when they have it, but in the context of systemic sexual violence and prostitution there are exceptionally few women tricks coercing sex from either males or females or raping and murdering prostitutes. When women victimize other women (and men) it isn’t to satisfy their violent sexual urges through rape.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 10:16 am
No, they use their economic power to maintain control over other women so that they have no competition.
I see your point about prostitution and agree. I do wonder, however, in the context of prostitution would you argue gay men are using systemic sexual violence when they use male hustlers and escorts?
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Samantha: I’m curious to know where you get your knowledge of pro doms. Your comments on what life is like for them is different than mine.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Hestia and Josh–Samantha is right about professional dominants not having as much power as is believed to be.
Having been a pro-dom, and knowing many, the interactions are based strictly on what the client wants. That the “dominant” is “exploiting” them is an illusion. And, with the right equipment, the right stage (as in dungeon) the illusion can be so great that the man believes he is a “slave.”
But what true slave pays for the priviledge to be exploited–and exploited in a particular way that meets his sexual fantasies?
Some professional dominants, who are very good at making the performance very real, or have very good skills at a certain specialty like bondage, make good money and believe they have power over men. Some see it as a spiritual calling, some as a form of psychotherapy, still others as just good entertainment and a great way to take money away from “stupid men.”
The only key difference between prostitution and pro dominance is that sexual intercourse is, for most pros, prohibited. Professional dominance is considered in many circles a form of adult entertainment, like stripping, and if one likes the job and wants to continue, one does not allow sexual intercourse.
However, it is *always* his game by his rules and she has to meet his sexual fantasies but make it look like they are hers. Sometimes, though, if a domme/client relationship develops, as like with a therapist, the domme will be able to “intuit” what the client’s sexual fantasies might be–and there might even be transferrence. But, still, she doesn’t have true power over him, as he is always free to take his business elsewhere.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
By that definition, every job in America is like prostitution since we are doing things because the clients wants us to do it.
This comment was written by Res Ipsa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Simple explanation for that, too. Every woman who has such power has men in her life with even more power that she can’t afford to offend by misbehaving in such a way.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I really don’t think women with enough money to spend on a male prostitute have men in their lives with more power than her threatening chastisement. We’re talking small amounts of money here, smaller still in the SE Asian prostitution market, and women vacationing in Thailand don’t use their money to make males submit themselves sexually despite the bargain prices on human lives.
Besides, your theory about retribution would have to also figure why, if women want to use male whores but don’t only because they’re afraid of the powerful men in their lives, do so many women take the risk of cheating? Because women do a lot of cheating on the men in their lives, but they don’t do a lot of economic coercion of underprivileged men into unwanted sex acts they would choose not to do if they only had the real option of saying no.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Res Ipsa: very true.
And, when you’ve had an ungrateful boss, doesn’t it feel like you’re being screwed? :-)
But, seriously, as I mentioned, professional dominance is considered, when it is on the up and up, to be adult entertainment and as such makes it a service industry job.
It is also considered a form of self-employment, and, if you have a good accountant, you can refer to yourself as a “consultant” or “counsellor” rather than an adult entertainer.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Funny thing…when I’ve sat with friends who are self-employed web designers and business consultants, and have shared business notes, we’ve had, at times, similar issues with overly-demanding clients.
And they’ve felt just as dis-empowered.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Sam, a woman with power isn’t as powerful as a man in power. Sexual misbehavior can disempower her quickly, in no small part because people believe that women *aren’t* like that, so if a woman uses a sexual service, she is unnatural. A monster. And so her power gets stripped away.
Declaring inherent traits to one sex tends to limit the behavior of people of that sex–you can’t be perceived as “unnatural”. I assure you, my straightforward sexual nature has gotten me treated like a freak, and I have since learned that my true sexual self, unlike a man’s, can only be revealed to people that have proven they aren’t sexist and close-minded.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
To be less glib about it, I don’t think that my web design and business consulting friends deal with the same sorts of sex/power dynamics that I did as a pro-domme.
It’s dealing with these sorts of issues and male attitudes regarding pro-dominance–some quite similar to the kinds that Samantha listed in a previous post–that make the job very different from other forms of self-employment.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
You haven’t adequately explained why women are willing to risk the misbehavior of cheating but not the misbehavior of forcing a poor person into sexual servitude.
Homeless men use homeless prostitutes, and no matter how poor a country gets the poor men always manage to have enough money to make whores out of poorer women. Feeling better, more powerful and more human than someone else, anyone else, for just a few minutes is worth whatever little money, drugs or food poor men have to attain the supreme emotional satisfaction of not being the lowest on the totem pole just for a while in their own heads.
Women who have no male partners and who have $100 (or drugs, or a place to stay the night, or food) for an evening’s entertainment could easily pick up a prostituting street teen and make a night of out of it. Women don’t do that. You say they probably genuinely want to make whores out of men but they’re afraid of the consequences, and I say women don’t get the same tingly kicks out of sexually humiliating and removing the human dignity from others like men do when they use whores.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
I really don’t think women with enough money to spend on a male prostitute have men in their lives with more power than her threatening chastisement.
I am now picking my jaw up off the floor. Did you really mean what you just said?
And Tish, I’m really sorry if you think a debate is “male” because I disagree with your wording. See, I’m a lawyer, so when you make broad generalizations about laws, I tend to notice.
As long as I’m being hornswoggled, if you think sexism exists–I mean, really exists–then you can’t sit around wondering whether gosh, it might be nature after all. To ignore nurture at all is to pretend that we don’t live in a society where we are taught from birth that it’s men’s right to have access to women’s bodies, where women aren’t much supposed to like sex except to the degree it makes sex more interesting for men, and that women who are sexually assertive are targets.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Man, I need a softball! Easy–cheating is a behavior that elicits some social approval, if only with the person you’re cheating with. People understand why women cheat–but people think that a woman who pays for sex is a monster. Cheating can be excused away as reaching for human affection, but prostitution is understood as just sex.
Of course, the odd reality is that men who hire sex workers of any sort are reaching for that approval and affection more than they would admit. Gender roles for men make it hard for them to be soft and affectionate and some find it easier to buy that than actually put their reputation as a hardass on the line by seeking love with a real woman. Prostitutes who keep a regular clientele will tell you that a lot of men are more lonely than anything.
Like myth said, our gender roles dictate our behavior so much that what genuine biological differences that are there are unobservable under all the mental muckity-muck. Consider how many women almost never have orgasms, even though biologically, we can have a dozen in a row.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
myth…
no, I don’t ignore nurture…but I do feel that at times there is more emphasis on nurture and a disregard of nature (although, with some of the wording of Seante Bill 51, nowadays saying that *anything* is nature is an invitation to a slippery slope).
As for the “male” comment, that was a bit of a joke, as I have noticed that some supposed liberal males, when confronted with a strong woman, will often do a p.c. sort of thing and pick one word out of the argument and focus on that word order to discredit the entire argument. (other women friends have noticed a similar pattern)
Petty, yes. Sexist, yes. That it is liberal males who do this sort of thing and should know better is, well, disappointing. But kind of shows that all the nurture and “feminist” thinking on their part is sometimes just lip service when their egos and testosterone are fully engaged.
I also feel, too, that some of the sexism that occurs cannot be contributed totally to “patriarchy,” but is nurtured by women. I have noticed over the years that in the feminist psychotherapeutic community that women’s propensities towards sadomasochism are considered conditions a woman must be cured of (while a man may be encouraged to explore his desires). This, then, is a case of women needing to control the sexual appetites and desires of other women, and guided by feminist thinking.
Also, what about women calling one another ’slut’ and such? Is this *just* nurture–are women calling others this particular ephithet because men have approved of it and motivate it, or ist social competition for the alpha male and in conjunction with a natural pecking order propensity that exists among women?
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 5:54 am
It’s intertesting, Tish G’s discussion of the power dynamics between a client and a sex worker are exactly why I’ve never bought sex before. It’s because I can’t stand the idea of using someone as a mastubatory aid while they fake enjoying it. It’s repellent, and yeah, the powere dynamics are a problem as well.
The thing is, I know plenty of people in the sex work industry, and I also feel just as bad about tellign them that whet they’re doing is so bad it should be illegal. I think it’s insulting and demeaning to call them ‘broken’ or tell them that they’re somehow contributing to the problem of th degradation of women.
It’s the same with the people I know who’ve dealt drugs. I know they’re not robbing anyone, I know they’re not going to kill anyone, and I know they’re not selling to irresponsible people or children.
It’s be nice to get a good thread going on power dynamics in sex betwen men and women, but I’m not sure when that’ll happen. I think the perspectives here are facinating. It’s times like this that I miss academia.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 9:26 am
I find that explanation implausible. I’m sure you heard about the case a few weeks ago where a man killed his wife after finding her cheating and only got sentenced to four months in jail. In Connecticut a few years ago a judge said he could no more sentence a man to jail for killing his cheating wife that he could order a man to jail for killing a gay person or a prostitute.
And have you seen daytime television lately? I ask this having just spent a week sick with a cold, and it seems all those talk shows and judge shows have an obession creating situations where groups rail condemnation on cheaters (also in ‘remaking’ perfectly normal women into fembots).
“but people think that a woman who pays for sex is a monster.”
I don’t think people think about women paying men for sex much at all. It’s not a regular part of our social environment.
Of the many things women are socially punished for, and precious few things aren’t on the list, I see no reason why tricking would get special condemnation that would make women especially unwilling to do it because I don’t think most people consider women renting men for sex when drawing up the usual short list of “things women shouldn’t do”.
“Cheating can be excused away as reaching for human affection, but prostitution is understood as just sex.”
You misunderstand it as just sex because you’re neither a prostitute nor a trick (in the usual sense), but according to the people actually involved with prostitution it is not ‘just sex’. I’ve explained on this blog in the past about how prostitutes report they feel about it and it’s not “just sex” to them. I gave examples above of what average tricks say and it’s not “just sex” to them. Do you believe most women think upon hearing their husbands and boyfriends have paid from the family income to use prostitutes, “It’s just sex?”
“Gender roles for men make it hard for them to be soft and affectionate and some find it easier to buy that than actually put their reputation as a hardass on the line by seeking love with a real woman.”
Sorry for the frankness, but what the hell are you talking about? Men, mostly married and long-term partnered men, pay prostitutes to buy softness and affection? From what do you draw such a specious, topsy turvy conclusion?
“?She gives up the right to say ‘no’. I own her that time.”?
“Guys get off on controlling women. It is paid rape.”?
“You’re making them subservient.”?
“I think about getting even.”?
“Prostitution takes away a part of themselves they can’t get back.”?
“Sometimes I feel it’s wrong but I try to block that out.”?
www.prostitutionresearch.com
This comment was written by Samantha.