You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘prostitution’ category.
From prostitution (and porn and homosexuality) promoter magazine Vanity Fair: an article promoting prostitution for young people – especially with older adults. Surprise.
Daddies, “Dates,” and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy
“Basically every gay dude I know is on Seeking Arrangement,” says Christopher, 23, a Los Angeles film editor. “And there are so many rent boys,” or young gay men who find sex-work opportunities on sites like RentBoy, which was busted and shut down in 2015 by Homeland Security for facilitating prostitution. “Now people just go on RentMen,” says Christopher.
“We talked a lot about agency” when conceiving The Girlfriend Experience, says producer Steven Soderbergh (who directed a movie of the same name in 2009), “and the idea that you have this young woman who is going into the workforce and ends up in the sex-work industry, where she feels she has more control and is respected more than she is at her day job,” at a law firm.
[So since prostitution is a horrendous kind of activity – this really is just underscores how disgusting law firms in a grotesque capitalist society like the US are! ]
Meanwhile, sugaring has its own extensive community online—also known as “the sugar bowl”—replete with Web sites and blogs. On Tumblr, babies exchange tips on the best sugaring sites and how much to charge. They post triumphant pictures of wads of cash, designer shoes, and bags.
Really – designer shoes and bags. These young women are debasing themselves and sexuality for some designer shoes and bags – and they call this agency. They couldn’t be more daft, they couldn’t have more of a perverted understanding of what’s important in life and in themselves, they couldn’t be cheaper – and here they are desperate, desperate for some crap with some label on it. Just to feel valued in the grotesque peer environment they live in.
Agency for patriarchal sluts is like this. As I would say to them – patriarchy has you where they want you. Imagine this! Women brain-washed to prostitute themselves to men (who can care less about them and who have a deformed view of relationships and sex) and who tell themselves this is agency – and feminism. Agency starts with the capability to think critically and to have a healthy mindset. No ability to think – no agency. Just another brainwashed slut serving patriarchy (or its homosexual variant). Because you know what garbage of people LGBTs are.
On Facebook, there are private pages where babies find support for their endeavors as well. On one, members proudly call themselves “hos” (sometimes “heaux”) and post coquettish selfies, dressed up for “dates.” They offer information on how to avoid law enforcement and what they carry to protect themselves (knives, box cutters, pepper spray). They give advice on how to alleviate the pain of bruises from overzealous spanking and what to do when “scammers” refuse to pay. They ask questions: “How do you go about getting started in sex work? I’m honestly so broke.”
And here is where really begins to intrude the “sex work is just another kind of work” lies. Tips on how to protect themselves from violence? What for? Could it be because they are putting themselves at risk by being alone with some grotesque stranger? Tips for “alleviating the pain of bruises”? Bruises?
“Agency” for the most ideologically enslaved women is like this: bruises. Knives. Calling themselves “hos”. Look at the respect, the freedom, the “agency”.
Throughout this article, I also wondered how much of it was made up. Because you know, Vanity Fair. In any case, they tell us this about the profile of some of these young people:
They were squeezed by college tuition, crushed by student loans and the high cost of living. Many of their parents were middle- or upper-middle-class people who had nothing to spare for their children, derailed by the economic downturn themselves. And so they did “cake sitting”—a specialty service for a fetish that craves just what it says—or stripping or Webcamming or sugaring. Some beat people up in professional “dungeons”; others did “scat play,” involving sex with feces. They did what they felt they had to do to pay their bills.
Is this a complete fabrication from Vanity Fair? I mean, their description doesn’t seem to make any sense. If the parents are upper middle class, how can they have nothing to spare for their kids? The only way I see that happening is if the parents hate their own children, and are stingy – which happens with a certain frequency – but there’s no mention of that. They speak of upper middle class families as if they were living under a bridge.
“Being in the L.A. atmosphere, and at the age of 16 or 17 going out in nightlife—it’s all very based on appearance,” Alisa says. “Out here, as long as you’re wearing Saint Laurent and the newest items, that’s all people care about, so my friends and I were obsessed with fashion. I think with our generation, Instagram also has a lot to do with it—people are constantly posting what they have.” She’s explaining that she became a sugar baby in order to buy luxury goods.
You see why Fidel Castro is cool? Because he has a vision for young people to become doctors, engineers, social workers, to build a society together. I’m dying to go to Cuba to see “sur place” what is it like. Just how bad are the problems? Just how much have they been able to achieve despite the US having done everything to destroy them?
This is what the US has to offer to the world: a society of prostitutes and johns – with girls and boys who do it so they can have some designer bag! It’s enough to make you weep. But for Americans, it’s normal! And it wasn’t like that a couple of generations ago – but things are changing. For the worse.
And look at all that agency here:
“I haven’t done it [prostitution] in a really long time,” she says, “solely because of how it made me feel. Like it just makes you feel worthless ‘cause they don’t pay attention to your brain, they don’t care what you have to say. They just care that you’re attractive and you’re listening to them. I don’t want to ever have to look back and think, like, I made it to this point just because I used my body to get there.”
Huhoh! Couldn’t get more patriarchal than that, could it? And capitalist.
And look at the heaps of “feminism” here:
Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says, “because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.”
Keeping quiet about being sexually assaulted is so feminist!
And look at how much respect they really get:
But it wasn’t real dating, and after a while it began to bother her, as she realized the men, although “generally nice,” didn’t actually respect her. “I think the sugar daddies just see the sugar babies as whores,” she says. “They would never consider a monogamous relationship with someone who would need to do this to survive. It’s like a class thing. They see you as beneath them, desperate.
No, idiot – prostitution is not dating. And here we can see how these young women have to create a completely fake persona, and can never be themselves – because agency!
Miranda is 22 and has the wavy bobbed hair and clipped mid-Atlantic accent of a 1930s movie star; she grew up in a Texas suburb. “I’ve learned how to look like this, talk like this,” she says. “I work hard at being this,” meaning someone who can charge $700 an hour for sex.
Then she adds:
Now, she says, she has a rotation of three regular “clients”—”a top Austin lawyer, a top architect, and another tech guy,” all of them married. She adds, “Their relationships are not my business.”
Well, I’d be curious if their families felt that way as well. You know, I mentioned this article to some married women I know, and I was surprised they all said they thought the wives of these three guys would certainly not agree if they knew. I rather had imagined them differently. I had imagine their wives to be quite the prostitutes themselves – only they are married to only one guy. In other words, I imagine them to want the designer bags and shoes – and that they would put up with these men and their affairs and use of prostitutes just so they could live an upper class life.
I can’t know – but there would be nothing better than to throw the names of these guys into the public light and find out. And that goes for all the men and women using these sites. Nothing wrong? Than do it openly.
Lastly – there’s a lot to say about the language used to embellish prostitution and to hide the violence and degradation inherent to it – but the use of the word “daddy” is particularly sick given its incestuous connotation.
It’s hard to be shocked anymore, given the sleaze that oozes out of every pore of both the Republican and Democrat parties, but here I am, shocked.
It’s due to this article:
The Jeffrey Epstein Affair Imperils Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Prospects
The case of the high-flying (alleged) pedophile reveals a broken American political process
You can go to the wikipedia page on Epstein to read a much more detailed account of all his criminal pedophile activities, including having settled up to now no less than 17 accusations, which are in addition to the time he served in jail for soliciting prostitution from a child.
Silverstein continues by saying how Bill Clinton’s entanglement in this sordid affair could affect the upcoming elections:
What all this means is that Hillary Clinton’s husband has already been implicated in the Epstein scandal and that his dubious private behavior, which has already once distracted the entire nation from more important business, could do so again if Ms. Clinton does indeed run for president.
But, wait, would that derail him from voting for Hillary Clinton? Probably not, he says:
What’s worse, at least from my personal standpoint, is that if Ms. Clinton were to become the Democratic nominee I still might vote for her because the likely Republican candidates have retrograde and vile public views about race, class, gender and gay rights, and those are important to me, and especially because the two main parties are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to fundamental economic policy. Because both are bought and paid for by Wall Street and financiers like Jeffrey Epstein, as well as other powerful interests who overwhelmingly fund our political campaigns.
And, hear this, neither would a pedophile scandal that is being largely ignored by the left-wing media along with Bill Clinton’s involvement in it, affect his college-age daughter’s choice to vote for Hillary. Silverstein says he probably will not vote for Hillary, but would if his daughter asked him to. Just why would the little garbage he has for a daughter vote for Hillary?
she [his daughter] is appalled and outraged by the GOP’s stone age social politics and because she would like to see a woman become president. And that’s a good enough reason for me. Maybe.
“It’s also true, in my view, that Ken Starr, who sought to impeach Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, is a twisted zealot and that it’s probably a bad idea to impeach a president for sexual misconduct, because that has nothing to do with his or her ability to govern effectively,….”
Mr Silverstein’s credibility takes a serious hit with the above statement. The chief law enforcement officer of the land lied, under oath, in an attempt to deny another American citizen her right to due process under the law. He carried on a major coverup, also regularly lying to the American people for over 8 long months, attacking Lewinski’s character, only giving up when the irrefutable evidence of the semen stained dress became public. Mr. Silverstein’s “version” is the persistent urban myth perpetuated by the Democratic Party and Clinton sycophants.
NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Three young Hungarian men have helped dismantle a U.S. gay prostitution ring that enslaved them, marking a victory for local prosecutors but highlighting the difficulty in reaching and helping male trafficking victims, campaigners said.
The men’s accounts of being raped, locked up in windowless rooms, and their lives threatened led to the conviction this month of Andras Janos Vass, 26, for helping to operate a male prostitution ring of gay Hungarians in New York City and Miami.
Sentenced to 11 years in prison, Vass, a Hungarian national, was the first person convicted in Florida for trafficking gay men under the state’s tougher human trafficking law that took effect in 2012, authorities said.
[Is the Westboro Church trafficking people? No. But scum of liberals who think homosexuality and pornography are normal, are.
Who are the extremists? Which group is doing grotesque sexual violence in the world? It’s the LGBT camp, the people who think homosexuality is normal.
Once again, time to recall my old post:
Who does more violence in society and is the most extremist: liberals (including LGBTs) or the Westboro folks?]
“Two Hungarian victims were picked up by Vass through
“The maximum penalty for Vass’ crimes could have been up to 155 years in prison, but defence lawyer Adam Goodman said that before taking his role in the ring, he was a victim himself at the hand of the other man and was forced to marry one.”
[Progress! They got “married”. And look at how deformed the minds of the homosexual victims were:]
‘”This case is about people who were fine with engaging in sex for money,” Jackson says. (Crystal Jackson is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York who specializes in gender and sexuality, sex work, social justice, and inequality.) “Popular culture has us think of trafficking as people who are kidnapped, torn from their homes. Trafficking is complex, and in this case, what we call ‘trafficking’ occurred at the point of labor, not movement across borders. These are important to note.” The men came to the US willingly, and they were willing to work as escorts, but they were forced into sex slavery once they reached their destination.’
[In other words, the victims here are men with a completely deformed, destructive, and perverted idea of sex, number one, because they think homosexuality is normal, and, number two, because they believe prostitution is valid.]
“I don’t think this story is getting as much attention as it could because it’s about gay men.” Quote by Crystal Jackson.
[No surprise there. The narrative will always be more important than the violent reality of homosexuals, bisexuals, and liberals. Therefore media reports and stories must only portray a narrative that masks the ugly reality of LGBT people, all the violence they do in the world, how corrupt and vicious they are, how perverted their minds are, how much they destroy society, and only stories where some social conservative or religious individual does violence to homosexuals must be told, usually in the most hysterical way possible.
The other thing that I found a bit curious, perhaps because I just read a few articles on this case and don’t have much information on it, is that it appears that only the ring leaders are going to be prosecuted. But weren’t there many more johns involved? Or is it because the “victims” are in favor of prostitution that they would never accuse any of the johns, even if they knew their identities? And the authorities? You know, all that information lying around at the NSA about phone calls, SMSs, emails, Internet messages? Alas, we sure live in a corrupt world…]
Link to official documents (which I haven’t read) plus more details on the case. Some of the sites they used: GayRomeo.com, RentBoy.com, and PlanetRomeo.com. Look at the huge, top of the page, ad pictures here: http://www.planetromeo.com/en/about/
In the beach sea one (https://www.planetromeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/beach-boys-smaller-21.jpg), the homo pig has a cross around his neck. And in this photo: https://www.planetromeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/8042677070_67af5cf6b9_o.jpg – what I thought was: I’m sure there’s more syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV per square feet there than in any other place!
From The Smoking Gun – excerpted portions of longer article:
APRIL 3–A business tycoon gave a gay porn star $500,000 and a luxury automobile in hush money payments after being threatened with the exposure of details of his paid sexual liaisons with the accused extortionist and other X-rated performers, according to sources and court records.
The alleged shakedown scheme resulted in the arrest last month of Teofil Brank, a 25-year-old Los Angeles man known professionally as “Jarec Wentworth.” A U.S. District Court judge has ordered Brank held without bail in advance of trial on the felony charge.
Brank’s alleged victim–who is only identified by the initials “D.B.” in court filings–is Donald Burns, 51, a regular on the society circuit who made his fortune through the 1997 sale of a telecommunications firm he co-founded. The jet-setting Burns’s real estate portfolio includes waterfront estates in La Jolla, Nantucket, and Palm Beach, where he lives a mile up N. Ocean Boulevard from Rush Limbaugh’s compound.
The businessman also gave the porn star his Audi R8, which investigators valued at $180,000. Brank picked up the vehicle at Burns’s La Jolla home, which he purchased in 2011 for $14.1 million.
The six-figure payoff, however, did not sate Brank, according to prosecutors. In a series of text messages, the porn star demanded an additional $1 million for his silence. Brank also told Burns, “I want a condo here in LA. Bachelor pad.”
Faced with the new demands, Burns contacted the FBI on March 3. In subsequent interviews with agents and prosecutors, Burns admitted paying Brank for sex, as well as arranging sexual encounters with other men. In text messages quoted in the felony complaint, Brank told Burns, “You lied to me and treated me like Shit,” adding that, “I only wanted to drive cars and Enjoy your company. I guess findin you boys is out of the picture.”
Brank was arrested March 4 when he met with an undercover FBI agent posing as a “trusted friend” of Burns (pictured below). During the meeting at a Starbucks in El Segundo, the agent provided Brank with title to the Audi and claimed that the $1 million was in the trunk of his vehicle.
During a court hearing last Friday, prosecutor Kimberly Jaimez told Judge John Walter that “D.B.” paid Brank “for sexual conduct” and also gave him up to $2000 for individual referrals to “other individuals who would have sexual contact.” Jaimez estimated that Brank made “less than ten” of these referrals to “D.B.”
Jaimez said that Brank met “D.B.” in late-2013, when the victim “began considering investments in the homosexual pornography industry and in connection with that began having meetings and getting to know individuals in that industry.” When Walter asked if Brank and “D.B.” were “business associates,” Jaimez made the nature of their relationship clear. “Pay-for-sex operation,” she said.
In reply to a question about the age of the sex partners referred to “D.B” by Brank, Jaimez told Walter that “D.B.” “informs us that all these boys were over the age of 18.” She added that FBI agents were investigating to confirm that the sex referrals did not involve minors.
Brank’s lawyers have countered that “D.B.” does not deserve anonymity since, “by the government’s own admission,” he allegedly paid Brank for sex and to “procure sexual partners for himself.” Jaimez also disclosed that there is evidence that several Brank associates were involved in the extortion plot and, as a result, could face conspiracy charges.
Additionally, Brank’s counsel contends that, “the government does not know whether any of the ‘boys’ with whom D.B. engaged in sexual activity were underage. This begs the fundamental question of why D.B. is not named as a fellow defendant given that he engaged in an interstate arrangement with Mr. Brank to pay for procurement of sexual partners.”
A judge has, so far, agreed to keep “D.B.”’s name out of the public court record.
The salacious nature of the case is likely of concern to Burns, who regularly attends charity galas and society events and sits on the board of a public company. He also heads an eponymous charitable foundation that donates to organizations in Nantucket and Palm Beach, where Burns maintains his principal residence, an oceanfront mansion. According to its 2013 tax return, the Donald A. Burns Foundation had assets totaling $10.1 million and it paid Burns $132,834 annually for his work as the group’s president. Over the last five years, the foundation has reported donations totaling $2.2 million
Burns’s wealth appears principally derived from the 1997 sale of Telco Communications Group, a Virginia-based long-distance phone carrier. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Burns–Telco’s founder and chief executive–received around $250 million in cash and stock when the deal closed.
Burns has maintained a role in the telecommunications industry through positions with Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., the publicly held company that produces the magicJack Internet phone device. Burns, chairman of the company’s board of directors, reportedly provided part of the investment used to launch the firm, and he served as its chief executive for several years. According to an SEC filing, he currently owns Magicjack stock with a market value of $2.8 million.
A registered Republican, Burns has donated to a variety of GOP candidates and committees, including Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Jeb Bush, Rudolph Giuliani, and the Republican Party of San Diego. In 2004, Burns made a $1000 donation to a “swift boat” group opposing Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and he also gave money to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Ralph Nader. Last year, he made a maximum $2600 contribution to Richard Tisei, an openly gay, married Republican who lost a bid for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.
Burns’s largest political donations came in 2008, when he contributed $400,000 to a group opposing a Florida ballot measure that called for amending the state constitution so as to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. The measure, which passed with 62 percent of the vote, is the subject of ongoing litigation by gay marriage proponents. (14 pages)
Another example of the turds of people who impose the dominant culture of the West right now. My question remains: why should such garbage of people be the ones who dictate to our children how they should think about relationships and sexuality and how laws and society should be organized, and more fundamentally, even understood?
Notice the problem with liberal language: “a gay porn star”.
What is this but a person who has a profoundly perverted, deformed, parasitic, and dysfunctional psychology and ideology regarding relationships and sexuality, and who engages in prostitution with a camera?
And yet, look at the what this language does. “Gay” “porn” “star”.
Recently I came across a thesis on a legal question about pornography (which I only browsed because of lack of time). Why hasn’t pornography that involves a monetary transaction been pursued as prostitution with the use of a camera, since that’s exactly what it is?
I have found no satisfactory answer in terms of legal coherence. The only explanation is that once sexually perverted people gain power, they will institute as legal any and all of their perverted and destructive behaviors. And they will persecute anyone who does not subject to their deformed ideology and praxis, which is in this case the larger liberal homosexuality agenda, one of the core parts of the liberal agenda on sexuality.
I’ve updated the section on defining and describing the homosexuality agenda, which is part of my page on why so many people have normalized homosexuality:
What is the homosexuality agenda?
The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, and objections of said homosexuality agenda. As such, the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is not only to silence dissent but to paint decent thinking as evil and to malign and slander the character of all conservatives who have a moral and healthy understanding of human sexuality. Thought crime is the goal.
The main tool of people with a homosexual agenda is propaganda, i.e., constantly spreading myths, misinformation, and downright lies, and promoting perverted and dysfunctional attitudes about sexuality. Concomitantly, they move to cover up and silence every single case and collective action of LGBTs and their supporters perpetrating harm and violence in society. Thus, within homosexual propaganda, “gays” are painted as downtrodden victims, masking the millions acts of violence and other egregious behaviors they engage in. This violence and harm include, but are not limited to: the destruction of marriage, trafficking, prostitution, promiscuity, sexual harassment, abuse, molestation, murder, assault, battering, bullying, fake hate crimes, porn, degradation of human sexuality, attack on social conservatives in all spheres of life (professional, political, personal, business), trampling on fundamental rights (speech, religion, conscience), character assassination, persecution, discrimination, spreading of STDs, S&M, violation of children’s rights to heterosexual parents, and censorship of research and debate. Most of these harmful actions are perpetrated with impunity, if not downright support from liberals and others promoting homosexuality as normal. Moreover, the violence LGBT individuals perpetrate is often blamed and projected on conservatives, i.e., the false stereotype of who does violence to “gays”. In truth, it is LGBTs themselves, by millions of cases compared to a handful of incidents by conservatives, who are violent to LGBTs.
Another part of the propaganda involves conducting irresponsible and corrupt research and academic content regarding homosexuality, used as a means to legitimize the agenda in legal, medical, and academic circles, as well as to give a false wrapping of “scientific authority” to liberal political ideology.
The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).
Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.
Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.
Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics. There is nothing normal about homosexuality and no one is born homosexual. It is perverted and dysfunctional and the best a person with a homosexual problem can do is to seek to treat the underlying reasons that produce such a perverted way of thinking and feeling about same-sex people, which for homosexuals comes accompanied by a deformed way of thinking about opposite-sex people too.
On using the words “a homosexual”
The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.
This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.
This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.
Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.
These excerpts from a post/discussion on Reason, asking why prostitution hasn’t yet been legalized. As you will see with my comments, I am highly critical of this libertarian perspective.
Cathy Young wrote:
Yet prostitution is perhaps the ultimate victimless crime: a consensual transaction in which both parties are supposedly committing a crime, and the person most likely to be charged—the one selling sex—is also the one most likely to be viewed as the victim. (A bizarre inversion of this situation occurs in Sweden, where, as a result of feminist pressure to treat prostitutes as victims, it is now a crime to pay for sex but not to offer it for sale.) […]
It’s the criminalization of prostitution that does take actual victims. […]
It’s hard to see who benefited from the fact that the authorities in Maryland spent a lot of taxpayer money to investigate and prosecute a woman for discreet and private sexual encounters with men—encounters that would have been perfectly legal if, instead of directly paying her for sex, those men had spent an equivalent amount on dates and gifts.
As with other victimless crimes, the criminalization of prostitution creates a vast breeding ground for corruption, hypocrisy, and morally dubious law enforcement tactics. Thus, open advertisement of escort services is widely tolerated under the flimsy pretext that clients are paying for companionship, “modeling,” “role play” and other non-sexual activities, and that when sex occurs it’s by mutual choice unrelated to any fees. Selective enforcement is the norm, as is entrapment. Anti-prostitution campaigns are also frequently accompanied by the Big Brother-ish practice of state-sponsored public shaming. Not to mention how black market constitution makes it more difficult to police the sex slave trade, where the prostitutes really are victims.
Unlike some defenders of prostitution such as “Mayflower Madam” Sydney Biddle Barrows, I do not believe that selling sex should ever be seen as an empowering or liberating way of life, or an affirmation of female sexuality. (If anything, it perpetuates the notion that sex is something women do for male enjoyment.) I do not believe, as sex-positive feminist Susie Bright has written, that “sex-work professionals are [among] the future’s largest contingents of the new het-sex liberation front.” Nor do I think that disapproval of sex for profit invariably stems from a residual notion that sex is bad, or that “sex work” should be destigmatized as just another career. But there is a vast difference between social stigma and criminal prosecution, between personal moral judgment and the nanny state.
Comments worth reading 🙂Bill Pope | May 7, 2007, 5:29pm | #
I agree that we’ll never get rid of prostitution, but Cathy please don’t treat it as just another career choice offered by the market. The average age of entry into the trade is 14, and that entry is ususally motivated by abusive homes and addiction to drugs. There is really nothing terribly consentual about this arrangement from the provider’s point of view, especially if addiction is what keeps her in the profession. Please be cognizant of these realities when commenting on the issue.
Kwix | May 7, 2007, 5:41pm | #
The average age of entry into the trade is 14, and that entry is ususally motivated by abusive homes and addiction to drugs. There is really nothing terribly consentual about this arrangement from the provider’s point of view, especially if addiction is what keeps her in the profession.
Much of this is because both prostitution and drug use are underground economies where the only interest the police have in it is sending all participants to jail. If prostitution were legalized, police could concentrate on getting coerced prostitutes (girls, young teens, imported sex-slaves, etc.) the help they need and busting the “pimps” that force them into the work.
1-The question to ask is: Why should society sanction the use of force to keep people (mostly women) from engaging in sex for money, if it is done consensually?
2- I really don’t understand the arguments that hiring a prostitute for her “body part” is any different than hiring a circus strong man for his physical attributes.
The argument that prostitution is illegal? That’s a laugh.
Above is a parasitical perspective. Saying that there’s no difference between prostitution and sitting at your computer terminal, and it’s all “just work,” is like a propaganda slogan.
Ask these pro-prostitution guys if they would encourage their wives to be a prostitute, or be a prostitute themselves, and usually we get a no. If it were just another “job,” they and their wives wouldn’t mind prostituting themselves to hetero and homosexuals alike — since it’s all claimed to be just like a sports massage, or being a hairdresser. But that usually doesn’t
apply. Why stop there? They could do the same with their own children. If there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, why not their own kids (of legal age)?
If prostitution is “just work,” we are sure that any of these guys would take their own daughters and sons, and instead of telling them to work at McDonalds to earn some extra cash, they would encourage them to prostitute themselves, starting at the legal consent age of 16 in DC, for example.
And since prostitution is “just a service,” instead of mowing the neighbor’s grass, they would offer their children to perform sex to the entire neighborhood, including the 60 year old pervert down the road, the alcoholic, the 3 homosexuals with syphilis (using a condom, of course, because this is a responsible father who prostitutes their own children!) I’m sure they would love to see their own children sucking other human beings for a buck — that’s what kind of men they are. And they could use their job connections to get clients with more money to pay for their kids’ services – that’s how much they care.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The truth is parasites are really comfortable with all kinds of sexual abuse and exploitation as long as the damage and hurt remains with someone else’s kid. ( And we might add, given the epidemic rates of child abuse, the latter can only be said for the non-abusers ).
And this isn’t even delving into all the studies proving the high degree of sexual/domestic abuse victims that get trapped into prostitution, etc. Although this is not saying all prostitutes have this same battered profile, this very violent reality also cannot be negated for millions of children and adults caught in prostitution systems around the world.
How much do you have to be a parasite regarding human relations on a personal level and how much do you have to destroy a context of dignity, intimacy, respect, and love to begin thinking that degrading forms of sexual interaction are legitimate and good? And harmless?
The answer is a lot. Sadly, these kinds of attitudes are being increasingly normalized in society, and the damage they cause go way beyond some little DC madam scandal.
There is no space here to go into the question of the “consensual” label masking an enormous web of underlying problems as well; that’s a key issue too in prostitution.
(p.s. and we can also note that pornography is not different than prostitution in many of these respects as well.)
You make some very good points, but not for criminalization. Criminalization of any type of consensual behavior only makes the problem IMMENSELY worse. Look at our government’s previous attempt at prohibition concerning alcohol. It caused tremendous crime. Look at the issue now, with alcohol being legal – you don’t see Budweiser pushing beer at the playground, do you? Also, look at another of our “leader’s” current attempts at prohibition – since the inception of the “The Drug War” the drug problem is HUGELY worse. Why? Simply because of prohibition, nothing else.
There is absolutely no space here to discuss here what can be done about prostitution. (It takes at least a book, given that there are so many things a society can do that go way beyond the legal/illegal decision). Your analogies to drugs and alcohol are very faulty and simplistic, starting with the fact that so much in prostitution systems is not consensual and does not include free nor informed choices.
If you really want to delve into the issue, there are books with comparative studies regarding prostitution measures around the world, including underage prostitution.
You are wrong to think that no country has ever had measures put into place that didn’t have a significant ameliorating impact on the prostitution problem (to diminish it, and to reduce violence and suffering — which included keeping prostitution illegal). But you need to address the issue from a root perspective, the entire social context and causes, not a parasitical one which just wants impunity for sexual exploitation of people.
By the way, you forgot to mention smoking — is the problem better or worse now that it is largely prohibited and unmasked for the crap that it is?
And this comment really strikes at an issue that most lay people don’t like to address:
“$300 an hour to $2,500 a day for her services… discreet and private sexual encounters with men—encounters that would have been perfectly legal if, instead of directly paying her for sex, those men had spent an equivalent amount on dates and gifts.”
How dysfunctional do you have to be to go to a prostitute then?
And this comment, asks from a legal perspective what I also noted from a more broad perspective regarding the similarities between pornography and prostitution. It shows one of the most profound contradictions in American culture nowadays.
Dave | May 7, 2007, 6:14pm | #
If there are any lawyers posting here, maybe you can answer a question which has long perplexed me: How is it that prostitution is illegal, but paying a woman to have sex in a pornographic movie is not? I’m not saying morally, I’m asking from a legal standpoint. How does the porn industry not get charged with prostitution? Does the fact that both (or more than both) participants are being paid make a difference? Big-name porn actresses tend to get paid much more than the male actors they often film with, so if you pay a prostitute $400 and she pays you $5, would that make it legal? If you have a camera in the room, does that make it legal? Is there anything to stop a prosecutor from bringing charges against Jenna Jameson?
Kwix | May 7, 2007, 7:01pm | #
You are correct that an adult vid is a)protected under Amendment 1 and b)you are paying the actors for, well, “acting”. That they have sex together is immaterial to what it is you are compensating them for, which is their portrayal of sexual deviants on film.
Pi Guy | May 7, 2007, 7:09pm | #
How ’bout this: If you pay a woman to havae sex with you, it’s illegal. However, if you pay a woman to have sex while you video it and put on the intertubes, well that’s just peachy!
Jay | May 8, 2007, 10:20pm | #
Ultimate in ‘victimless crimes’? The legalization of prostitution in Germany having two deleterious effects: (1) it has made those in the sex industry legitimate employers who could make job offers to the unemployed, which triggered the state to say that if the unemployed person refused the offer that she would lose her benefits;
(2) Russian organized crime syndicates moved in got involved in human trafficking and the state has less incentive to prioritize intervention
[[ This is really interesting, the fact that Russian organized crime took advantage of the legalization of prostitution, a move that I assume was at least minimally conceived of to ameliorate the worst degrading and violent aspects of the prostitution problem in Germany. And if they did it in Germany, I’m sure they (and others) would do it anywhere else, if conditions allowed. Which also brings us to this question:]]
Go to any neighborhood where there are some reasonably good marriages and ask the wives (doesn’t matter if they’re liberal or conservative) if they’d mind if a few prostitutes plied their trade in the neighborhood. I think you’d find out pretty quick why in the Real World ™, which no here seems to be from, prostitution has never been openly accepted in society. Even the places where it’s “legal” are heavily restricted for that very reason.
Eh voilà, the only reason prostitution is a problem for a large chunk of society is because it bothers privileged women and their marriages. It is so tiring to live in a world where concern about human suffering is usually profoundly dictated by the privileged according to their selective needs.
There was something in this discussion that was heartwarming to see. It’s the fact that many commenters, which we can tell are just “normal” lay people, already have as part of their general culture the information that street prostitution (as the foremost example) is saturated with violence and exploitation (including the ugly drug addiction problems). This is a major gain for activists who worked for decades to unmask the cruel reality of so many aspects of prostitution systems, something I would say got its major real push with the women’s movement around the 70’s and continuing until today. Today we can see the resulting awareness shifts in the mass media, universities, and the general public regarding perceptions and cognizance of sexual violence issues. If we compare today’s awareness of the ugliness of street prostitution with how people viewed prostitution 100 hundred years ago (a total “blame-the-prostitute for everything” view), the progress is enormous. As this criminal investigator highlights:
I’m a criminal investigator and I see a great deal of prostitution. It’s strictly drugs, thugs, disease, violence, and pathetic lost women addicted to crack — who’ll do anything for more crack. They’re exploited by men who’ll use them unspeakably for a rock. Their circumstances are filthy and dangerous. Why does anybody think we can “regulate the hell” out of the prostitution business? Does anybody really imagine these people are suddenly going to play by the rules? Will regulation solve the crack problem? Please get real.
And I’ve spent the last three years after a maniac who’s killed at least 8 prostitues, attacked many more. He picks them because they are easy marks.
Prostitution is evil.
And to end, a nice reminder, of the most fundamental importance:
h | May 9, 2007, 12:01pm | #
There’s nothing reasonable about this argument. How many prostitutes does the author know? How fulfilling is their life? How much do they like degrading themselves or being forced into degrading themselves.
Prostitution is time-limited slavery. Should slavery be legal even if it were “consensual?” No, because for one human being to be so degraded all of humanity becomes degraded.