May 6, 2019

"[C]onversations that people not engaged in sex work have about it tend to involve a stew of unspoken anxieties about not just sex but migration, disease, race, class, and the roles of women."

"The living, human sex worker gets blotted out by the cultural figure that journalist Melissa Gira Grant has dubbed the 'prostitute imaginary.' This mythological creature is both corruptrix and release valve for male corruption. She is the temptress locked away to toil in the Magdalene Laundries, the disease spreader, the frivolous blonde with her Louboutin shoe collection, the soul broken by too much sex. And for many feminists, she is the ultimate example of female victimhood—in activist Dorchen Leidholdt’s words, a 'de-individualized, de-humanized' proxy for 'generic woman…. She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.' Once a sex worker becomes a metaphor, her material conditions cease to matter. She is an object for study, ministration, and control.... Perhaps no prostitute archetype raises so much lucrative concern as the trafficked girls.... Crusaders against trafficking can blur easily into persecutors of immigrants...."

A small snippet of "It’s Not About Sex" from the New York Review of Books.

70 comments:

FIDO said...

One can just as easily put in 'Victim of Feminist Impulses'.

Who are the sex workers? Young women eschewing all prior familial, religious, village and cultural commitments.

Seeking the bright lights in the big city to 'make her mark on the world'. She is Margo Thomas, except met off the bus by someone sleazy. Perhaps not so educated. Worse with money...and then a slow slip into self degradation. They are far too proud to call home to 'him' and beg for a reprieve. Instead, she will 'bend the knee' to others who wish her worse and offer less mercy but more ready cash.


They are the girls who have self severed their social networks...just like Feminists called on so many women to do.


There was a reason that Grandma had strong words about old style values. These ladies of the evening were not the first girls to destroy their lives seeking the Feminist Dream of Full Autonomy.

Ken B said...

The one thing missing from that list: respect for the woman's choice. Does Ledidholt for example respect either the choice, or the woman making it? Obviously not. Why not?

gilbar said...

so,
prostitution should be legal
sex trafficking should be legal
mind altering mushrooms should be legal
pot IS legal....

but tobacco is still the devil's weed, right?

FIDO said...

"prostitution should be legal"

Well, women should be able to demand high prices from men for the most marginal of sex...but men are slime for actually wanting it, though the women are to be held beyond reproach for offering it.

Because patriarchy.

Achilles said...

gilbar said...
so,
prostitution should be legal
sex trafficking should be legal
mind altering mushrooms should be legal
pot IS legal....

but tobacco is still the devil's weed, right?


Why are mushrooms more of a problem than tobacco?

Why is marijuana more of a problem than alcohol?

Seriously why do you think the government is the right tool to make these moral and societal determinations?

What has the government done well recently?

What on god's green earth has given you people the idea that making things illegal has actually worked?

Get people into church. Take them out to the range. Make friends and get involved.

When people hurt others throw them in jail.

When they hurt themselves try to help.

Shame is fine. Tough love is fine. Whining about the government not banning something is not.

Be said...

I grew up in an unhappy situation where my mother would sell me as a side benefit to the older males she'd frequent, then kick the shit out of me for being a slut.

I have a Lot of Problems.

In working with women in areas around what is now currently sanitized as "sex trades," have learned that the mental juggling required for being a Sex Worker is similar to that of a child being raped or abused by a parent.

How does one converse about this with Stupid People?

tim in vermont said...

When they hurt themselves try to help

Do you see many junkies or used needles where you live?

tim in vermont said...

Possibly, were it legal and licensed and regulated, some of these issues could be managed. It isn’t going away.

gilbar said...

What on god's green earth has given you people the idea that making things illegal has actually worked?

so, tell me Again, WHY is it that we want the government to be against tobacco? I'm just asking; 'cause you're obviously WAY SMARTER than me

Be said...

Gilbar is either a Troll or a Sock Puppet. I am assuming that Host puts up with them the way that they put up with me. Thank You (se guys).

gspencer said...

They wouldn't have experienced any of these negatives or anxieties had they chosen to attend the Velvet Jones School of Technology and read its principal textbook, "I Wanna be a Ho."

https://scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/9157bc9c6bad697eabde302a2b5a856b/5D53D066/t51.2885-15/e35/24126841_313670595815308_3038718211215327232_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com

Here's the info-mercial,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-DfVMVufJ4

Seeing Red said...

According to these nuts cases not only was I created by rape, now I’m a prostitute?

She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.

I’m leaning out. Those females are hysterical.

etbass said...

When I read this kind of stuff, I think these people are so light years removed from 99.99% of normal women.

Dave said...

we need govt against tobacco so politicians can sue tobacco companies for mega millions. it helps to increase the payoff to the pols if lots of people suffer and die

note that tobacco has not been banned because those sin taxes government takes from smokers wont pay themselves

yes i agree with the idea that feminists are destroying the country. they arent feminists tho. just commie liars claiming to be.

Lucid-Ideas said...

To paraphrase...

"We must yet again find new and interesting language, word choices and metaphors to excuse these empowered (yet victimized) women and the choices they made."

Honey...it's the nail.

Seeing Red said...

If it’s not about sex, stop making it about sex.

There’s a reason guys don’t want to get married.

Lunatics.

Be said...

Ann and Second: Folks are delving into some deep, weird waters.

Achilles said...

Nobody said...
When they hurt themselves try to help

Do you see many junkies or used needles where you live?

I live in(near) Seattle and go there every day to work. I had a bike stolen while at work. The lost souls are all over the place there.

I rented houses in small towns, some section 8. We paid on average 20000 per house and rented them for 500-1000 a month. We had drug dealers cut holes in our house to hide stuff causing 40000+$ in damage to a house we bought for 50,000. Several houses were completely stripped of copper pipe/wire for 10$ scrap value.

So yes I have.

Most people have no idea where other people come from. Especially in the United States. So many of you people just have no idea what kind of hell lives out there under the veneer of society.

What the city of Seattle is doing is evil by the way. I do not support what they are doing with the "homeless problem" in any way shape or form. I think the leaders making it happen should be tarred and feathered.


Oso Negro said...

Yes! Fuck you, rescue industry lackeys!

Kevin said...

And for many feminists, she is the ultimate example of female victimhood—in activist Dorchen Leidholdt’s words, a 'de-individualized, de-humanized' proxy for 'generic woman…. She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.' Once a sex worker becomes a metaphor, her material conditions cease to matter. She is an object for study, ministration, and control.

Who is making her a victim, a metaphor, a de-individualized and de-humanized proxy?

Who is deciding what is her choice and what is abuse?

Who is studying, ministrating, and seeking to control her?

The feminists. Only the feminists are allowed to do this.

The point of feminism isn't to control men, it's to control other women. It's through the control of other women that feminism seeks to gain and demonstrate power.

And now you know why so many young woman don't want to align themselves with it.

Achilles said...

gilbar said...
What on god's green earth has given you people the idea that making things illegal has actually worked?

so, tell me Again, WHY is it that we want the government to be against tobacco? I'm just asking; 'cause you're obviously WAY SMARTER than me

I don't want the government to be against tobacco.

I don't want the government involved is deciding what people should or should not do in any way. The government will inevitably be dominated by someone I don't want telling me what to do at some point.

The only role of government in these situations is to promote liberty. People should feel free and safe to go anywhere and do what they want and part of that is respecting other people and letting them do the same.

Having a stoner next door shouldn't really bother you.

But property crime and violent crime should be heavily punished.

Shouting Thomas said...

What a meaningless word salad.

Absolutely empty bullshit.

tcrosse said...

"It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.” -RBG

walter said...

"They call her radio station because anyone can pick her up, especially at night."

Anonymous said...

"[C]onversations that people not engaged in sex work have about it tend to involve a stew of unspoken anxieties about not just sex but migration, disease, race, class, and the roles of women."

Those other people never have legitimate concerns or opinions about an issue, just projections arising from "a stew of unspoken anxieties". I can read minds, see. It's entirely coincidental that their stew is a gloppy gallimaufry of the stuff I and fellow right-thinkers obsess about."

chuck said...

If I can't say something nice ...

Fernandinande said...

Sex work is not about sex. New York has some strange books to review.

WHY is it that we want the government to be against tobacco?

What you mean "we", white man? I don't want the government to be against tobacco, I'd prefer that the government ignore it.

tim in vermont said...

I think the leaders making it happen should be tarred and feathered.

I think that legalizing heroine, for example, will just fill the streets with people who may never be employable again. I think libertarians live in a dream world.

Sebastian said...

"Crusaders against trafficking can blur easily into persecutors of immigrants"

Can't have that. Sure, women are special, but not that special: progs right now have other priorities--they need illegals to devastate the culture and solidify their power, and anyway transgenderism takes precedence over feminism, as Martina N. discovered.

chuck said...

> but tobacco is still the devil's weed, right?

Cultural appropriation.

Bay Area Guy said...

Nothing says sexiness like the New York Review of Books!

FIDO said...

"[C]onversations that people not engaged in sex work have about it tend to involve a stew of unspoken anxieties about not just sex but migration, disease, race, class, and the roles of women."


They are not unspoken. The Right and many on the Left who are ignored if not silenced, have SPOKEN issues involving migration (a real problem), race (a rioting problem lately), class (a real economic problem), and FEMINISM trying to destroy men just to 'Make Abortion Great Again'.


These are real and important issues, and shouldn't be dismissed as mere anxieties. But because the ARE fact based and she is on the wrong side of the majority of reasonably clear thinking individuals, she dismisses it as 'anxieties.'


There is a reason I do not read these rags. Thank you, Ms. Althouse, for sharing their pungent stupidity with me so I know how the stupid half lives.

Fernandinande said...

McDonald's Is Not About Hamburgers.

The real-life commercial hamburger gets blotted out by the cultural figure that journalist Melissa Gira Grant has dubbed the 'burger imaginary.' This mythological creature depicted on menus is both corruptrix and release valve for male hungers. She is the temptress, not resembling the real burger, the cardiovascular disease spreader, the frivolous burger with her extravagant, wilted toppings, the patty broken by stacking too high. And for many denizens of eating places, she is the ultimate example of victimhood— in activist Dorchen Leidholdt’s words, a 'de-individualized, de-humanized, mass-produced' burger for 'generic woman.'

Once a burger worker becomes a metaphor, her material conditions cease to matter. She is an object for ordering, payment, and getting change.... Perhaps no carnivorous archetype raises so much lucrative concern as the trafficked side dishes.... Crusaders against trafficking can blur easily into persecutors of hotdogs, hotdoggers and hotdoggery. And taco bowls.

I rest my case.

tim in vermont said...

"Crusaders against trafficking can blur easily into persecutors of immigrants"

So legal immigration involves a lot of trafficking?

Fernandinande said...

And yes, I would like fries with that.

Rick said...

I think that legalizing heroine, for example, will just fill the streets with people who may never be employable again.

People said the same about legalizing pot. That turned out the same as those who claimed shall-issue laws would result in wild west style gunfights in the streets.

Wa St Blogger said...

100 upvotes for Fernandistein

twice

wild chicken said...

legalizing heroine,


Who is this gal and why is she illegal?

Jon Burack said...

Make that 101 votes.

Achilles said...

Nobody said...

I think that legalizing heroine, for example, will just fill the streets with people who may never be employable again. I think libertarians live in a dream world.


So do you believe gun free zones make us safe too? Cars kill a lot of people every year. How is letting the government define sexuality and marriage working out for you?

I know thinking is hard for big government conservatives on this issue. They have no answers so government needs to ban it, and they seem to have no faith in their institutions.

The foundational principal or our country, the true reason we are exceptional as a nation, is that we believe in the primacy of the individual. This is only possible when you can trust your citizens to do the right thing when the state is not looking.

Everything comes down to the virtue of your citizen.

Someone brought up the Opium Wars at one point as an argument for making drugs illegal. If you have to throw people in jail to keep them off drugs your society is just going to end up being a police state and you have already lost.

You people are letting the institutions that build a free citizen go to shit. Giving the government the power to throw more people in jail is stupid, short sighted, and does not address the most important part of the equation in a free society.

rhhardin said...

Illegal sex workers hold down the wages of American sex workers.

rhhardin said...

The most expensive sex is sex you don't pay for.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Jesus loved prostitutes. He also asked them to stop.

Tastid212 said...

Fernandistein reaches the plateau where Laslo resides.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Nobody said...

I think that legalizing heroine, for example, will just fill the streets with people who may never be employable again.

Like in Portugal?

John Henry

n.n said...

Diversity. Sexism. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform to cover-up collateral damage in social justice zones, evolutionary progressions, and the wicked solution executed by Planned Parenthood (e.g. selective-child, recycled-child) et al under Pro-Choice.

Jesus loved prostitutes. He also asked them to stop.

No. Normalize it. Promote it. Shame people, attack people, stalk people who do not progress to debase human life for pleasure, leisure, money, and democratic leverage.

n.n said...

The anti-nativists are empathetic with abortion zones, human trafficking, diversity, transgender corruption, redistributive and retributive change. Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. The adventurists need to be recognized for their transhuman aspirations.

n.n said...

How is letting the government define sexuality and marriage working out for you?

Nothing has changed. Under political congruence, there has been a slight divergence (i.e. liberal progression). An urbane elevation of bigotry.

we believe in the primacy of the individual

Some people prey at the twilight fringe. It's a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice Church.

madAsHell said...

I'll say it again......

Didn't Martin Short do this skit as Ed Grimely??

All kidding aside, some women need more to worry about.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"It's not about sex"?
Well, just tell the gals (& guys!) not to have sex with their customers.
The oldest profession, knelled by yours truly & a little common sense.
Your welcome.

Anonymous said...

Nutjobs are us. Clowns.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Mythological creature?" Don't most people just picture a drug addict?

Henry said...

This one's for you, Achilles:

Complete decriminalization—or the removal of criminal penalties for both buying and selling sex—is the unanimous preference of the global sex workers’ rights movement, as well as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the World Health Organization. Unlike legalization, it doesn’t impose a regime of permits and laws that need to be enforced; instead, it takes police out of prostitutes’ lives and workplaces. By removing the fear of surveillance, raids, and arrest, decriminalization lets prostitutes work in the conditions that best suit them, and allows them to collectively organize for their rights. In a study commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 96 percent of street-based sex workers said they felt they had legal rights. New Zealand is no utopia—migrant sex workers are still criminalized, social welfare programs are still underfunded. But, says one sex worker there, decriminalization “changed the whole street, it’s changed everything. So it was worth it.”

Mark said...

What is the greater evil -- or more worthy of utter disgust -- progressivism or libertarianism?

Henry said...

There's a lot of interesting stuff in that article and the author mostly writes prosaically, thank god.

Molly Crabapple also answers the question raised by "it's not about sex".

It's about money.

As you read through her critique of "the Nordic model, which criminalizes clients and managers but not sex workers" -- you realize that her argument against the Nordic model is pretty simple: sex workers need patrons:

On the streets, fewer and more skittish clients meant sex workers couldn’t be choosy. They had to accept worse clients, with fewer safety checks, for lower fees.

It's a strong argument, but I can't help thinking that the better world of patrons and sex workers that Crapapple describes sounds a lot like the 19th century, when every woman without wealth or station was considered for sale. When every woman without money is considered for sale, Fantine is doomed from the start.

Be said...

Of course it is about money. Another clue in: Most of the abilities to Keep Shit Real come from having to play roles in childhood.

Women will keep faking it so long as they need to, fake Taliban like American "Christian" convenient beliefs aside.

Achilles said...

John Lynch said...
Jesus loved prostitutes. He also asked them to stop.

Jesus was right.

I don't think he would have clamored for the Romans to toss all of the whores in jail.

The best way to get people to stop participating in prostitution is bringing people into the community and help them out.

But that is hard. Easier to just call them whores and throw them in jail. Maybe embarrass a John or two as long as it is politically expedient but they almost never go to jail.

None of that stops or reduces prostitution but it sure makes some people who never had a hard day in their life feel better.

Oso Negro said...

You can rent your body, just not all parts of it. Renting your brain, no problem. Renting your upper body musculature, no problem. Renting your eyes or ears, no problem. Rent your vagina, and you run into multiple Western fanaticisms, plus a basic economic problem. 1) Traditional religions proscribe cheerful whoredom; 2) contemporary Western feminism is compelled to repress male sexuality; 3) easy vaginal access impacts the rice bowl of many women. It's much easier to roll with a monopoly.

Wilbur said...

A while ago I believe I read at this blog someone citing George Carlin (not that I consider him a great thinker) that your body is the one thing that's legal to give away but illegal to sell.

I think prostitution should be legal but as invisible as possible to children and those who do not wish to see it.

Anonymous said...

Oso Negro: You can rent your body, just not all parts of it. Renting your brain, no problem. Renting your upper body musculature, no problem. Renting your eyes or ears, no problem. Rent your vagina, and you run into multiple Western fanaticisms, plus a basic economic problem.

Men look down on prostitutes, too. People (including men) have an ambiguous attitude toward honest whoring that isn't all explained away by the pussy-cartel economic model. For some utterly inexplicable reason people don't really think about renting genitalia in the same way that they think about renting brains and muscles.

E.g., my husband and I never objected to our teenage daughter earning money by renting out her body for picking crops or cleaning hotel rooms, but would have been horrified if she'd rented out her body as a prostitute. Granted, we're not enlightened libertarians, and these feelings are no doubt the product of unreflective tight-ass American puritanism.

Oso Negro said...

@Angle-Dyne - not all men look down on prostitutes. Not all cultures. You are seeing this through the lens of your culture and historical epoch and that’s fine. But it’s not the only way to see it.

Lewis Wetzel said...

In pre-Christian Rome, prostitution was not only legal it could be a religious obligation.
Pre-Christian Rome was about the most anti-feminist place imaginable, and the Romans' pagan religion held that people were basically bags of meat to used by more powerful bags of meat.
So let's adopt their laissez-faire model of prostitution!

Oso Negro said...

@Lewis Wetzel - prostitution is entirely legal in Austria. Vienna has been listed as the best city in the world for ten years running. I was there just a couple weeks ago for work. It was EXACTLY like Ancient Rome!

Anonymous said...

Oso Negro: @Angle-Dyne - not all men look down on prostitutes.

I was making a general statement that disapproval of prostitution was not all from women, and pointing out to you that your explanatory model was pretty simplistic and inadequate. Sorry, I didn't take you for one of those posters who needed a tedious "not all X!" disclaimer attached to every observation.

Not all cultures. You are seeing this through the lens of your culture and historical epoch and that’s fine. But it’s not the only way to see it.

I thought that's what I was trying to tell you.

But, wow, thanks for the enlightenment. I was entirely unaware that attitudes toward prostitution differed across space and time.

Oso Negro said...

@Angle-Dyne - I have never thought of you as a simple person! In fact, I have long been inclined to like you and was not trying to be insulting at all! Apologies!

Anonymous said...

Oso @8:03: Appreciate the gracious apology, but no real offense was taken, Oso. My initial response to you was at least as "insulting" as your rejoinder. It's all good.

I think we're just going down different tracks here.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Ah, yes, Oso Negro, but the Austrians still have a serious problem with sex trafficking. Most forms of prostitution are legal in Britain as well (though street walking is illegal).

Rick said...

but would have been horrified if she'd rented out her body as a prostitute. Granted, we're not enlightened libertarians, and these feelings are no doubt the product of unreflective tight-ass American puritanism.

Most libertarians don't believe sex work is no different than other work. They mostly think someone already down to those options should not be punished further. Because critics don't seem to understand the issue none of their criticisms is meaningful.

Anonymous said...

Rick: Most libertarians don't believe sex work is no different than other work... Because critics don't seem to understand the issue none of their criticisms is meaningful.

It's a good practice not to take responses out of context. I was responding to a an individual, and that's exactly the belief he was expressing. So your criticism isn't meaningful.

Rick said...

It's a good practice not to take responses out of context.

If you limited your response to him that would be logical. Instead you generalized it to "enlightened libertarians" suggesting the belief you were responding to was generally held.