When You Find Yourself In A Deep Hole Keep Digging (No! Wait!)
I'm reposting my response to a multitude of heated comments to my previous post which mostly inadvertently, has ticked off a lot of people I like quite a lot and almost always whole-heartedly support. So rather than rephrase things for each individual I'm going to try to either dig myself out or, very likely, dig myself deeper. Here goes.
First of all, since at least last summer I've been trying to reconcile what I felt was a big disconnect between the very real attitude advances women are going through in terms of agency, interest, and expression on the one hand, and the majority of men who, stuck wherever we largely are conceptually, see all that and say only "yeah, yeah, show me your tits?" Well, this post is, in part, an expression of frustration with all that.
And now, not just for Amber but for everybody: Today a friend of mine in class, who's working at a copy center to help pay for school, said it was slow so she was doing homework the other evening, and a customer came in and asked her, evidently dead seriously, why she was bothering to study when someone with her looks and body should just forget all that and find a sugar daddy. But here's the thing, it's not like she's fucking stupid, right? She's passing her college courses, right? And she's got a mirror and knows what she looks like. And she's even in a communications/gender-studies/sex-ed class where this week everyone's busy putting together their own, and answering other's, audience survey forms for presentations next all next week about cool, cool stuff like the benefits of anilingus, the history of the condom, intro's to Seattle's Center for Sex-Positive Culture a.k.a. The Wet Spot, and where the instructor's been using sex toys as the subject of all her examples of speech presentations, right? So it's not like my friend's either dumb or disinterested in sex. And yet. And yet... somehow this lard-assed grandpa's supposed to be clueing her in to a possibility she might not have already chosen to pursue if she were so inclined? Sorry, that's not cool, that's not disabled-in-a-world-with-no-acceptance, and that's not edgy-something-one's-partner-won't-do. That's just lame.
I mean, fucking hell, it's not even like the guy just asked her if she'd like to stop doing her homework for a few minutes, put up the "back in two minutes" sign on the door, and have sex with him. For pay or not for pay. Nor did he make inquiries into her attitudes about sex, her interests, her potential partners, or how often she was already having sex with friends, acquaintances, and compatible friends-of-friends, alone or in combination, without anyone having to pay her anything. Hell, he didn't even ask her if she wasn't already a prostitute! No, instead he opined that, with a body and face like hers an education was a waste of effort... as if she couldn't have both! Which, she says, she didn't appreciate.
So before responding everybody hold that thought for a second as well. Next item: Lately there's been yet another round of calls amongst international feminist legal scholars to once again pull out the tired old, boring old, and wrong old idea that it's simply inconceivable that any person, anywhere, at any time, could possibly be a prostitute on purpose; that each and every prostitute on the whole planet earth has no, zero, none agency and is therefore automatically and irrefutably "trafficked" and "prostituted."
Now, since I happen to know a number of women who are or have been sex workers who were *neither* "trafficked" or "prostituted" I happen to think the idea that *all* sex workers are captive thralls is bullshit. And yet there incontestably *are* trafficked and enslaved sex workers -- every couple of months out here on the west coast, anyway, another underground, illegal, unlicensed, and unregulated brothel with pretty unambiguously trafficked and uncompensated sex workers gets busted. Which means some subset of customers of prostitutes are knowingly purchasing the services of coerced sex workers and *don't care.*
So hold *that* thought too. And yet... and yet... there's still that perpetually percolating notion out there that nobody in his or her right mind would willingly become a prostitute because prostitution is somehow the worst possible job on the planet, something so odious, so vile, so instinctively demeaning, that it could *only* be coerced. Thus, for instance, the agitation to have it all defined as, well, coerced. But that's obviously bullshit.
First it's bullshit because, in fact, as we know, plenty of people don't agree it's the worst job at all, right? People we know. People I and other commenters in this thread so far know personally, have met, have had long conversations with, and have no reason at all to believe they're any happier or more unhappy than any other self-employed professional.
And second it's bullshit because there are in fact jobs that, if the standards sought by prostitution opponents were applied, would appear even further down the list. If I offended any colonics workers I apologize but I was getting a little bored with my other preferred comparisons: boiler-room phone sales and agricultural stoop labor -- one of which is clearly emotionally draining the other is physically draining. And yet one almost never hears opponents of prostitution agitating for the dignity of agriculture workers, and never for the dignity of boiler-room operators. Or, I might add, the dignity of those who's job it is to sluce and vacuum other people's colons.
And so I'm saying (but evidently not too well) is that *if* sex work is really that bad then other jobs, colonics workers in this case, must be *even worse.* Of course if prostitution *isn't* really that bad -- an argument you've probably noticed I make rather frequently -- then everything I said about colonics changes as well.
And the final point I'm going to ask you to hold on to for a moment, is that I think the notion that ugly people, fat people, old people, disfigured people, or disabled people can't find partners is kind of out of line. The first time I ever went to the Center for Sex Positive Culture, for a group discussion of body image, I met an extremely pleasant group of people of literally all shapes, sizes, ages, physical conditions, gender orientations, preferred-partner counts, and kinks, who spoke both about the difficulties they faced in the outside world and the great sex with varied and non-judgmental partners they were finding *for free* in the community the Wet Spot has created. And for that matter, it being 11:22 PM on a Thursday Night, the regular Thursday night Grind ought to be in full swing right this second. Which means that any of the differently-abled people some commenters have expressed concern for had previously joined the center and attended its brief but comprehensive orientation that includes express language about policies regarding tolerance and diversity, then they could go in (most areas are wheelchair accessible) and feel pretty welcome. And, more to the point, get together with each other or other CSPC members and dance, converse, make out, or fuck each other silly either in public in one of the main rooms or else in one of the smaller, more private enclosed spaces about the premises. All for about $65 a year and, I think, a $15 cover charge. (Quick aside: CSPC is *definitely* not for everyone -- a fair number of younger people characterize it as a place where old people have sex, and a fair number of other people have a hard time with their extremely earnest approach to things, and others have difficulty with their strong BDSM emphasis. But what can I say, it's a chartered 503(c) non-profit community center that just happens to have an extraordinary number of well-used hardpoints in the ceiling and walls so you're going to get a little bit of that. But at least in Seattle there are a number of smaller venues that cater to more specific, less diverse preferences and those are great too.)
So. I've asked you to hold a ton of things and I appreciate your patience. I'll take them off your hands though not necessarily in the order I handed them out in, and, I hope, in the process you'll at least better understand where I was coming from when I wrote this seemingly galvanizing and divisive post.
1) Whereas the customers of some sex workers may be perfect, adventurous gentlemen many of them aren't. They don't particularly value the service sex-workers provide, they don't particularly respect sex workers, and they have opinions about sex workers that, ahem, may have more in common with the bitterest prostitution opponents than with the often progressive practitioners who may feel I was singling out them, their friends, or their select customers.
2) There's an assumption that, somehow, non-Barbie/non-Ken types must seek out prostitutes because no one else will have sex with them. There's a similar assumption that there are just some things that... what... no "good" woman (at least) wants to do and... what?... no woman period would do except for money. Please! As I'm writing some of them are doing it right now. Without having to pay anyone but the great volunteers at the check-in/ticket counter.
2b) Maybe instead there's some kind of assumption that non-Kens aren't so much unable to find willing sex partners as unable to hook up with Barbies without paying them. Well, that's entirely possible but *extremely* different from the previous assertion that they need prostitutes because no one else will have sex with them *at all.*
2c) Oh yeah, and leaving aside "teh disabled" for a minute, if there are actually plenty of people in the world who are capable
3) Possibly due to more focus on male customers than female sex workers, there's another move underway to demonize prostitution in a way that denigrates, alienates, and denies the agency of numerous autonomous prostitutes. These opponents seem so motivated by panic about patriarchy and misogyny that they may be attributing more power and authority to sex-worker's customers than reality supports. And while I think authors of those initiatives really do mischaracterize the situation it's *still* the case that an extraordinary number of (mostly) men purchase the sexual services of (mostly) women they know to be coerced. And don't care.
3a) *If* one is going to argue that sex work is demeaning (as I do not) then out of a sense of both consistency and decency one ought to acknowledge that other jobs are even more demeaning (which I don't think they are.)
3b) Rather than mischaracterize what's still (in my past experience) the bulk of customers as arrogant exercisers of macho, masters-of-their-destiny, patriarchal privileged types I thought it might be more productive to mock, socially castigate, and just generally recognize their marginality rather than centrality.
4) And finally, whereas I've acknowledged there are men and women who are perfectly content to do with a transfer of money from men to women exactly the same things they already enjoy doing for free can I just say cool, good for you, sounds like fun, odd how the fund transfers always seem to go one way when we know desire goes both ways but, still, what the heck? Nothing I've said in the original post and this even longer reply except maybe my little quip from two seconds ago about how money seems to flow only one way applies to you. Really. I don't mean you.
So there. I'm with a lot more caveats than I started with I'm still sticking to my guns: a society organized such that some people feel obliged to pay other people for sex -- and, to consider paying someone else a discount in order to knowingly have sex with a coerced individual -- is, well, sorry, *weird* considering how other existing social organizations allow people to do much the same things for free.
The first time I ever went to the Center for Sex Positive Culture, for a group discussion of body image, I met an extremely pleasant group of people of literally all shapes, sizes, ages, physical conditions, gender orientations, preferred-partner counts, and kinks, who spoke both about the difficulties they faced in the outside world and the great sex with varied and non-judgmental partners they were finding *for free* in the community the Wet Spot has created.
You raised an important point here, Figleaf, because when I described my period of involuntary celibacy in the comments to your previous post, I was describing an episode which occurred five years ago. Back then, I had no idea that organizations like CSPC existed. Five years ago I did not know of the existence of sex blogs or any reasonable facsimile. There was no Figleaf or realadultsex.com. During the 1980's and 90's, the popularity of private sex clubs had waned due to the fear of AIDS.
I agree with many of the points you raised and can understand why you were angered at the insult your friend suffered. Yet for me, as a woman, to consider the services of a prostitute was not "weird." Based on my circumstances and lack of knowledge, it was "logical," IMO.
No, fl, you did not tick me off. As always, you made me think and for that I thank you.
Wow. That's a whole lotta diggin'.
[Yup. Probably didn't help either. But... y'know how sometimes there's a word you've been saying all your life and suddenly you say it and it suddenly doesn't make any sense at all? I'm sure there's a fancy name for it but whatever that is it just happened big time trying to wrap my head around this idea that men have been wandering around most of the planet for most of recorded history just accepting these notions that nobody would have sex with them unless a) they marry them or b) they pay them with this repeated subtext that c) it really amounts the same thing. I'm sure I'll get over it and it'll be as easy for me to grasp as it is for other people. But at the moment I'm just way more confused about my feelings about this than I am by people jumping me for having them. Thanks for coming back by, Elizavetta. --fl]
What is up with people's comments on people with disabilites or medical conditions? The statements that they don't or can't have sex unless they hire a sex worker is just f-ing disablist and carries with it all kinds of other assumptions about disability which are simply wrong. It's like racial integration or gender equality: get to know some people before making stupid statements.
[I think there are a couple of countries where the system provides sex-worker services for the disabled, but I don't think many of the guys who keep picking up and then robbing, raping, roughing up, and occasionally serial-murdering the street prostitues in my neighborhood fit that category anyway. I might also add that as far as I know no system formally pays for sex-worker services for disabled *women.* Thanks, B. --fl]
I found the idea that the disable have no choice but to be ghettoed into using prostitution for their sex lives pretty damn appalling.
delineated us.
[Exactly, Adela. If I talk through my hat about sex-worker customers, and if others talk through their hats about sex workers, then it makes sense that others talk through their hats about what "the disabled" can or can't do. --fl]
You're right about the digging. It's amazing you can still type from a hole that deep!!
a customer came in and asked her, evidently dead seriously, why she was bothering to study when someone with her looks and body should just forget all that and find a sugar daddy.
...
And yet... somehow this lard-assed grandpa's supposed to be clueing her in to a possibility she might not have already chosen to pursue if she were so inclined?
So it's an admittedly obnoxious question, but he's not more informing of her of something he thinks she doesn't know than someone who says "wow it's hot out today!" would be.
And, yes, I did read the whole post... don't have time to think of responses to the rest of it just now though. Still think your main premise is broken.
[Hi Plymouth. Actually I asked the question in the first place because I *knew* my premise was broken. And I actually appreciate the help, even though it's coming with a bit more intensity than I expected. And I think you're right that the guy wasn't really suggesting my friend let somebody buy her ass from her instead of worrying her pretty little brain. Instead I'm pretty sure he was expressing bitter resentment that he couldn't use her sexually himself, and made denegrating remarks about her other ambitions as a way to compensate for his anger, while all the while trying to categorize himself as her custodial superior in whatever way he could be attempting to direct both her intellectual and sexual outcomes. Which, if I haven't made clear, pisses me off not on my friend's behalf. After all she can take care of herself and if I tried to intervene on her behalf I'd just be attempting to be custodial instead. But on behalf of the man who felt that was the only level upon which he could have sexual interactions with a stranger he felt attracted to. --fl]
I *think* I figured out why I've been having such a problem with the premise. You've gone to GREAT lengths to describe why you think it's OK for someone to work as a sex-worker, that it should be seen as a from of business no more or less degrading than any other, and yet you still have contempt for the people who avail themselves of that service. It seems to me that there's an inherent contradiction there - if it's OK to sell a service it should be OK to buy it. If there is shame in buying a service, there must be shame in selling it.
[Hi Plymouth. Yes, I unloaded a bit too heavily on customers as a whole. relationship folklore such as "treat a whore like a lady, and a lady like a whore" implies there remains a disconnect, however, that may extend to some subset of customers. Even if the saying "treat your lady like a whore" means only extend to one's partner the courtesy one would extend to a capable professional service provider. Which I don't believe it does. And even if the saying "treat a whore like a lady" means extend her the intimate familiarity and reciprocity one extends to one's partner and not "treat her as if you won access to sex through demonstrations of worthiness." Which I don't think it does. Anyway, whereas not all customers of prostitutes have that fundamental lady/whore mindset, and *certainly* not all who have that mindset have ever been customers of prostitutes, that attitude colors attitudes towards prostitutes in a way that increases denigration, dehumanization, and danger. So anyway, yeah, I happen to think it's ok to be a prostitute and, by extension, yes, I think it's fine to be a customer of a prostitute, and to that extent I was wrong, wrong, wrong to unload the way I did. I *still* feel, however, that all variations on the lady/whore and lead-a-whore-to-culture memes, plus the attitudes those memes are symptoms of, should be, um, addressed wherever it occurs. --fl]
Here's my problem with prostitution, one that I have never seen anyone solve or mitigate: It feeds directly into our system of thought that classifies women as purchasable objects existing only for sex.
This belief manifests itself in all sorts of ways, and prostitution is only the most clear of them all.
If prostitution were a clean, happy job, or at least no dirtier or unhappier than the typical hum-drum office work; if most of the situations didn't involve men collecting money off the backs of abused women; if men were equally attracted to sex work and it was therefore an egalitarian industry; I can see how I could support it.
But it is none of those things, and support of it is not in keeping with my baseline respect for all human beings. I respect sex workers as people, but the industry in which they are involved -- sometimes quite happily and safely, but often not -- is harmful and indicative of the worst misogynistic beliefs.
[Hi Christina. If you add that the system makes women's sexuality purchasable because of a conviction that they have no independent use for it themselves, and that the system makes men's sexuality animal/obligatory such that they'll submit to any self-degredation to get it (and no, I'm *not* talking about hiring a prostitute as constituting self-degredation here) then we're not too far apart. As for respecting people as human beings, once I started meeting and socializing with sex workers I stopped recognizing them as cartoons and saw them as people. So maybe I just need to start meeting more prostitute's customers... and paradoxically perhaps, paying less attention to the men who troll the high-incidence thoroughfares near my neighborhood. --fl]
Here's my problem with prostitution, one that I have never seen anyone solve or mitigate: It feeds directly into our system of thought that classifies women as purchasable objects existing only for sex.
...
If prostitution were a clean, happy job, or at least no dirtier or unhappier than the typical hum-drum office work; if most of the situations didn't involve men collecting money off the backs of abused women; if men were equally attracted to sex work and it was therefore an egalitarian industry; I can see how I could support it.
The answer is that all the pro-prostitution people also are campaigning to change prostitution into that clean and safe office-job type of work. That's the sex-positive "solution" or "mitigation".
Furthermore, it isn't the sex-positive campaigners who are depicting prostitution as purchasing of women. That tends to be the view of those who wish to see prostitution banned, and it is those people (both right-wing conservative and radical feminist) who perpetuate the myth that sex work is "buying women's bodies". It isn't. Sex work is buying a particular service (no one thinks that hiring a builder is buying her or his body, for example). One of the best ways we can change prostitution into that safe, clean, happy type of job, is to do everything we can to change the negative "body-for-sale" view and replace it with the "service for sale" view.
As far as men being attracted to sex work - that will happen when women are willing to pay for sex. Of course, "rent boys" do exist, too, offering gay sex services. Male porn actors, in general, receive less pay than their female co-stars.
[Hi SE. I know I'm jumping all over the place but... but... I can't help thinking that maybe it's not so much that women aren't, wouldn't be, and couldn't be interested in hiring prostitutes of their own. It's more like getting over the paradoxical little bump of being called whores if they did. Because, you know, as harsh as society is on women who simply have sex because they desire sex, that's nothing like they'd come down on women who'd *pay* for sex because they desired it -- on their time and terms -- the way men are permitted (maybe expected to, certainly forgiven for when they) do. --fl]
Furthermore, it isn't the sex-positive campaigners who are depicting prostitution as purchasing of women. That tends to be the view of those who wish to see prostitution banned, and it is those people (both right-wing conservative and radical feminist) who perpetuate the myth that sex work is "buying women's bodies". It isn't. Sex work is buying a particular service (no one thinks that hiring a builder is buying her or his body, for example).
I agree that prostitution should be clean and safe. In that sense I am what you describe as sex-positive.
But again, what I take issue with is the cultural understanding that women are for sex. We don't have a similar problem with viewing building as dirty, degraded work that we need to use men to get done.
Women are viewed in this society as physical commodities, not as individual human beings with rights. Contrary to your assertion, radical feminists aren't the people who think this way; we're the people who point out this way of thinking and oppose it.
Women are viewed in this society as physical commodities, not as individual human beings with rights. Contrary to your assertion, radical feminists aren't the people who think this way; we're the people who point out this way of thinking and oppose it.
Here's the thing - I agree that radical feminism in general seeks to point out the way of thinking, but my belief was that radical feminism was about changing the way of thinking, not merely "opposing" it. And in that sense, I regard myself as being a radical feminist (or at least a radical ally of feminism)
However, I think basing your opinion of prostitution on the way it is viewed now, doesn't oppose or change it, but instead strengthens that way of thinking.
Instead of opposing prostitution, you should be opposing the people who view it as buying women's bodies, and as women turning themselves into sex objects. I think that part and parcel of opposing and changing the current patriarchal view of women as property, is to change attitudes around prostitution - not by opposing prostitution, but by working on that most visible example of the problem, to change the attitudes around it.
I do not "support" prostitution or oppose it, but I certainly believe in supporting prostitutes, both in their immediate needs and in terms of making the work they do as safe and clean as possible in the longer term; I believe in making sure those who are in it against their will can be confident of adequate and unconditional support when they choose to leave; and I believe in destroying the stigma that being a sex worker or former sex worker currently holds.
It seems to me that "opposing prostitution" is not a radical agenda, but a liberal-feminist, legislation-based option that does not do anything to affect or oppose society's flaws but works within the existing society. In effect, rather than changing society to suit women, it seeks to change women to suit society.
Great discussion. So, what would it take for prostitution *not* to be viewed as selling bodies, and what alternative concept or metaphor could we substitute for it? Seems to me that would be at the crux of de-commodifying prostitution. (If that's even a word!)
So, what would it take for prostitution *not* to be viewed as selling bodies, and what alternative concept or metaphor could we substitute for it? Seems to me that would be at the crux of de-commodifying prostitution. (If that's even a word!)
That's the big question, of course. I think it can start with something like what might be called the Toronto model and moving to the New Zealand model of decriminalisation. That is, if the law (and more importantly, the law enforcement process, from police through to the courts) start to treat prostitutes as women, not as merely "victims" or "criminals", then I think that the attitude would have to start to change. I don't think it's something that will happen overnight - in the UK, we have some of the best legal protection of transfolk of the world (that said, we're still a long way from perfect), but public attitudes are slower to change.
I think that in part, it goes hand-in-hand with changing attitudes to women in general; there is no point denying that a great many men do view women's sexuality as something to which they are entitled automatically, and that attitude naturally plays a part in forming their opinions of prostitutes as well. Those attitudes are endemic in the media and society in general, and are hardly caused by prostitution. I think challenging and changing the way women are presented in the media and particularly in advertising, would go a long way to changing attitudes to women in general, and prostitutes in particular.
The other aspect that I think is important is the escape route: where prostitutes are unable to escape due to economic concerns, drug addiction, or physical coercion, then they have much less ability to choose their clients; if a woman has little choice but to accept any client, then she will be perceived as "for sale"; but if she can refuse her services, then she is much more likely to be seen as a service provider instead. So a key element in de-commodifying sex work is having the sorts of support and protection for those leaving the profession, that we were discussing earlier.
And, of course, simply calling people on it when they make comments about prostitutes, will also help.
We don't have a similar problem with viewing building as dirty, degraded work that we need to use men to get done.
Check your class privilege: we certainly do view manual labor as dirty degraded work, and the isms play into who we expect to do it instead of work that is more highly valued.
I see prostitution has the same issues as abortion. What does it say about us as a society when we can think of circumstances in which there is no choice but to use it; that it is necessary to have prostitution. Why is there is a demand, a need for it in the first place is what we should be worrying about.
The goal should be to make it like abortion; safe available but rare and unnecessary.
Access to sex workers' services is an issue that disabled-rights groups have raised on their own in the UK, as it is the experience of some young disabled men that reactions to their sexual expression are (across-the-board) demeaning, discouraging, etc. I doubt people would have any respect for it were it not a grass-roots effort, but you hear things like "The health aide won't leave the room so we can f***" or "The health aide won't give me a lift so we can f***" from disabled people in relationships ALL THE TIME. And those are people with supposedly-"okay"-in-societal-terms het relationships. Hostility to sexual expression of that type gets conflated with difficulty in partnering-up in some people's minds, which is possibly begging the question. Certainly the lobbying tends to come from a certain "git 'er done" constituency, and in reply feminists have chosen to emphasize the "git" factor. We are a long way from Zamyatin's _We_ or Huxley's _Brave New World_, where the Tables match you up, or "everyone belongs to everyone else." Or, heck, even "Enemy at the Gates"--"We tried to create the new Socialist Man. But some are rich in love and some are poor."
captcha Alerted Fred. Shades of _The Handmaid's Tale_.
Like several others, I'm still unconvinced by, and feel a little bit uneasy about, the basic premise you seem to be proposing.
In this further digging, you appear to have gone from "most x are y" to "all x are y" in attempting to justify your previous suggestion that buying sex from a sex worker is "weird". Maybe some people's reasons for buying sex are weird in your opinion, and for the reasons you suggest, but the uproar was, at least in part, about the fact that there are many reasons which do not seem weird.
Your point 3 b) actually reads to me like justifying bullying - "you're marginal and a 'loser' therefore it is okay to mock and stigmatise you as 'weird'". In fact, customers of sex workers, most surveys appear to show, are generally as diverse a bunch of people as the general population, so trying to pick them out as somehow "marginal" seems somewhat mistaken as well.
Also, all your "at the CSPC, anyone can get it for free in a non-judgemental way" argument is actually coming from a very privileged position. Not everyone has access to such an enlightened organisation. Not everyone would even have a clue of how to find such a place, even if they had one in travelling distance of their residence. Some people might feel incredibly intimidated (whether or not there's any real reason for them to feel that way) by the mere idea of going to such a place and "making out" or "fucking [someone] silly", especially if they'd never had sex before with anyone else.
And, furthermore, there will always be some people who find that they are always left unpicked by anyone, and who therefore (if they want it) must find some other way of acquiring sex.
Oy. I'm glad to see that this second thread is a little more civil; I get crabby when I see people's words and intentions deliberately being twisted. I didn't see figleaf calling prostitutes dirty or condemning *their choices* in any way.
To my mind, the ethics of hiring a prostitute can't be understood without thinking about how it turns the human body - and not just its labor power - into a commodity. I just wrote a longish post on the commodification angle, which I now see Christina also brought up.
Here, I'd just like to say I fully agree with figleaf that prostitution as it's currently practiced in our society shores up masculine sexual entitlement. Quite independent of gender, there are ethical issues to buying sex-work services, but in our society they're inseparable from the notion that men have rights to women's bodies, yet not vice versa. When's the last time we heard someone say women should have access to male prostitutes in order to shed their unwanted virginity, gain sexual expertise, or compensate for sexually unadventurous husbands?
Kochanie, I empathize with your predicament more than you might imagine, and I'd welcome a chance to discuss sex after a partner's cancer treatment if you'd be willing to email me (sungold85 at gmail.com). I'm now going through this for a second time, and there's hardly anyone in my life with remotely similar experiences.
Nice BDSM ReCaptcha: Peggy shackled
When's the last time we heard someone say women should have access to male prostitutes in order to shed their unwanted virginity, gain sexual expertise, or compensate for sexually unadventurous husbands?
I don't think it was the last time I heard such things being said, but it's certainly a time that I wrote about it on my blog: May 22nd 2007.
I just read your post and enjoyed it - but I'm not surprised that you of all people would have a refreshingly unconventional take on this. :-) On the other hand, the whole framing of the issue on the TV show you cite, which hasn't made it across the pond: Desperate Virgins? The title captures what the culture at large thinks women would have to be in order to hire a prostitute ... yikes.
The other virgins in the programme were male - I think one was in his twenties, and they covered his trip to Amsterdam to hire a prostitute, and I can't remember who the others were. It framed the debate, I think more in terms of "if you're still a virgin by a certain age, then you must be desperate". However, I think it's true that by the fact that there was only one "desperate" woman included, does tie in with the "no-sex class" paradigm and suggest that it is unusual for a woman to have any anxiety over it (or possibly, that it's unusual for a woman to have difficulty finding someone to take her virginity).
just two cents...(and more a statement than anything else...)
I'm a female.
I'm in my thirties.
I'm a virgin.
I suppose I could find someone to "take" it but I want more than that.
I can't seem to find someone for the whole relationship thing though.
I do feel anxiety about being this age and sexually inexperienced.
I can't imagine hiring someone.
I have considered just finding someone to get it over with but then I go back to the wanting more.
So far lack of sex has not killed me but I have days where it would consider chewing my arm off for want.
[Thanks for your take on the question, J. Not everybody feels the way you do, or I do, or Ren does, or Eurosabra, or... or... But I'm not sure we can really understand what's up without everyone's perspective. --fl]