Anyone who imagines “cheap whore” is a worse insult than “whore” is seriously blinded by the dominant paradigm.
Prostitution has tremendously complex role in the “no-sex” class — since antiquity its been used to justify the pressure put on “good” girls. It’s even been sanctioned by, say, Augustine, who felt the “sacrifice” of a “bad’ few women was necessary to preserve the virtue of, well, “virtuous” women.
I’d also like to point out that most of patriarchy’s hold on men is based around the notion that men must earn or achive to have sex: in other words they must prove themselves worthy. (Note: anyone who believes women are the real gatekeepers has never heard the bitterness in their laughter at that particular joke! Or, perhaps more accurately, if they are gatekeepers society makes perfectly clear who owns the gates they’re keeping.) And inside the doctrine of worthiness (in which, incidentally, men and women are, well, indoctrinated) women[**] who fail to make sex scarce are judged extremely harshly.
Thus inside the no-sex class paradigm cheap whore is worse than whore because a non-cheap whore at least fits inside the patriarchal social contract. Whereas “cheap whores” (and, worse, their even less costly counterparts the “sluts”) doubly fail to uphold the system that’s… um… made the world such a much better place for all these millennia?
—-
This post is obviously not an endorsement for prostitution. While not the quintessential expression of the “no-sex” class paradigm as strip teasing (which, literally, boils down to men paying women to get ever nearer to sex without ever quite getting there), prostitution is nevertheless a cornerstone. For that reason, if no other, my strongly held belief prostitution should be legal has nothing to do with endorsing it.
[** Note: I’m curious if homophobia has something to do with (stereotypical) gay men’s failure to withhold sex from other men the way women are “supposed to.” Hmm… —fl]
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-01 19:54.
My impression is that in those situations, it's less homophobia than it is a worry or a given that male partners will simply have sex with someone else, if not with you. And the weight of that possibility is also different in gay male community where often enough, monogamy is considered heterosexual behaviour.
But it's not like withholding doesn't happen in gay male partnerships, either. Just seems to be a LOT less frequent.
[That makes sense, which is more than I can say about how I framed the question. Thanks Heather. --fl]
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-01 21:27.
"... Augustine, who felt the "sacrifice" of a "bad' few women was *necessary* to preserve the virtue of, well, "virtuous" women."
The concept of "good" and "virtuous" women, without a corresponding label of "good" and "virtuous" men, will forever boggle my mind. How can the act be acceptable for one, but make the other "bad?"
A much better place, indeed.
[Well, in the technical/Biblical/economic sense, the idea was that partners of "virtuous" women knew their property was being passed on to their own progeny. In every other sense it's, um, a psychotic crime against humanity to hold men and women so forcefully and so *consequentially* to such double standards. Thanks, Dawn. --fl]
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-01 22:20.
"How can the act be acceptable for one, but make the other "bad?""
Especially when the whole point of the act is to do it with the person it isn't acceptable for. You'd figure at the very least, it ought to be unacceptable for both on the grounds that one shouldn't encourage bad behavior in others.
[I might add that, historically, including Augustine's time and even much of the world today, *men* were believed to be naturally virutous and innocent and *women* were the unscrupulous seducers. (All because you want babies, never anything like sex, of course, but unscrupulous none the less.) Go figure. Thanks, Mickle. --fl]
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-01 23:12.
I think it's interesting to look at a lot of the language surrounding prostitution--prostitutes are referred to as selling "their bodies" or "themselves" a lot more often than "sex." I don't think this is just euphemism.
If having sex with a woman is taking ownership (or at least rental), then clearly the woman with the highest price is the highest quality goods. A "cheap whore" is thus not just a bad lay--she's a bad woman.
...Man, I really wish woman weren't considered "better" the harder they made it to have sex with them. (Nuns I guess being the best of all.) Makes things all difficult when you're a woman and you WANT sex.
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-02 00:22.
"Makes things all difficult when you're a woman and you WANT sex."
Ha! :)
and...it makes things difficult when you are a woman and don't want to have sex as well, since that makes you more "valuable" - which fits right in with the widespread virginity fetish.
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-02 09:06.
Augustine hated women.
[Yes he did. And for reasons we just wouldn't recognize today. Thanks, DN. --fl]
Submitted by 1852 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-02 09:58.
There's a joke I've heard...
A man sees an incredibly beautiful girl sitting at the bar. He goes up to her and says, "You're astoundingly beautiful! I must have you. Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Her reply, looking him up and down, "Of course"
He then says, "How about for ten bucks?"
She says outraged, "What do you think I am!?!"
He replies, "We've already established that, now we're dickering on price!"