This essay first appeared in Cliterati on January 19th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.
For most of human history, nobody thought of taking money for sex as a defining activity. This is not to say that there were no whores, because of course there were; it isn’t called “the world’s oldest profession” for nothing. But it wasn’t the fact that a woman took money for sex which defined her as a whore, but rather the fact that she made a living from it. As I wrote in my Cato Unbound essay, “Treating Sex Work as Work”,
…It was almost universally understood that many working-class women and a not-inconsiderable number of those in higher classes would accept money for sex, at least on occasion, and it was impossible to draw a bright, clear line between behaviors that constituted “prostitution” and those (such as concubinage, mistresshood, and political marriage) which did not despite their often-mercenary basis. The manifold laws regulating sex work were not intended to preclude pragmatic motivations for sexual behavior, but rather to keep up appearances, guard the purity of bloodlines, and maintain public order. But as the Victorian Era dawned, a new idea began to take hold of European minds: if science could perfect Man’s tools and techniques, why couldn’t the same process be applied to Mankind itself? The immediate result of turning (pseudo-)scientific inquiry upon sex was that taking money for it was no longer considered merely something that “unladylike” or “sinful” women did for a living or extra income; instead, the “prostitute” was defined into existence as a specific type of woman, separate and distinct from other women.
Prior to the 19th century, any sexual behavior outside of marriage was considered “sinful”, regardless of its motive, but there were also class considerations; sexual “immorality” was both expected and assumed of working-class women, and whether a girl occasionally asked for money or not could make little difference in the way she was perceived by her so-called “betters”. This is why it was not unusual in pre-industrial cultures for a disgraced upper-class woman to turn to sex work; once she had fallen from her elevated station, taking money for sex did no more harm. But once the idea of “prostitution” as some uniquely disgraceful activity was invented, and the “prostitute” was defined as the lowest of the low, it was inevitable that women who would previously have been considered more or less the same as whores would attempt to draw lines between themselves and the new pariah class. And once governments began to criminalize prostitution or activities around it as a result of the new ideas, distinguishing oneself from a “common prostitute” became a matter not only of dignity, but practical necessity.
The first group to successfully shed the whore stigma was actresses, who had since classical times been considered interchangeable with harlots; after the dawn of cinema they actually moved into a de facto higher social class, especially in the United States. Dancers whose style could be credibly represented as asexual or highbrow (preferably both) followed them, then masseuses and women who had extramarital sex for non-financial reasons. In the past several decades, the number of such groups has exploded and now includes many whose claim to being different from sex workers is threadbare indeed; burlesque dancers, competition pole dancers, glamour and lingerie models, professional “cuddlers”, nude maids, waitresses catering to sexual fantasies and even sugar babies insist that they are different from strippers, hookers and fetish workers in some real (and legally defensible) way. Even people who are directly paid for a hands-on sexual service claim that being “certified” or “spiritual” or whatever makes them not sex workers, and some who cannot possibly deny that they are still pretend to be “better” than other sex workers because they are “legal”, or because they don’t have direct intercourse and parrot “trafficking” propaganda to kiss up to cops. But this example from the January 15th Guardian takes the biscuit: “As a professional dominatrix, I…[know] sex is a human need, and kink can be a meaningful part of the sexual spectrum. We sex workers turn the erotic into a humane and powerful art. [But] too many of us, particularly escorts, are miserable slaves, and we must fight tirelessly for their freedom…” Way to go there, Margaret Corvid; boost yourself up on the backs of all us pathetic, dirty escorts…oh, excuse me, “miserable slaves”. Because only wonderful, superior dominatrices can choose freely, while those of us who prefer to sell more mundane sexual services are clearly dysfunctional. In my essay “Whorearchy” I wrote,
…a whore is a whore is a whore, and legal, moral or procedural lines serve only to break people into smaller groups which are more easily dominated by the power-hungry. If you accept money from someone that he gives due to sexual interest in you, then you are a whore and everything else is just semantics. When politicians, pundits or rulers use some arbitrary determinant like penetration, duration, location or motivation to bless some harlots while damning others, what they’re actually doing is reducing the size of the group who might oppose them and winning supporters from among those granted legitimacy. This is why I’m harshly unsympathetic to those who vehemently maintain that their species of sex work or sensual therapy is absolutely not prostitution: all they’re doing is throwing other women under the bus, and if we had all stuck together from the beginning of second-wave feminism…prostitution would’ve been decriminalized long ago and many women who are now dead or damaged might still be alive and healthy…
As I’ve pointed out before, gay people only won their civil rights by forming a coalition, and until sex workers stop drawing arbitrary lines between each other and accepting the lies and false divisions promoted by those in power, we will never have the same kind of success.
Reminds me of …
“Penetration – however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”
From the UCMJ.
Well I’ll say – you are spot on with this but hookers are an odd lot. I was recently discussing some prostitution busts in NOLA with a hooker. The busts were carried out under the guise of the war on human trafficking – and she lamented the fact that mostly older prostitutes were “netted” in the sting but told me …
“It’s good to see the feds doing their job to find all the underage girls and get them out of this.”
Now, she was a Mom – and had a teenaged daughter that she is very (probably over-protective) of. I didn’t ask her the question – but I’m sure she would have bristled from the thought of her daughter doing the same kind of work that she was doing.
Which brings me to this “mentality of deficiency” that I think most hookers have. When I say “most” – it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen a lot of hookers and I can’t really think of a single one that didn’t have the view that what they were doing – they either had to be doing, or something was wrong within them that made them like to do it.
But they wouldn’t wish it on their daughters.
So it would seem that most prostitutes buy into the line that they are the “lowest of the low”. This is just my experience though – and I did live with a hooker for a few years and she was an AWESOME gal but she felt something hugely abnormal in her wiring existed and she regretted that. Not only that – but she projected that on ME as well. Kind of the old … “I would never join a club that would have me as a member”. In her mind – she was flawed … ergo any man that would commit to her must also be flawed.
Who the fuck isn’t flawed though?
Hey – there ain’t nothing I’ve ever said that has ever changed a hooker’s mind on this. I’ve given speeches – and damn good ones – about how they may be “abnormal” – compared to the “norm” – but they are so much more superior to other women for recognizing the fact that humans are supposed to take advantage of their advantages. But they do not … ever … buy it. They’ll nod their little heads at me and change the subject.
Different hooker … just last month … told me … “My Mom isn’t upset by what I do – but she keeps telling me I’m so much better than this.” I could see that she bought what her Mom was selling. Only thing I could tell her … “Well, I’m better than cleaning septic tanks for a living but I’ll quit my job and clean shit with a smile on my face if I’m getting paid $300 an hour to do it!”
And – I just don’t fucking understand this. It’s MEN who are supposed to put most of their “self-worth” into their jobs – NOT women. I know engineer women who bought the feminist line and got that degree – worked a few years and then decided they wanted their man to take care of them while they shucked the job and started a small picture framing business – or a furniture refinishing business. These women have no problems “stepping down” (and I use that term because I don’t know what else to call it – actually anything that IMPROVES your quality of life is a step UP). I think maybe though – those engineer women had to climb the mountaintop to see that it ain’t all sugar and roses.
> And – I just don’t fucking understand this. It’s MEN who are supposed to put most of their “self-worth” into their jobs – NOT women.
It’s not that they’re ‘better than this’ professionally, it’s that they’re ‘better than this’ sexually.
No I think her Mom was trying to tell her that she had so much on the ball that she didn’t have to be a hooker – she could do something else.
Who’s better (sexually) than a hooker? Well I knew one “free” girl in my life that was every bit as good as one – and maybe the fact that she actually ENJOYED all the freaky things we did made her better – but I can’t say she was tangibly any “better”.
She actually called out escorts as specially oppressed?
Does she even know what the word means?
Not really, no. 🙁
“Which brings me to this “mentality of deficiency” that I think most hookers have. When I say “most” – it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen a lot of hookers and I can’t really think of a single one that didn’t have the view that what they were doing – they either had to be doing, or something was wrong within them that made them like to do it.
“But they wouldn’t wish it on their daughters”
We seem to disagree here. I have met many hookers who were proud of the service they were providing. I have met several who were doing it out of curiosity.
I have met three hookers who shared with me that there mothers were prostitutes. One of them was third generation.
Where do you live? That might be the reason our experiences are different. My US experience with these girls is limited to Hawaii … and the South.
I’m not saying they’re a bunch of “sad sacks” who hate themselves. I’ve found a lot of them that were happy when I enjoyed myself.
Over here in Europe, there definitely are sex workers (often Roma/Sinti) for whom the work is a family tradition.
Creating a hierarchy within their field is a mistake by sex workers. The anti sex crusaders do not make such distinctions. I happened to wander into a debate on another blog and learned the hard way that sex workers are hopelessly divided.
“As I’ve pointed out before, gay people only won their civil rights by forming a coalition, and until sex workers stop drawing arbitrary lines between each other and accepting the lies and false divisions promoted by those in power, we will never have the same kind of success.”
There’s a great deal of truth in this, and also a trap. When forming their coalition, the Gay movement (or some of its constituents) made the mistake of reaching out to NAMBLA. Now, I may be wrong. But it is my perception that the Gay movement has been tainted by this association ever since. I don’t know what the equivalent would be for a Sex Worker coalition, but I think you should consider it carefully.
@Maggie: “As I’ve pointed out before, gay people only won their civil rights by forming a coalition, and until sex workers stop drawing arbitrary lines between each other and accepting the lies and false divisions promoted by those in power, we will never have the same kind of success.”
Absolutely correct, and a long way off, unfortunately. But I admire your efforts and advocacy of such a coalition, Maggie. Keep it up, as discouraging as it often must be to you.
As a sometimes professional dominant and unlicensed masseur who considers sexual contact as part of the job (not all do, to be clear), I consider myself a sex worker when I practice my trade, and I don’t look down on or separate myself from any other sex workers. Not trying to be self-congratulatory here, but it is my view and I wish others, like that Margaret Corvid you quote in your OP, held it. Just goes to show that hypocrisy exists everywhere and in all fields.
@cspschofield: “When forming their coalition, the Gay movement (or some of its constituents) made the mistake of reaching out to NAMBLA. Now, I may be wrong. But it is my perception that the Gay movement has been tainted by this association ever since.”
Well, no one that I know of is discussing such an association when advocating sex-worker unity, but if the NAMBLA association had any long-term negative effect on the GLBT/LGBT movement, it sure doesn’t seem to be slowing down the movement or its social, legislative, and judicial successes, which come almost by the day, at least in the U.S.
I believe it was NAMBLA who tried to ride the coattails of the Gay rights movement; at any rate the Gay rights movement quickly distanced themselves from NAMBLA. There is no equivalent among sex workers. As far as I know, there isn’t a subset of sex workers who cater to underage clients.
Maggie, it’s been a while since I’ve visited, glad to see you’re still on the ball.
As to sex workers thinking of themselves as somehow “lower” than others, I think the opposite of anyone willing to have sex with me, regardless of the reason. Ignoring the positive health benefits (for both genders) of sex and orgasms, the willingness to bring that kind of joy into the life of another is an amazing thing to do; doing it for money with a (relative) stranger (with the attendant risks) shows a bravery and generosity few understand. In general, anybody who thinks another is somehow “lower” than themselves (unless the perceived “lower” class is politicians) are arrogant asswipes which I hope karma catches up with fast enough to leave skid marks on their face.
Shorter Maggie: Sex workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!*
(*unless you’re a pro dom, in which case, don’t lose your chains).
Maggie, how much of this division do you think is internal vs. external? It seems to me there are two pressures here. The internal one of always wanting to think of yourself as being in a “classy” profession — e.g. actresses trying to move into elevated company. And then there’s the external one of divide-and-conquer by the Nanny Staters — i.e., offering legality and a voice to strippers if they turn on whores, or offering it to porn stars if they turn on strippers and vice versa. I keep thinking of Niemöller’s quote.
Both, but I think the lion’s share comes from “authorities” via selective criminalization, hence my call to reject temptation. Without that pressure, the natural tendency to whorearchy could be more easily managed and wouldn’t cause as much damage even when it couldn’t be.
A BDSM type sex worker was smeared by another sex worker for being “out of your depth considering your area of work” and labeled as “privileged” on another blog so it goes both ways, Are BDSM/Dom’s ranked higher on the sex worker “hierarchy” than most of the other types?? Jeez!!