Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1LolaWalser
I bet this is gonna be long and rambly, so apologies in advance... It's not a topic I like to dwell on ("easier" only than rape and female genital mutilation) but it's been on my mind for days and just won't quit and I'm not sure I'll have the nerves for excessive polishing and tightening... in short, here comes a mess of raw thoughts.
It started (as usual...) with picking up a book, Chester Brown's Paying for it: a comic-strip memoir about being a john. Published in 2011, it describes (the claim is: completely truthfully--which, by the way, we should remember does not mean "objectively") Brown's encounters with prostitutes from March 1999 onward. From that time on, he never had sexual contact with a woman who wasn't a prostitute, or tried to "date", have a relationship, or meet anyone not a prostitute.
I'll point out immediately what struck me already in the first chapter, "My last girlfriend", then through the whole book, until getting an unexpected and very welcome explicit confirmation in the opinion of Brown's friend, the comic-book artist Seth--Chester Brown doesn't function with a full complement of human emotions. In Seth's words:
(Seth and a few other friends appear in the book.) One might question then how relevant can his experience be, if he's unusual or extreme--I'll leave that open for now.
Brown's description of how his last relationship ended is odd and unsettling. One day the woman told him she'd fallen in love with another man, wasn't sure where it could lead, but wanted to pursue that relationship, while not being entirely certain, at the moment, that she wanted to break up with Brown immediately. Brown barely reacts at all. No argument, protest, moaning, hurt feelings, jealousy, distress... you might think she informed him they were switching from one brand of cereal to another. OK, so maybe he wasn't all that into her? Seems a logical conclusion, but he tells his friends that he still "loves" her. They figure he's in denial, or wants to wait out for the new flame to disappear or something. But Brown himself reports no such expectations. He seems truly indifferent--you get the sense that she could have picked him up again at any time, or left alone forever, with equally little reaction from him in either case.
He and the woman never have sex again but they continue living together (the house is hers), as the new man gradually moves in.
Overhearing the quarrels his ex is having with the new guy, Brown congratulates himself on escaping the prison of relationships and decides never to have one again--not specifically with this woman but in general. OK, but he's missing sex. He starts thinking about going to a prostitute and in March 1999 has a first encounter.
This is preceded by a lot of phoning around and selecting a woman who sounds attractive to him based on nothing but some numbers: how old (28 is too old for him--indeed, whenever he has a choice he picks 18-22/3 year olds), how heavy (a woman weighing 130 lbs on 5'3" height is too heavy). His first choice is, to his relief, "gorgeous".
The funny thing here is that Brown worries that the women he refuses (over the phone) are going to think he found them unattractive so he scrupulously follows the scenario where he asks about the price last, so that he might seem cheap, rather than that he's picking them over like fruit. But, he doesn't worry at all that that's what he's doing. Do you see what I mean?
Dude, these women KNOW you are assessing them for object-like qualities. THEY have no illusions!
This is Brown protecting his own image of himself as a "nice" person. He doesn't give a hoot that he is ACTUALLY using women like things--only that nobody should think he is using women as things!
What does it mean to use a woman like a thing?
It means to stick your dick into someone who lets you do so for money, not because they want to have sex with you. It means, bizarrely, that you describe your participation in an interaction like that as "having sex"--although the other side does not see it as "having sex". (This basic asymmetry in the prostituted sexual transaction is something Brown seems completely oblivious to, although a few times he comes tantalizingly close to noticing it.)
The proceedings are technical, impassive, no kisses or caresses are exchanged, nor is the woman active in any way beyond the necessary to let Brown get on with it--she spreads her legs, he comes almost immediately, thinking to himself "ohh... I'd forgotten how amazingly good it feels to have sex!"
THAT was the bit the floored me, so much so I stopped reading and didn't finish the book until yesterday (only skimming the appendices where Brown lays out his pro-prostitution/anti-"romantic love" manifesto, just couldn't take it).
OK, so what's the relevance? Well, what is it? Brown may be a rainbow of emotions short of full humanity, but is he that different in what he does from other "johns", those who DO see a difference between prostitution and relationships based on love?
But that's not what interests me personally so much. I was struck by the picture this gives, by how much it horrified me. (Completely the opposite to what Brown, apparently, wanted to achieve.)
It's not the paying to stick his dick into a woman per se that feels so awful. It's how he feels this is "having sex"--or how he's okay with feeling that despite the other person not participating in that view. It's how he at one point tallies what the hookers cost him and compares that favourably to what he spent in relationships--as if it were interchangeable!
I don't know that I have a "conclusion" here... I was caught unprepared for the impression this left on me.
It started (as usual...) with picking up a book, Chester Brown's Paying for it: a comic-strip memoir about being a john. Published in 2011, it describes (the claim is: completely truthfully--which, by the way, we should remember does not mean "objectively") Brown's encounters with prostitutes from March 1999 onward. From that time on, he never had sexual contact with a woman who wasn't a prostitute, or tried to "date", have a relationship, or meet anyone not a prostitute.
I'll point out immediately what struck me already in the first chapter, "My last girlfriend", then through the whole book, until getting an unexpected and very welcome explicit confirmation in the opinion of Brown's friend, the comic-book artist Seth--Chester Brown doesn't function with a full complement of human emotions. In Seth's words:
I may have believed Chet was repressing the expected emotions back then, but my opinion has altered over the years. I often jokingly refer to Chet as "the robot". In posing a question to him I might quip, "Perhaps I should ask a person who has actual human emotions instead." The truth is, Chester seems to have a very limited emotional range compared to most people. There does seem to be something wrong with him. He's definitely an oddball. That said, he is also the kindest, gentlest and most deeply thoughtful oddball I know. Perhaps he is missing something in his emotional makeup, perhaps not. Who can say what is natural and what is learned behaviour? I'll say this--he really doesn't appear to be suffering. You can't argue with that.
(Seth and a few other friends appear in the book.) One might question then how relevant can his experience be, if he's unusual or extreme--I'll leave that open for now.
Brown's description of how his last relationship ended is odd and unsettling. One day the woman told him she'd fallen in love with another man, wasn't sure where it could lead, but wanted to pursue that relationship, while not being entirely certain, at the moment, that she wanted to break up with Brown immediately. Brown barely reacts at all. No argument, protest, moaning, hurt feelings, jealousy, distress... you might think she informed him they were switching from one brand of cereal to another. OK, so maybe he wasn't all that into her? Seems a logical conclusion, but he tells his friends that he still "loves" her. They figure he's in denial, or wants to wait out for the new flame to disappear or something. But Brown himself reports no such expectations. He seems truly indifferent--you get the sense that she could have picked him up again at any time, or left alone forever, with equally little reaction from him in either case.
He and the woman never have sex again but they continue living together (the house is hers), as the new man gradually moves in.
Overhearing the quarrels his ex is having with the new guy, Brown congratulates himself on escaping the prison of relationships and decides never to have one again--not specifically with this woman but in general. OK, but he's missing sex. He starts thinking about going to a prostitute and in March 1999 has a first encounter.
This is preceded by a lot of phoning around and selecting a woman who sounds attractive to him based on nothing but some numbers: how old (28 is too old for him--indeed, whenever he has a choice he picks 18-22/3 year olds), how heavy (a woman weighing 130 lbs on 5'3" height is too heavy). His first choice is, to his relief, "gorgeous".
The funny thing here is that Brown worries that the women he refuses (over the phone) are going to think he found them unattractive so he scrupulously follows the scenario where he asks about the price last, so that he might seem cheap, rather than that he's picking them over like fruit. But, he doesn't worry at all that that's what he's doing. Do you see what I mean?
Dude, these women KNOW you are assessing them for object-like qualities. THEY have no illusions!
This is Brown protecting his own image of himself as a "nice" person. He doesn't give a hoot that he is ACTUALLY using women like things--only that nobody should think he is using women as things!
What does it mean to use a woman like a thing?
It means to stick your dick into someone who lets you do so for money, not because they want to have sex with you. It means, bizarrely, that you describe your participation in an interaction like that as "having sex"--although the other side does not see it as "having sex". (This basic asymmetry in the prostituted sexual transaction is something Brown seems completely oblivious to, although a few times he comes tantalizingly close to noticing it.)
The proceedings are technical, impassive, no kisses or caresses are exchanged, nor is the woman active in any way beyond the necessary to let Brown get on with it--she spreads her legs, he comes almost immediately, thinking to himself "ohh... I'd forgotten how amazingly good it feels to have sex!"
THAT was the bit the floored me, so much so I stopped reading and didn't finish the book until yesterday (only skimming the appendices where Brown lays out his pro-prostitution/anti-"romantic love" manifesto, just couldn't take it).
OK, so what's the relevance? Well, what is it? Brown may be a rainbow of emotions short of full humanity, but is he that different in what he does from other "johns", those who DO see a difference between prostitution and relationships based on love?
But that's not what interests me personally so much. I was struck by the picture this gives, by how much it horrified me. (Completely the opposite to what Brown, apparently, wanted to achieve.)
It's not the paying to stick his dick into a woman per se that feels so awful. It's how he feels this is "having sex"--or how he's okay with feeling that despite the other person not participating in that view. It's how he at one point tallies what the hookers cost him and compares that favourably to what he spent in relationships--as if it were interchangeable!
I don't know that I have a "conclusion" here... I was caught unprepared for the impression this left on me.
2librorumamans
>1 LolaWalser: I don't know that I have a "conclusion" here... I was caught unprepared for the impression this left on me.
Yes, I can see that. This post is much less precise than your posts generally are.
This is a sensitive issue, so please feel free to ignore me.
A distinction that I make, and that you do not above, is between "having sex" and "making love". So, while Brown as you describe him, does not by a mile come close to making love (something he's perhaps never done), he has been — just — within the boundary of having sex, viz sticking his dick into another person with her consent. That's how I, at least, would use the terms. But, really, what he's doing as you describe it is masturbating. What makes the deal weird and questionable for me is his need to have another person involved to make masturbating possible.
There's more I could say, but this is your topic. You might try, if you wish, to tease out your emotional response to Brown and his book so that it's a bit clearer for the rest of us what you're trying to focus on.
Slight edit
Yes, I can see that. This post is much less precise than your posts generally are.
This is a sensitive issue, so please feel free to ignore me.
A distinction that I make, and that you do not above, is between "having sex" and "making love". So, while Brown as you describe him, does not by a mile come close to making love (something he's perhaps never done), he has been — just — within the boundary of having sex, viz sticking his dick into another person with her consent. That's how I, at least, would use the terms. But, really, what he's doing as you describe it is masturbating. What makes the deal weird and questionable for me is his need to have another person involved to make masturbating possible.
There's more I could say, but this is your topic. You might try, if you wish, to tease out your emotional response to Brown and his book so that it's a bit clearer for the rest of us what you're trying to focus on.
Slight edit
3LolaWalser
>2 librorumamans:
Thanks first for wading through the above!
A distinction that I make, and that you do not above, is between "having sex" and "making love".
I think I understand your point... I should say I agree there's a distinction between "having sex" and "making love" but that, to me, these both are more in relation to each other than to a prostituted sexual transaction.
The main thing here is reciprocity, equality of perspective. People don't have to be in love (or be simultaneously in love) in order to have sex, or in order to agree that what they are doing is having sex.
So, to me the difference between having sex/making love and the prostituted sexual transaction isn't necessarily in the "emotional" content (a john could even be in love with a prostitute or vice versa, and obviously lots of people who pick each other up for "unpaid" sex are just satisfying a physical appetite), but in the presence or absence of this basic reciprocity in perspective.
While Brown is, in his opinion, "having sex", the prostitute is doing a job, a chore. This--how the prostitute experiences the transaction--comes across very pointedly many times in his account (but Brown doesn't think about it). For example, after his first appointment's success, Brown arranges a second and a third meeting with the same woman. Because the first time he finished so quickly, he prepares himself to "last longer", masturbating before going to see her. The second time, therefore, it takes him about twenty minutes--much longer than the first time. At the third meeting the woman explodes--why is he stopping? (Another device to help him prolong the act.) Why is he taking so long?
Brown is confused and thinks to himself that perhaps he should limit the fucking (his word) to no more than ten minutes.
But he doesn't wonder WHY. It doesn't occur to him that what is pleasure to him is not the same thing to her. That is, it's not that he's deluding himself that she too is actually PLEASED, having fun or whatnot; he's not thinking that at all. It's that he leaves the woman and the fact that she is doing this for money (and not for pleasure) completely out of it.
The idea that fucking for thirty minutes when it's not something you want to be doing could be unpleasant doesn't cross his mind.
Similarly, he describes several women who (he guesses) tried to get him off quickly via oral sex so that he wouldn't fuck them. He notes this, but always stops short from drawing the obvious conclusion--that, although women do this job, it's not necessarily something they enjoy doing.
I guess the problem with the phrase "having sex" is that it IS applied to sex between enthusiastic partners. It's an ordinary phrase and can even be used synonymously with "making love".
But this is why it's problematic to hear it used in regard with prostitution, or (as was discussed once before, in another group I think) rape. Rapists may say or believe they've "had sex" with their victims; the victims' perspective is completely different. I don't mean to equate rape and prostitution--I just want to describe what reciprocity/lack of it in perspective, means.
To be sure, Brown's sexual transactions are with women apparently willing to be prostitutes. But they STILL don't seem to think they are "having sex" with him, that what they let him do to them or what they do to him, for money, is on the same plane with what they do with their partners. He mentions that "no kissing" is the usual rule (when an "outcall" girl kisses him it's a surprise--but "outcalls" seem to have different rules as well as lower prices than the girls in brothels and apartments), so is no eye contact, no real names etc.
Your point about masturbation is well taken. That is exactly what it looks like, the difference being that instead of a hand, sock, rubber duck, raw chicken or a piece of liver, at the end of his dick Brown has a living, breathing human being. Apparently this means something to him and I don't want to minimize it unnecessarily. But it "means" only physically. A whole warm female body is clearly something different to a plastic vagina.
However, that whole woman is nevertheless not necessarily "having sex" with the john any more than a plastic sex toy would.
Thanks first for wading through the above!
A distinction that I make, and that you do not above, is between "having sex" and "making love".
I think I understand your point... I should say I agree there's a distinction between "having sex" and "making love" but that, to me, these both are more in relation to each other than to a prostituted sexual transaction.
The main thing here is reciprocity, equality of perspective. People don't have to be in love (or be simultaneously in love) in order to have sex, or in order to agree that what they are doing is having sex.
So, to me the difference between having sex/making love and the prostituted sexual transaction isn't necessarily in the "emotional" content (a john could even be in love with a prostitute or vice versa, and obviously lots of people who pick each other up for "unpaid" sex are just satisfying a physical appetite), but in the presence or absence of this basic reciprocity in perspective.
While Brown is, in his opinion, "having sex", the prostitute is doing a job, a chore. This--how the prostitute experiences the transaction--comes across very pointedly many times in his account (but Brown doesn't think about it). For example, after his first appointment's success, Brown arranges a second and a third meeting with the same woman. Because the first time he finished so quickly, he prepares himself to "last longer", masturbating before going to see her. The second time, therefore, it takes him about twenty minutes--much longer than the first time. At the third meeting the woman explodes--why is he stopping? (Another device to help him prolong the act.) Why is he taking so long?
Brown is confused and thinks to himself that perhaps he should limit the fucking (his word) to no more than ten minutes.
But he doesn't wonder WHY. It doesn't occur to him that what is pleasure to him is not the same thing to her. That is, it's not that he's deluding himself that she too is actually PLEASED, having fun or whatnot; he's not thinking that at all. It's that he leaves the woman and the fact that she is doing this for money (and not for pleasure) completely out of it.
The idea that fucking for thirty minutes when it's not something you want to be doing could be unpleasant doesn't cross his mind.
Similarly, he describes several women who (he guesses) tried to get him off quickly via oral sex so that he wouldn't fuck them. He notes this, but always stops short from drawing the obvious conclusion--that, although women do this job, it's not necessarily something they enjoy doing.
I guess the problem with the phrase "having sex" is that it IS applied to sex between enthusiastic partners. It's an ordinary phrase and can even be used synonymously with "making love".
But this is why it's problematic to hear it used in regard with prostitution, or (as was discussed once before, in another group I think) rape. Rapists may say or believe they've "had sex" with their victims; the victims' perspective is completely different. I don't mean to equate rape and prostitution--I just want to describe what reciprocity/lack of it in perspective, means.
To be sure, Brown's sexual transactions are with women apparently willing to be prostitutes. But they STILL don't seem to think they are "having sex" with him, that what they let him do to them or what they do to him, for money, is on the same plane with what they do with their partners. He mentions that "no kissing" is the usual rule (when an "outcall" girl kisses him it's a surprise--but "outcalls" seem to have different rules as well as lower prices than the girls in brothels and apartments), so is no eye contact, no real names etc.
Your point about masturbation is well taken. That is exactly what it looks like, the difference being that instead of a hand, sock, rubber duck, raw chicken or a piece of liver, at the end of his dick Brown has a living, breathing human being. Apparently this means something to him and I don't want to minimize it unnecessarily. But it "means" only physically. A whole warm female body is clearly something different to a plastic vagina.
However, that whole woman is nevertheless not necessarily "having sex" with the john any more than a plastic sex toy would.
4librorumamans
The mutual engagement is crucial; and by the way you describe the interactions in the book there appears to have been no engagement on either side in a meaningful way.
Being shut down and disconnected from one's body is pretty common in our culture as I see things. It's a besetting problem.
For a number of years I was much involved with Body Electric and served as staff in quite a few workshops. The men who actually have the courage to turn up for a BE workshop are already a tiny, self-selected segment of the population, who, moreover, are already aware that it might be possible to be in a different relationship with one's physical and erotic self. And yet — and yet — for some of these it's a huge uphill struggle to connect even briefly in a super-safe space with themselves or another person.
If I extrapolate from what I've observed over and over, then Brown is representative of an unfortunately, and tragically, large chunk of men in our culture (although his literary portrayal of himself may put him at an extreme standard deviation).
Personally, I think this erotic disconnection, not only but particularly, among men is a major factor in a whole bunch of societal ills that we are failing to usefully address.
Being shut down and disconnected from one's body is pretty common in our culture as I see things. It's a besetting problem.
For a number of years I was much involved with Body Electric and served as staff in quite a few workshops. The men who actually have the courage to turn up for a BE workshop are already a tiny, self-selected segment of the population, who, moreover, are already aware that it might be possible to be in a different relationship with one's physical and erotic self. And yet — and yet — for some of these it's a huge uphill struggle to connect even briefly in a super-safe space with themselves or another person.
If I extrapolate from what I've observed over and over, then Brown is representative of an unfortunately, and tragically, large chunk of men in our culture (although his literary portrayal of himself may put him at an extreme standard deviation).
Personally, I think this erotic disconnection, not only but particularly, among men is a major factor in a whole bunch of societal ills that we are failing to usefully address.
5LolaWalser
>4 librorumamans:
The mutual engagement is crucial; and by the way you describe the interactions in the book there appears to have been no engagement on either side in a meaningful way.
Hmm, well, I'm not sure whether prostitutes ever or routinely have "meaningful" engagements with their customers... and vice versa... But in comparison with a "regular" relationship between two people, no, I guess it's not meaningful in that sense.
Being shut down and disconnected from one's body is pretty common in our culture as I see things.
I wouldn't say Brown is disconnected from his body, but then there's the mystery of what precisely the mind/body separation means or entails, so who knows... It seems clear at least that it's widely noted he doesn't have a full deck emotionally (besides Seth's comment that I quoted, from the appendix, Brown reports remarks from several other friends within the book, all wondering and more or less uncomprehending about how and why he does it), so, I hesitate to take him for being representative of the majority--at least, he's in clear minority among his own friends! That must mean something.
Even if this kind of thinking, this "ability" to objectify another and enjoy an unreciprocated sexual transaction is common among men, it doesn't necessarily mean even those men are all like Brown, emotional cripples of some sort. Or that, if they are, it's because of some inborn quirk rather than learned behaviour (Seth, for example, isn't sure whether it's one or the other with Brown).
The mutual engagement is crucial; and by the way you describe the interactions in the book there appears to have been no engagement on either side in a meaningful way.
Hmm, well, I'm not sure whether prostitutes ever or routinely have "meaningful" engagements with their customers... and vice versa... But in comparison with a "regular" relationship between two people, no, I guess it's not meaningful in that sense.
Being shut down and disconnected from one's body is pretty common in our culture as I see things.
I wouldn't say Brown is disconnected from his body, but then there's the mystery of what precisely the mind/body separation means or entails, so who knows... It seems clear at least that it's widely noted he doesn't have a full deck emotionally (besides Seth's comment that I quoted, from the appendix, Brown reports remarks from several other friends within the book, all wondering and more or less uncomprehending about how and why he does it), so, I hesitate to take him for being representative of the majority--at least, he's in clear minority among his own friends! That must mean something.
Even if this kind of thinking, this "ability" to objectify another and enjoy an unreciprocated sexual transaction is common among men, it doesn't necessarily mean even those men are all like Brown, emotional cripples of some sort. Or that, if they are, it's because of some inborn quirk rather than learned behaviour (Seth, for example, isn't sure whether it's one or the other with Brown).
6librorumamans
>5 LolaWalser: Yes, okay.
I was using "meaningful" loosely as a kind of hedge word since it would be inaccurate to say that there was no engagement at all.
"Disconnected" is a word that people in my circle use not in a philosophical or precisely neurological sense but to convey the condition of being to some extent unfocused, unaware, unmindful of what's going on in and around their bodies and themselves. It's something I also see commonly in dance classes. People often need a good deal of time to become "present" (and there's another loose term) to themselves and the space they're in. Being present to and for another in an intimate, erotic situation is both very scary and, when it happens, very wonderful. Of course.
I was using "meaningful" loosely as a kind of hedge word since it would be inaccurate to say that there was no engagement at all.
"Disconnected" is a word that people in my circle use not in a philosophical or precisely neurological sense but to convey the condition of being to some extent unfocused, unaware, unmindful of what's going on in and around their bodies and themselves. It's something I also see commonly in dance classes. People often need a good deal of time to become "present" (and there's another loose term) to themselves and the space they're in. Being present to and for another in an intimate, erotic situation is both very scary and, when it happens, very wonderful. Of course.
7librorumamans
>4 librorumamans:
I'd like to go back to my earlier post.
I'm aware on further thought that (leaving aside Mr Brown for a moment) I have complex reactions to the sort of engagement you described and that I addressed in #4.
I don't withdraw what I said about mutual engagement. But I would also like to leave a place for more or less anonymous sex whether it happens in bushes or beaches or bathhouses.
Absent the cash transaction, how different are most of these interactions from Brown's slam-bam experiences? Some are, of course; I know of more than one long-term relationship that began in the dunes. But the back areas of bathhouses I find pretty depressing with their roundabout of, as I interpret, lonely and isolated men trying to find someone to connect with even for a few moments.
But going to the baths can be much more, as in Mark Doty's brilliant "Homo will not inherit" (full text here).
This takes us away from Mr Brown and the concerns of your original post, but they are ideas I wanted to explore.
I'd like to go back to my earlier post.
I'm aware on further thought that (leaving aside Mr Brown for a moment) I have complex reactions to the sort of engagement you described and that I addressed in #4.
I don't withdraw what I said about mutual engagement. But I would also like to leave a place for more or less anonymous sex whether it happens in bushes or beaches or bathhouses.
Absent the cash transaction, how different are most of these interactions from Brown's slam-bam experiences? Some are, of course; I know of more than one long-term relationship that began in the dunes. But the back areas of bathhouses I find pretty depressing with their roundabout of, as I interpret, lonely and isolated men trying to find someone to connect with even for a few moments.
But going to the baths can be much more, as in Mark Doty's brilliant "Homo will not inherit" (full text here).
This takes us away from Mr Brown and the concerns of your original post, but they are ideas I wanted to explore.
8LolaWalser
>7 librorumamans:
Absent the cash transaction, how different are most of these interactions from Brown's slam-bam experiences?
Oh, I would say, entirely different! The people in the bushes are exchanging sex for sex, desire for desire. Again--the problem, as I see it, isn't the lack of "love", "meaningfulness" etc. but the asymmetry in perspective, in what is being experienced. As I wrote:
People having anonymous sex, sex "in the bushes", loveless sex, bar-pick-up sex, one-night-stand sex, boring domestic sex long emptied of passion etc.--all of this belongs/can belong in the same category with the most romantic "making love" from the point of equality of perspective.
Two people meeting in the bushes for quick anonymous sex are probably on the same page, wanting the same thing--certainly in that moment. Two people deeply in love making love, likewise. If you asked each of them what they were doing, it's probable there wouldn't be a drastic discrepancy in how they identify the experience (i.e. how they answer "what are you doing", whether they'd each agree they are, at least, "having sex" etc.)
This is not to say that one or the other might not be feeling more or less pleasure or be more or less emotionally involved--but that's not the point. It's really only a question whether the involved parties would recognise a shared perspective on what it is they are doing. Whether X has an orgasm and Y doesn't, whether X is in love and Y is just "in lust", and so on in various permutations, as long as they share this basic perspective, as long as they feel that they have engaged together in the same activity, they have.
But the back areas of bathhouses I find pretty depressing with their roundabout of, as I interpret, lonely and isolated men trying to find someone to connect with even for a few moments.
Right, but the point is, they are ALL trying to find someone to connect with (briefly or long term). Brown's prostitutes (and, I presume, prostitutes in general) aren't looking to "connect" with him/their customers in this way, for those reasons. They are there because they need to make a buck, and this is how they make it.
Mark Doty's brilliant "Homo will not inherit"
Yes, Doty is great.
No, I think I understand how one thing led to another and your juxtaposition seems to me an obvious comparison to raise and explore. My conclusion is that those are different things, at least in the case of prostituted transactions such as Brown has (or had--at the end of the book he's "monogamous" with a prostitute who also stops meeting other clients--but still he pays her for sex, and insists this is how he prefers it.)
Absent the cash transaction, how different are most of these interactions from Brown's slam-bam experiences?
Oh, I would say, entirely different! The people in the bushes are exchanging sex for sex, desire for desire. Again--the problem, as I see it, isn't the lack of "love", "meaningfulness" etc. but the asymmetry in perspective, in what is being experienced. As I wrote:
People don't have to be in love (or be simultaneously in love) in order to have sex, or in order to agree that what they are doing is having sex. So, to me the difference between having sex/making love and the prostituted sexual transaction isn't necessarily in the "emotional" content (a john could even be in love with a prostitute or vice versa, and obviously lots of people who pick each other up for "unpaid" sex are just satisfying a physical appetite), but in the presence or absence of this basic reciprocity in perspective.
People having anonymous sex, sex "in the bushes", loveless sex, bar-pick-up sex, one-night-stand sex, boring domestic sex long emptied of passion etc.--all of this belongs/can belong in the same category with the most romantic "making love" from the point of equality of perspective.
Two people meeting in the bushes for quick anonymous sex are probably on the same page, wanting the same thing--certainly in that moment. Two people deeply in love making love, likewise. If you asked each of them what they were doing, it's probable there wouldn't be a drastic discrepancy in how they identify the experience (i.e. how they answer "what are you doing", whether they'd each agree they are, at least, "having sex" etc.)
This is not to say that one or the other might not be feeling more or less pleasure or be more or less emotionally involved--but that's not the point. It's really only a question whether the involved parties would recognise a shared perspective on what it is they are doing. Whether X has an orgasm and Y doesn't, whether X is in love and Y is just "in lust", and so on in various permutations, as long as they share this basic perspective, as long as they feel that they have engaged together in the same activity, they have.
But the back areas of bathhouses I find pretty depressing with their roundabout of, as I interpret, lonely and isolated men trying to find someone to connect with even for a few moments.
Right, but the point is, they are ALL trying to find someone to connect with (briefly or long term). Brown's prostitutes (and, I presume, prostitutes in general) aren't looking to "connect" with him/their customers in this way, for those reasons. They are there because they need to make a buck, and this is how they make it.
Mark Doty's brilliant "Homo will not inherit"
Yes, Doty is great.
No, I think I understand how one thing led to another and your juxtaposition seems to me an obvious comparison to raise and explore. My conclusion is that those are different things, at least in the case of prostituted transactions such as Brown has (or had--at the end of the book he's "monogamous" with a prostitute who also stops meeting other clients--but still he pays her for sex, and insists this is how he prefers it.)
9librorumamans
I haven't read Paying for it and during these past few busy — & brass-monkey-freezing — days, I've been wondering at what point the word 'prostitute' enters: in the book do the women (in Brown's words) call themselves prostitutes; does Brown explicitly identify them as prostitutes in addition to the implication in his title?
I ask because 'prostitute' is not a word I much like, preferring instead 'sex worker' wherever possible.
I ask because 'prostitute' is not a word I much like, preferring instead 'sex worker' wherever possible.
10LolaWalser
Hey, just noticed your post, sorry about the delay.
Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me any more, but I can say at least that my impression is that "prostitute" is what Brown mostly calls them. Their input is minimal and shaped by Brown anyway, so no idea about personal preferences.
I've looked at Goodreads reviews now and one notes that Brown's language goes from "sex workers" (I don't recall this) to "prostitutes" (as I said, predominant use, in my impression) to "whores" by the end (I don't recall a specific instance, but then I wasn't paying much attention in the last part--and I skipped most of the tirade in the appendices. Still odd that I'd miss it, but not impossible.)
By the way, I've gone from bewilderment/bemusement to outright detesting Brown in the meantime. Arsehole better not cross my path. :)
I'm dismayed by the high rating this shit has on LT. Even purely as comic art it's lousy.
Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me any more, but I can say at least that my impression is that "prostitute" is what Brown mostly calls them. Their input is minimal and shaped by Brown anyway, so no idea about personal preferences.
I've looked at Goodreads reviews now and one notes that Brown's language goes from "sex workers" (I don't recall this) to "prostitutes" (as I said, predominant use, in my impression) to "whores" by the end (I don't recall a specific instance, but then I wasn't paying much attention in the last part--and I skipped most of the tirade in the appendices. Still odd that I'd miss it, but not impossible.)
By the way, I've gone from bewilderment/bemusement to outright detesting Brown in the meantime. Arsehole better not cross my path. :)
I'm dismayed by the high rating this shit has on LT. Even purely as comic art it's lousy.
11librorumamans
>10 LolaWalser: Thanks!
The progression in terminology is certainly interesting.
Based on your enthusiasm, I'm definitely putting this one in my TBR pile — at the bottom.
The progression in terminology is certainly interesting.
Based on your enthusiasm, I'm definitely putting this one in my TBR pile — at the bottom.
12overlycriticalelisa
I ask because 'prostitute' is not a word I much like, preferring instead 'sex worker' wherever possible.
i use "prostituted woman" until i know that no one other than said woman is the one benefiting from her experiences, and then i'm ok using "sex worker" if she does.
i use "prostituted woman" until i know that no one other than said woman is the one benefiting from her experiences, and then i'm ok using "sex worker" if she does.
13LolaWalser
>11 librorumamans:
Ahh, I always feel bad when I put someone off reading--it COULD be an interesting read, if--I don't know--one had an interest in aberrant psychology, for instance. But as a manifesto FOR prostitution, especially accompanied with the movement to "demote" romantic love... I'm guessing it can't be said to speak to the masses.
I borrowed it from the library--I would not recommend buying it.
>12 overlycriticalelisa:
Any chance you read it, elisa? If you encounter in your work people who are/have been in prostitution, it could be interesting to you especially, although as I noted above repeatedly, I'm not sure how relevant those arguments may be if Brown is recognised as a peculiar character, someone of non-average psychology. Then again, he IS a "john" (almost twenty years now), so at least one type among them.
Ahh, I always feel bad when I put someone off reading--it COULD be an interesting read, if--I don't know--one had an interest in aberrant psychology, for instance. But as a manifesto FOR prostitution, especially accompanied with the movement to "demote" romantic love... I'm guessing it can't be said to speak to the masses.
I borrowed it from the library--I would not recommend buying it.
>12 overlycriticalelisa:
Any chance you read it, elisa? If you encounter in your work people who are/have been in prostitution, it could be interesting to you especially, although as I noted above repeatedly, I'm not sure how relevant those arguments may be if Brown is recognised as a peculiar character, someone of non-average psychology. Then again, he IS a "john" (almost twenty years now), so at least one type among them.
14overlycriticalelisa
>13 LolaWalser:
no, i hadn't even heard of it until your original post. i won't be reading it. i feel i get enough of the john's perspective from everyday rape culture. i also am aware that i'm a little ... unable to see the gray when it comes to pornography and prostitution and think it's generally better for me and anyone engaging with me for me to steer clear of it. (i almost didn't click on this topic; took me a couple of days.) i tend to be of the andrea dworkin camp that all prostitution is rape, full stop. and i don't want to read a rapist memoir of his rapes. so.
no, i hadn't even heard of it until your original post. i won't be reading it. i feel i get enough of the john's perspective from everyday rape culture. i also am aware that i'm a little ... unable to see the gray when it comes to pornography and prostitution and think it's generally better for me and anyone engaging with me for me to steer clear of it. (i almost didn't click on this topic; took me a couple of days.) i tend to be of the andrea dworkin camp that all prostitution is rape, full stop. and i don't want to read a rapist memoir of his rapes. so.
15LolaWalser
>14 overlycriticalelisa:
I understand. Weirdly--as I said, it had a completely different effect on me than what Brown obviously intended--I think NOW I understand better what you mean than I would have if I'd never read his "apology for prostitution".
I understand. Weirdly--as I said, it had a completely different effect on me than what Brown obviously intended--I think NOW I understand better what you mean than I would have if I'd never read his "apology for prostitution".
16overlycriticalelisa
>15 LolaWalser:
most of me feels like anyone who gets close enough to (pornography and) prostitution will feel or at least understand that position better after having gotten close. but i know that plenty of people don't...
most of me feels like anyone who gets close enough to (pornography and) prostitution will feel or at least understand that position better after having gotten close. but i know that plenty of people don't...
17LolaWalser
Well, I know we've been over pornography before and I think we agree partly--but also partly disagree. :)
Regarding prostitution, it's funny how INTENSELY Brown's book drove home to me what an aggression on and degradation of another person it is--when he obviously wanted to convey how nice and clean and fair his using of prostitutes is.
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount entirely the fact that some people insist that selling the use of their bodies is their pleasure, what they want to do etc.
Take this woman for instance: Sex worker and activist Laura Lee: ‘It’s now far more difficult to stay safe’
Is she a "sex worker" because she never in her entire life could find another job? I doubt it...
Regarding prostitution, it's funny how INTENSELY Brown's book drove home to me what an aggression on and degradation of another person it is--when he obviously wanted to convey how nice and clean and fair his using of prostitutes is.
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount entirely the fact that some people insist that selling the use of their bodies is their pleasure, what they want to do etc.
Take this woman for instance: Sex worker and activist Laura Lee: ‘It’s now far more difficult to stay safe’
Is she a "sex worker" because she never in her entire life could find another job? I doubt it...
18overlycriticalelisa
>17 LolaWalser: yes, we partly dis/agree. but respectfully, of course. =)
for me, the line is very thin, if it exists at all, between pornography and prostitution.
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount entirely the fact that some people insist that selling the use of their bodies is their pleasure, what they want to do etc.
yes, so this is obviously problematic for people who say (like she cites in the article you linked to) that no one wants this or chooses this or that enacting laws like the one the article talks about (and that i support) protect women who don't acknowledge that they need or want protection. i know that when i worked with this population a few years ago that the numbers cited (not just by anti people) were that 1-2% of people in the industry would choose to be there if they had other viable options. so that's not a big number, but it's also not 0.
i think, from my experience, that she's right in that the voices of people in the industry are often overlooked or shut down. i know i'm guilty of this in a way that i'm not when it comes to other forms of oppression (not that i'm perfect in those arenas either). i make excuses for doing that ("she has to say that she wants to do it while she's in it, otherwise it's too traumatic") that feel like truth and like i'm coming from a good place, but in the end, i'm still shutting down her voice. i don't know where the balance is here, because the vast, vast majority of people do not or would not choose this if there were other options and that is hugely important to me. i don't know how to - from a legal/activist standpoint - honor both.
i also am starting to think that since i've stopped working with this population (something like 5 years now) that there might actually be a shift in that 1-2% number i cited above. i don't know if it's because i'm not close to it anymore, but i'm hearing different things from people that make me think that it's a much larger number of women now who really do choose it, or at least who aren't beholden to a pimp. but that's just an impression i've recently been getting and am not sure how based in fact it is.
not sure what i'm meaning to say here...
for me, the line is very thin, if it exists at all, between pornography and prostitution.
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount entirely the fact that some people insist that selling the use of their bodies is their pleasure, what they want to do etc.
yes, so this is obviously problematic for people who say (like she cites in the article you linked to) that no one wants this or chooses this or that enacting laws like the one the article talks about (and that i support) protect women who don't acknowledge that they need or want protection. i know that when i worked with this population a few years ago that the numbers cited (not just by anti people) were that 1-2% of people in the industry would choose to be there if they had other viable options. so that's not a big number, but it's also not 0.
i think, from my experience, that she's right in that the voices of people in the industry are often overlooked or shut down. i know i'm guilty of this in a way that i'm not when it comes to other forms of oppression (not that i'm perfect in those arenas either). i make excuses for doing that ("she has to say that she wants to do it while she's in it, otherwise it's too traumatic") that feel like truth and like i'm coming from a good place, but in the end, i'm still shutting down her voice. i don't know where the balance is here, because the vast, vast majority of people do not or would not choose this if there were other options and that is hugely important to me. i don't know how to - from a legal/activist standpoint - honor both.
i also am starting to think that since i've stopped working with this population (something like 5 years now) that there might actually be a shift in that 1-2% number i cited above. i don't know if it's because i'm not close to it anymore, but i'm hearing different things from people that make me think that it's a much larger number of women now who really do choose it, or at least who aren't beholden to a pimp. but that's just an impression i've recently been getting and am not sure how based in fact it is.
not sure what i'm meaning to say here...
19librorumamans
>17 LolaWalser: Interesting article; thanks for the link.
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount ...
This is why I prefer to narrow the scope of 'prostitute' to something like >12 overlycriticalelisa:. I expect that if I made a list I'd find that I know as friends (none as a client) at least a couple of dozen people, men and women, whom the law would view as sex workers. All of them do their work volitionally and also, I believe, vocationally — that is, as a calling.
Sex trafficking and pimping are terrible activities that need to be pursued and ideally prevented. Nonetheless, when people in the media or elsewhere extrapolate from those crimes to condemn all commercial sex work, I do feel driven to respond, "Yes, but ... "
Cross-posted with >18 overlycriticalelisa:
That said, I don't think it's possible to discount ...
This is why I prefer to narrow the scope of 'prostitute' to something like >12 overlycriticalelisa:. I expect that if I made a list I'd find that I know as friends (none as a client) at least a couple of dozen people, men and women, whom the law would view as sex workers. All of them do their work volitionally and also, I believe, vocationally — that is, as a calling.
Sex trafficking and pimping are terrible activities that need to be pursued and ideally prevented. Nonetheless, when people in the media or elsewhere extrapolate from those crimes to condemn all commercial sex work, I do feel driven to respond, "Yes, but ... "
Cross-posted with >18 overlycriticalelisa:
20LolaWalser
Well, I don't get how prostitution can be anyone's "calling". I mean, I have to imagine some truly extraordinary psychological or philosophical or religious motivation for something like that. This, of course, could just reflect my limitations.
Anyway, I think Elisa points to what matters--how many prostitutes are in it for the calling, vs. how many would have chosen otherwise if they truly could choose.
But what does choice mean anyway in a world that is unequal, unfree and unjust to begin with, in regard to the class from which most prostitutes derive? What "choice" did or do women sold to the brothels or raped or impoverished out of society have?
No... the more I think about it the less possible it seems to consider prostitution--EVER--as a "free" choice.
I don't know--maybe in some utopian future, presumably class-less and with all big economic problems solved. Where every single "sex worker" is in it for--as dirty bourgeois tradition pretended all the time--kicks and personal pleasure, out of innate vocation. And where such an individual is always entirely in charge and can refuse anyone and not starve or suffer for it in any way.
But isn't everyone going to have stables of sex robots by then? You know, that could be the best use for them yet.
Anyway, I think Elisa points to what matters--how many prostitutes are in it for the calling, vs. how many would have chosen otherwise if they truly could choose.
But what does choice mean anyway in a world that is unequal, unfree and unjust to begin with, in regard to the class from which most prostitutes derive? What "choice" did or do women sold to the brothels or raped or impoverished out of society have?
No... the more I think about it the less possible it seems to consider prostitution--EVER--as a "free" choice.
I don't know--maybe in some utopian future, presumably class-less and with all big economic problems solved. Where every single "sex worker" is in it for--as dirty bourgeois tradition pretended all the time--kicks and personal pleasure, out of innate vocation. And where such an individual is always entirely in charge and can refuse anyone and not starve or suffer for it in any way.
But isn't everyone going to have stables of sex robots by then? You know, that could be the best use for them yet.
21overlycriticalelisa
>20 LolaWalser: No... the more I think about it the less possible it seems to consider prostitution--EVER--as a "free" choice.
and there you have my issue with seeing the gray. welcome aboard! =)
and there you have my issue with seeing the gray. welcome aboard! =)
22LolaWalser
If you have been wondering lately whether legalisation solves problems with prostitution, the devastating situation in Spain says "no".
'Prostitution is seen as a leisure activity here': tackling Spain's sex traffickers
'Prostitution is seen as a leisure activity here': tackling Spain's sex traffickers
... Supporters of decriminalisation claim it has brought benefits to those working in the trade, including making life safer for women. Yet this vastly profitable and largely unregulated market has also become infested with criminality, turning Spain into a global hub for human trafficking and sexual slavery. ...
...the scale of the problem in Spain is staggering. Until 2010, the law didn’t even recognise human trafficking as a crime. Now the Spanish government estimates that up to 90% of women working in prostitution could be victims of trafficking or under the control of a third party – such as a pimp – who is profiting from them. ...
There are many reasons why Spain has become a hotspot, but for Mora, the biggest single factor is cultural. Spain’s sex trafficking epidemic is, she says, just the most extreme manifestation of the country’s problematic attitudes to women and sex. “There is huge demand for prostitution here. It’s become so normalised that it’s just seen like any other leisure activity.”
One survey in 2008 found that 78% of Spanish people consider prostitution an inevitability in modern society. And demand is huge: another survey, conducted in 2006, found that nearly 40% of Spanish men over the age of 18 had paid for sex at least once in their life. Mora has recently seen a radical change in the kind of men buying sex. Before, it was largely older men sneaking away from their families. Now, both the women on the streets and the sex buyers themselves are getting younger. “The social stigma isn’t the same as it was when I started out,” she says. “We have a generation of young men growing up believing they have the right to do anything to a woman’s body if they have paid for it, and they don’t have to worry about the consequences.”
Iscriviti per commentare
