Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
"I think we've already determined what kind of woman you are. Now we're discussing your price."
Anyway ...
So, while I'm bothered by Beech's euphemistic handling of her arrangement, I can't disagree with Melinda Henneberger, another XX Factor writer, who suggests that business relationships like Beech's "further [blur] the definition of prostitution."
How so? The definition has been blurred since, well, probably since "the world's oldest profession" started. It's not a "distant cousin ... of prostitution" at all; it's the prettier sister.
I will go out on a judgmental limb and say that I think a woman who enters a relationship based on what she can get, materially, is just soulless.
If you disagree, please explain why.
That was a depressing essay. What bothers me most was her shameless materialism. But then, if fancy clothes are one's apparent goal in life, then why not prostitute oneself? Vulgar ends, vulgar means.
TCF, as an antidote to this article, can you find us a heroic and admirable woman to write about? Thanks.
I meant to write, "NOT Broadsheet's candidate for feminist of the year, I presume."
People sell their bodies every day when they get in their cars and drive to work. It's fine to rent the parts between your ears, but not those between your legs? It's a stupid, pointless, moralist distinction and the only reason it's still a crime anywhere is becuase men are still in charge.
Should we allow hedonism? Why not, we allow overeating. Should it be a crime (or even a taboo) to provide an ego boost or a physical outlet to men (or women) who, becuase of circumstance or choice, find it more convenient to pay for sex rather than scan the local bar scene for someone drunk, desparate, or risky enough to take out for anonymous sex? Who Cares? I don't.
Like every "social ill," prostitution is really only bad when its exploitative. If sex workers are denied the same labour protections granted to office workers, there will always be a dark side to the profession and explotation will thrive as will the criminals that buy women from desperate circumstance and bring them to market in places where they profit from the women's work.
Exploitation is bad, prostitution isn't. Legalise Prostitution, send the slavers to jail. Problem solved.
... prostitution is no different.
Literature has Norman Mailer, Vladimir Nabokov, David Foster Wallace... and also Jonathen Franzen, Dan Brown, Tucker Max.
Lawyers have Alexander Hamilton, Clarence Darrow, Glenn Greenwald... and also Mark Geragos, Alberto Gonzales, uh, Eliot Spitzer
Musicians count among their members Ludwig von Beethoven, Maurice Ravel, Jimi Hendrix... and also Poison, Milli Vanilli, and the Backstreet Boys.
And with yer Prostitutes, you have the street-walking crack whores... and also the Melissa Beeches.
I shouldn't have said "a woman," I should have said "anyone," since I would hold the same judgment against men.
I don't really think the judgment is completely fair, as far as history is concerned. I've read enough Jane Austen to know that women have to make such calculations when choosing relationships.
But it's hard to see how you can be a modern-day feminist and look upon this with anything but pity or scorn.
Maybe I am just having a reality vs. idealism conflict here. Biologically a mate is decided based on who has the best ability to care for offspring. Wealthy men have that as a built-in advantage.
Speaking as a guy, it is already frustrating to live out this situation. It is more frustrating to hear people making self-serving justifications on that basis. If you don't care about actually having an emotional connection with the person you're having an ongoing sexual relationship with, more power to you. To me it seems....soulless.
The Onion had a very funny article about marriage being a form of prostitution. This was probably 6 years ago or something. If I had more time I would look it up and post the link. Maybe someone else here can find it.
Good article.
Since she is given to euphemism, that bit about waiting three months to have sex could well be a bit of hyperbole.
People often define prostitution as paying for a specific sex act either immediately before or after provision of service, whereas other forms of paid sexual companionship come under other headings, such as courtesanship (not courtship!).
This can create ambiguities when completing one's tax return. Should this in-kind income as described above be accurately reported as self-employment (Schedule SE) or as a rental activity (Schedule E)? If she is a student with no other income, is she claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return? Best, I feel to consult with a professional tax preparer or accountant.
I think it's meretricious -- from "meretrix," or a practitioner of one of the world's oldest professions (the other is probably "moralizer").
Before I was a feminist, I was a well-brought-up girl from Ohio with much the same advantages (though my blood was and is more red than blue); and both of us think it's tacky.
What happens to people like that when their looks start to go off? Am I really going to talk about character and morality?
Nahhh. She's not worth the bandwidth.
Add some magic utterances, alcohol, a cake, two pieces of jewelry, and we’d reverently call it “marriage”.
Everybody has their own reasons for entering into sexual relationships, and their reasons are their business. Is it necessary for us to sit in judgement of other people's private decisions?
"The Internet has made it possible for prostitutes to fly solo and not get burned. They interview potential johns in public places, usually expensive restaurants. They 'date' for a long time -- sometimes months -- before agreeing to pair up. They may even hire a private detective to check the guy out."
Substitute "women" for "prostitutes" and "boyfriends" for "johns" and it sounds just like most peoples dating patterns.
...at least she isn't asking for a bailout. Only one taxpayer is getting screwed.
Is it that a woman’s sexuality should be elevated to something mystical, is it really that when a woman sells her vagina she sells her “soul”?
I don’t know why on one hand we say - a woman is more than her body, and that we shouldn’t be judged by which genetalia we have, and on the other hand we say - a woman selling her body sells her very self.
If a person thinks that women are selling their very souls when they sell sex, they are really saying that a woman’s sense of self is no deeper than her vaginal canal.
The media outlet's use of Bush euphemisms sparks a much-needed debate on journalistic standards.
The Wasilla soap opera just gets weirder as Palin complains critics are "picking apart a good point guard"
And so are his Fox News pals, who lambasted Sen. Al Franken's "stolen election"
An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone
Thanks for sharing, Governor. Now please take a cue from Norm Coleman, and go away
Salon headlines in your mailbox
