This article was written in 2009, not that long ago in the overall scheme of things but you would think long enough ago that we could have had this figured out by now. The essay itself is lengthy and discusses an interview the author did with Belle de Jour. Feel free to read the whole thing, I just picked out a few items I found interesting:
… several of my female colleagues in the media appeared to be deeply personally offended by the fact that Belle, or rather Dr Brooke Magnanti, wasn’t at any point raped or beaten up during the 14 months she spent as a call girl.
How in the hell can you people call yourself a human being when you are offended that a woman was NOT raped or beaten up? Seriously? (rhetorical question, no need to answer… bitches)
…their argument was that the lack of rapes/beatings meant that her experience was not representative of prostitution and therefore fraudulent in some way. But how would they know what was or wasn’t representative unless they’d been in a lot of rooms with a lot of customers themselves?
Exactly. How many of you women (and I use that term loosely) who think that all hookers are beat up crack addicts have ever been a hooker yourself? Hmm? And just talking to hookers does not in any way, shape, or form make you an expert.
…“the vast majority” of her clients “were more polite, nicer and treated me better than many ‘normal’ men on dates. No one wants to be ‘that guy’ [the one who abuses prostitutes].”
Can I get an AMEN sisters!
I wonder why it remains so difficult for people — or indeed the law — to understand that not all prostitutes conform to the stereotype of the abused, trafficked, addicted victim. Of course such women exist in vast, shaming and regrettable numbers. But to claim that this is the only version of prostitution that exists seems to me extraordinarily naive.
…We’re still told there is no difference between a trafficked 15-year-old from Ukraine who’s kept in a basement and a 28-year-old old PhD student who contacts an escort agency of her own free will. Like, doh. Of course there’s a difference.
Society learns nothing.
And how can you help the women who need it if you insist on lumping them with the women who don’t?
Not a rhetorical question. Can you answer it?
I understand why, up to a point: prostitution has become so mythologised that the very word makes “ordinary” women feel insecure: we think that, like in some dark fairy-tale, prostitutes are possessed of magical sexual powers that could, in one fell swoop, destroy our domestic contentment.
LOL love it!
I have more respect for the woman who recognizes the transaction for what it is. Look at the two girls: one, self- reliant, gets the cash and walks away, job done. One is at the mercy of someone else’s wallet, not for a couple of hours but for weeks, months, maybe even years on end. Who’s the victim? Who’s being had?
The following references a Celebrity Reality show but a very close parallel can be drawn to the ‘public humiliation’ of pictures of John’s (who have not been convicted of a crime let me remind you) in news media and billboards: The idea is clearly for (them) to rehabilitate (themselves) through abject humiliation.
…not half as appalling as the public whose idea of the moral high ground involves the ritual public humiliation of someone they don’t like…
“Medieval” doesn’t begin to cover it: this is the equivalent of a jeering mob kicking someone round the playground on the basis that they’re not very nice.
Yea, pretty much…