Reason Magazine

Site Search

Thoughts on Thoughts on Spitzer

I’m fascinated by the Spitzer-inspired discussion of prostitution on blogs that identify as feminist, most of which seem to be conflicted but marginally pro-decriminalization. It’s a surprisingly utilitarian back-and-forth; few posters or commenters are arguing from self-autonomy (OK, none), and most are weighing the obvious harm of denying sex workers access to law enforcement (in the case of criminalization) against the desire not to reinforce patriarchy and/or heteronormativity (in the case of legalization). Everyone seems to assume that legalizing sex work will reinforce all sorts of ugly cultural phenomena women struggle against all the time. Writes one commenter at Feministing, “I’m politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely” because of “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality issues.”

I find this incoherent precisely because I share all the poster’s intuitions about problematic cultural norms. Of course sexism restricts autonomy in all sorts of ways that deserve consideration when discussing the prevalence of prostitution or the choice to enter sex work. Of course it’s deplorable that sexually adventurous young women are constantly told they are “degrading themselves” by seeking out various experiences, that every bit of enjoyment eats away at some secret store of purity. This whole tradition–the idea that women need be preserved in glass so as not to “ruin” themselves, lest they diminish their sexual value by “giving it away”–restricts the lived autonomy of women in ways I can’t even begin to articulate. None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

If you find all of these cultural pathologies unfortunate, what is the public policy you should prefer? It seems to me that it is not the policy that deems it a crime against the American people to open your legs. Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs. Even decriminalization, which treats Johns as outlaws and sex workers as victims, assumes that all sex workers are damaged, that no woman would ever love sex enough to make a career out of it. And why not? Well, because every woman knows that she is her sexual purity rating. No sane woman would ever choose to mess that up.

In sum: If we are ever going to introduce a conceptual distinction between the moral character of individual women and the integrity of their hymens, it seems extremely important not to criminalize aberrant sexual behaviors.

For a more direct view of sexual autonomy (plus explanatory geometry!), please consult Rev. Moon.

Send this article to:

« The Mississippi Primary Thread: "Last… | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to "Thoughts on Thoughts on Spitzer":

Jonathan Hohensee | March 11, 2008, 11:55pm | #

I was thinking yesterday about how Spitzer reminds me of what Matt Damon's character in The Departed would grow up to be like if he wasn't shot at the end of the movie.

JLE | March 11, 2008, 11:58pm | #

Exactly. Let us fuck whom we choose, even if it kills us. Choice is everything if we are talking freedom.

Elemenope | March 11, 2008, 11:59pm | #

...against the desire not to reinforce patriarchy and/or heteronormativity (in the case of legalization)...

Unless I'm missing something, aren't there prostitutes that service homo and bi clients? How does that reinforce heteronormativity (neat made-up word, BTW...gotta love academics)?

Rimfax | March 12, 2008, 12:23am | #

To put a finer point on Elemenope's point, what makes them think that prostitution is all about women. I don't know the numbers, but my impression is that cultural taboos against homosexuality have kept the numbers of males among prostitutes much higher than their percentage in the general population. The same, it seems, could be said for transgendered prostitutes.

Why can't the feminists realize that it's about sex, not patriarchy? Why would you assert your dominance over women by paying one to let you have sex with her? That makes no sense.

Rimfax | March 12, 2008, 12:25am | #

$4300?!! I have difficulty seeing how it's the sex worker and not the john getting victimized at those prices.

stephen the goldberger | March 12, 2008, 12:26am | #

These ideas/slants will fall on deaf ears here I assume. They are discussing the social impact of laws in terms of gender relations, whereas most people here are only concerned with the idea that laws are designed to protect the rights of individuals within a society.

But examing the female relations angle of legalizing prostitution, my guess is there will always be a stigma related to sexually promiscuous girls, and the most guilty party to the source of that stigma will always be other girls. Girls who are "easy" are perceived threats to other girls, it's a fundamental issue regarding male-female relationships.

Assuming that was what you were talking about.

alan | March 12, 2008, 1:04am | #

One day I hope to see a cultural turn around where virginity would be the scorned condition, and being promiscuous would be considered highly honorable, a generous woman who isn't out to 'save' herself for the man with the highest social position that she can aspire too unlike those closed minded, closed legged virgins who perpetuate classism patriarchy.

alan | March 12, 2008, 1:08am | #

forgot my sarcasm tags there. Rereading it, I mimiced the phoney lingo of left bent academia all too well.

Seriously, I'd prefer to leave the choice entirely up the individual whether they want to be a virgin, a monogamist or a swinger without any social stigma driving the individuals preference than what I described above.

Bingo | March 12, 2008, 1:14am | #

Has anyone said "all women are whores" yet?

The Wine Commonsewer | March 12, 2008, 1:45am | #

Sex workers, like the terms green and sustainable are on my short list of words that induce fits of bulimia.

What is with the modern American penchant for finding some other word to describe something when there is already a word to do so?

They are not sex workers. They are prostitutes (one could look it up). Or is that just a little too blunt for our delicate sensibilities?

Andy | March 12, 2008, 1:49am | #

Brilliant post, Kerry. At some level, perhaps some of these women are products of the society that seeks to keep women pure, and are jealous of the women who are able to break away from said society.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 12, 2008, 1:51am | #

The other thing that grates is that we are not content with just opting for freedom, we must brand those who voluntarily choose the puritanical route as hopelessly unenlightened. For, if only they could just see the way, their backwards little mores could be thrust aside and they too could bask in the sunshine of promiscuity. As we cast off our oppression we become the cultural oppressors. Got dam virgins.

thoreau | March 12, 2008, 1:51am | #

$4300?!! I have difficulty seeing how it's the sex worker and not the john getting victimized at those prices.
You can't come to a libertarian site and complain about the price that a seller charges the buyer. Surely you must realize that this is the market price, and the market has decided, so quit being a socialist.

DEMAND KURVE!

:)

OGRE | March 12, 2008, 2:04am | #

I fail to see the basis for the state prohibiting prostitution. If two people have sex, thats not the state's business. But as soon as one of them gives the other money for it, its a crime? Punishable by loss of freedom? Ridiculous.

Likewise, its ridiculous to start asking about "public policy" to change "social stigmas." I find it a much graver infringement upon individual autonomy for the state to began molding people's minds rather than just punishing their actions. The former tends to the latter in any event...

I fail to see any distinction between criminalizing or legalizing something if for the purpose of altering the public's perception about that thing. It is the same: using the state to impose one's own will on others.

To sum up: if you want to bang your brother or sister, go for it. Its not for the state to regulate. But don't whine if people think you're a sick pervert; they are free to feel about it how they wish.

peachy | March 12, 2008, 2:09am | #

Well, the whole illegality thing has to distort the market to some degree (restricting competition and advertising, putting a premium on discretion, overage for 'protection'), which undoubtedly affects pricing.

There's no telling what a really free market in top quality whores would look like, but I'd guess some would become available at less ridiculous prices. Of course, the services of such a professional could be considered a luxury item, and as with all luxury items price is part of the point. So you might still be able to get away with charging $31k a day, servicing a niche that sees hiring the most expensive prostitutes as another form of (literally) dick-waving conspicuous consumption.

megs | March 12, 2008, 2:26am | #

Well said, Kerry. I don't ever want to dismiss entirely the harm prostitution can do to women practicing it, especially if there's coercion, but it doesn't do them any favors to think it's only women who are prostitutes. Sometimes I think patriarchy-centered feminists perpetuate the patriarchal culture because they frame everything within its confines. But then, the last time I read a Pandagon thread, there was such a swelling of individualism that I nearly thought I was reading a libertarian blog. It can happen.

I went to a woman's college and we once had a symposium on prostitution. I remember being very surprised how many young college women, thinking about the arguments on legalization for the first time, quite easily realized that all the dangers fell under the same sort of laws protecting plumbers or nurses from abuse and immediately set about thinking of ways a prostitute might protect herself while plying her craft.

Andy | March 12, 2008, 2:32am | #

Agreed, OGRE.. if Spitzer picked up a woman at the bar of the Mayflower hotel and brought her to the room, there would be no issues of legality. But heaven forbid he pays her for it.. they were both there out of their own free will, by all accounts. It's just absurd.

Jonathan Hohensee | March 12, 2008, 2:48am | #

Well said, Kerry. I don't ever want to dismiss entirely the harm prostitution can do to women practicing it, especially if there's coercion, but it doesn't do them any favors to think it's only women who are prostitutes. Sometimes I think patriarchy-centered feminists perpetuate the patriarchal culture because they frame everything within its confines. But then, the last time I read a Pandagon thread, there was such a swelling of individualism that I nearly thought I was reading a libertarian blog. It can happen.

I keep tabs on Pandagon every now and then, ever since they did the piss job on Libertarianism (for some reason) any thoughts on this bit?
They make some great points, along with some really shitty points;
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/11/6882/

Most men who go to prostitutes can get sex, even strings-free, no-commitment sex, from other women. They want something else. For some, like David Vitter, I think it might just be a need to have some weird kink fulfilled. But I suspect for many, if not most, it’s the idea of buying a woman that’s

Jonathan Hohensee | March 12, 2008, 2:49am | #

the allure

Econo-Darwin | March 12, 2008, 3:59am | #

None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

If you've noticed that women nearly monopolize slut-shaming, while men, when not trying to gain the favor of slut-shaming women, mostly engage in mere slut-mocking, and don't actually reject too many sluts either socially or personally, then yes it does.

You can find an unpleasant answer to the perennial "Why are there so few female libertarians?" somewhere nearby, too.

But, you know, don't.

a Duoist | March 12, 2008, 5:35am | #

Charles Fried at Harvard Law School has a recent book, where he argues that the enemies of freedom invariably seek to control sex. That said, to suggest that we should ignore the deep primal human instincts, fears and hatreds that ground 'purity' and 'honor' codes, for an open standard of consenting rational adults, would be to further adopt a standard that, in the end, must result in approving nihilism.

Sex is an instinct. A pleasure, too, for the human animal, but very foundationally, sex is an instinct. For both good and ill, animal life--all animal life--is at its most savage about procreation. That savagery is primal--often not amenable to rational thought--and because it is so often so savage, it is something to be teated with utmost care and respect.

Without some system--moral codes, social strictures, etc.--of 'respect,' our sex lives would release the ugliest and most destructive instincts we are all capable of expressing. Just as the 'puritan' is too extreme for a mentally and emotionally healthy sex life, open sex is also an extreme full of self-destructive, unintended consequences.

The key is 'respect,' at the very minimum, self-respect. If we have a very willing and even enthusiastic mate at home, on what level of self-respect or respect for others are we paying for sex?

Attila Girl | March 12, 2008, 5:40am | #

I like the distinction between "slut-shaming" and "slut-mocking." It strikes me as . . . subtle.

Mutts | March 12, 2008, 6:15am | #

The issue of exploitation vs. opportunity is complicated by the possibility that prices (and therefore wages) for prostitution services would drop significantly if prostitution were legalized. Supply would almost certainly increase -- fewer sex workers in jail, fewer women considering the trade deterred by the legal risks -- but would demand? I don't know.

The effect of public scandals -- from Spitzer and Vitter to Sizemore and Charlie Sheen -- on the demand for prostitution is also a wild card. Do prospective johns react with fear, or does this heighten the excitement and sense of danger? Very likely some of both; in terms of market forces, which is more significant?

A final point that muddies the waters. There are women (and men) in the sex trade who entered voluntarily, but are more or less coerced to continue. Typically these are women who have little savings, interrupted education, and a questionable job history (either because they tell the truth, or because they have a years-long unemployment or marginal "side job" record). Many have paid nothing into unemployment, which ordinarily provides (though through the mechanism of a welfare state) an important incentive to innovation and experimentation. Clearly many of these people should have known what they were getting into, but they didn't or they made a bad call. For them, one would think legalization would help somewhat -- but the cultural stigma probably wouldn't go away overnight. If this is a concern, a gradual legalization makes the most sense; legalizing in the first instance the earning, saving and paying taxes on sex money. Some would be able to save up in advance for a rude market transition. How many? Of those, how many would be wise? If the number is very few, I suspect that leaving alone the niche market of a criminal enterprise could be the most humane solution.

Sean Healy | March 12, 2008, 7:59am | #

So, Kerry, given that you reject both the legal and moral codes with regard to prostitution and sexual purity, what's keeping you - given the attractive rates vis a vis what you get paid as a journalist - from "opening your legs" for money? Surely not some atavistic notion of "purity" or "respect". Heaven forbid.

Lost_In_Translation | March 12, 2008, 8:20am | #

So, Kerry, given that you reject both the legal and moral codes with regard to prostitution and sexual purity, what's keeping you - given the attractive rates vis a vis what you get paid as a journalist - from "opening your legs" for money? Surely not some atavistic notion of "purity" or "respect". Heaven forbid.

She has a higher paying job on average that's not stigmatized by society and easier on the lower back?

Rimfax | March 12, 2008, 8:23am | #

quit being a socialist.

Now that would be a sweet entitlement program.

Abdul | March 12, 2008, 8:27am | #

None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form

There are plenty of reasons why society "shames sluts" other than the assumption that women must preserve their purity for men. Foremost amongst them is that sex is tied to emotional intimacy, and we feel weird about people who are willing to give up that intimacy with no reservations. I mean, if there's no other reason to have moral reservations about "sluttiness," why doesn't Kerry hook or strip? Is it only because writing for Reason is so much better compensated?

It's not like the prostitutes are the the only ones being shamed here, either. Spitzer was the butt of most of the jokes, not "Kristen". People seem to regard Spitzer's transgression as worse than Bill Clinton's. While it's plausibe that clinton sought some emotional intimacy in his adultery, it's almost impossible to find any such redeeming feature when you're paying for it.

Biology101 | March 12, 2008, 8:31am | #

OGRE typed:
To sum up: if you want to bang your brother or sister, go for it. Its not for the state to regulate.

Right. Let's leave it to DNA to regulate the outcome.

tarran | March 12, 2008, 8:32am | #

Sean, sweetie,

I'm sure that neither notions of law nor purity are keeping you from being a realtor, and insurance salesman, a lumberjack, airline ticketing agent, boy scout troop leader, clergyman, librarian, or stock broker.

I guess that makes you some kind of hypocrite huh?

Abdul | March 12, 2008, 8:40am | #

I'm sure that neither notions of law nor purity are keeping you from being a realtor, and insurance salesman, a lumberjack, airline ticketing agent, boy scout troop leader, clergyman, librarian, or stock broker.

But Sean isn't the one asserting that only law and purity stand in the way of women being able to seek out hooking as a career choice. Kerry is the one asserting that. If she's totally over the archaic concept of "purity," why shouldn't she put her money where her mouth is (so to speak)?

tarran | March 12, 2008, 8:46am | #

Because, abdul, she likes being a journalist more than being a prostitute? Because she does not want to get involved in a profession that has armed gunmen trying to kidnap you and lock you up in cages?

MikeT | March 12, 2008, 8:51am | #


But Sean isn't the one asserting that only law and purity stand in the way of women being able to seek out hooking as a career choice. Kerry is the one asserting that. If she's totally over the archaic concept of "purity," why shouldn't she put her money where her mouth is (so to speak)?
One of the ironies of feminism is that they have the freedom to do the things they want to do, but need the approval of society. This is why they must fight "the patriarchy." Last I checked, the "patriarchy" wasn't using anything other than words against their behavior. In truth, most feminists are incapable of just doing as they please because they desperately seek the approval of society for their behavior, and when they don't get that approval, they turn like good little collectivists on society with a terrible fury.

Ultimately, all railing against "the patriarchy" in a country like the United States is just inability to accept the fact that daddy doesn't approve of your lifestyle and you want him to.

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 8:53am | #

So a woman who thinks prostitution should be legal is a hypocrite if she's not a hooker herself? Wow, it's not even nine a.m. and I've already read the stupidest thing I'll see all day.

MikeT | March 12, 2008, 8:54am | #

I agree that prostitutes aren't inherently victims. If anything has contributed to making most prostitutes victims, it's the black market culture created by outlawing prostitution and drugs.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 8:55am | #

So, Kerry, given that you reject both the legal and moral codes with regard to prostitution and sexual purity, what's keeping you - given the attractive rates vis a vis what you get paid as a journalist - from "opening your legs" for money?

I would also like to know the answer to this question :-)

Kerry, your ideas are good, but I think you are fighting against biology here.

Males have a primal instinct to spread their genetic material as widely as possible, but they also have an instinct to control access to their brood mares to ensure that any children that pop out are theirs, because that is the true success when spreading genes.

Therefore, men have a dual approach to "sluttiness". Their bitch should be chaste, preferably a virgin when they get together, to ensure that any children are theirs. All other women should be sluts so that when (if) they cheat on their woman they can bang (and theoretically sire children with) as many other women as possible, hopefully sneaking their genetic material in front of another male.

Women's approach to this is very different. As goldberger said above, "sluts" are competition for other women--their man might go sleep with the slut! Or they feel that men are unduly attracted to the slut (because of easy sex) and feel that to compete they would also have to be easy, and they don't want to (for varied reasons).

Honestly, though attitudes to this may change over time, I don't think they will ever become totally equal, because of the biology involved.

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 9:07am | #

Not to mention the troglodyte attitudes of the Sean- and Abdul-types, who definitely take the Madonna/whore dichotomy to extremes: if you're not advocating all women be perfectly chaste before marriage, why don'cha be a whore, you hypocritical slut?

Dickin D'Ass | March 12, 2008, 9:13am | #

u win Episiarch

tarran | March 12, 2008, 9:15am | #

A person with plenty of time on their hands could check out all the Sean and abdul posts on threads advocating drug legalization.

If they did post on one of those threads, I wonder if we would find any pro-legalization advocates being challenged as to why they weren't injecting heroin into their veins... ;)

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 9:17am | #

Can you support equal rights for homosexuals if you're straight?

Lost_In_Translation | March 12, 2008, 9:19am | #

seriously, sometimes the wear ain't worth the wear and tear on the hen's ass

Lost_In_Translation | March 12, 2008, 9:20am | #

son of a bitch, i done fucked that saying up.

eh he hem

sometimes the egg is not worth the wear and tear on the hen's ass

Dickin D'Ass | March 12, 2008, 9:25am | #

Jennifer ... the answer is YES

I'm reasonably straight...and I think homos should be treated fairly.

parse | March 12, 2008, 9:26am | #

(neat made-up word, BTW...gotta love academics)

Elemnope, which are the words which are not made-up?

Dickin D'Ass | March 12, 2008, 9:26am | #

The sexual purity link is funny

Fluffy | March 12, 2008, 9:34am | #

So, Kerry, given that you reject both the legal and moral codes with regard to prostitution and sexual purity, what's keeping you - given the attractive rates vis a vis what you get paid as a journalist - from "opening your legs" for money? Surely not some atavistic notion of "purity" or "respect".

Maybe because your average john is gross?

Let's not confuse the concepts of "impure" and "gross" here.

When I was single, I wasn't avoiding sleeping with ugly chicks because they were "impure". I avoided sleeping with them because they were gross.

Maybe Howley just doesn't like ugly guys and doesn't think that the money would be enough compensation.

That gives her a perfectly good reason to not hook that has nothing to do with morality or purity.

robc | March 12, 2008, 9:35am | #

Jennifer,

So a woman who thinks prostitution should be legal is a hypocrite if she's not a hooker herself?

Kerry wasnt (just) supporting legality, she was supporting anti-shaming. The following:

None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

has nothing whatsoever to do with legality of prostitution.

Personally, Im pro-stigma and pro-shaming (in more areas that just sex). Legalize and stigmatize.

Guy Montag | March 12, 2008, 9:39am | #

Not sure if this fits as an unstated suspicion by the Pandagon and other Femanistas, along with the Left in general, but some of the complaints about this case and the conspiracy theories could be rooted in the odd occurance that the party affiliation of Gov. Spitzer (D-NY) has been prominant since the story broke.

If that D were an R it would be prominant in news stories. The case that it is a D makes it seem odd that it is prominant, thus fueling the conspiracy proponants. Nevermind that party affiliation is not equally reported in general for matters like this.

Had not seen that angle addressed, but if it is true it will be revealed by our Leftist friends in short order.

Amanda | March 12, 2008, 9:39am | #

If you set a price on a woman's supposed puriety, and American society has, then why the furor when she decides to cash in on that price? What's the difference? Everyone is already rating her value based on her sex anyway. It's really up to her to decide what she wants to do with it.

Thanks for the article. It was good.

XX

PS: Sex work is an accurate term. It is work. Not all sex work requires intercourse, but it does require work -- just like any physical or mental labor. (And if you don't think it's mental labor, The Wine Commonsewer, then imagine someone trying to verbally entertain you for a couple hours. They'd want paid.)

Charles | March 12, 2008, 9:40am | #

robc,

Personally, Im pro-stigma and pro-shaming (in more areas that just sex). Legalize and stigmatize.

Exactly how I feel. A better America would have more things we could do but fewer things we felt like we should do. Or, as inevitably happens, when I explain drug decriminalization, someone asks if I'd like my kid going down to CVS and buying crack. No, but I don't think they should get a prostitute or a mistress or a tattoo, either, and I think all those things should be legal.

Guy Montag | March 12, 2008, 9:42am | #

Maybe Howley just doesn't like ugly guys and doesn't think that the money would be enough compensation.

How about it is just not a line of work that the person is interested in? Tower crane operators make a better living than a majority of reporters too, but many people are not interested in that work either.

robc | March 12, 2008, 9:55am | #

Charles,

I blame my Mom for my view and me being a libertarian. She made it clear to me when I was young that there were plenty of things that were legal and/or being done by my friends that I was not allowed to do. I somehow internally took this as "just because it is wrong, doesnt mean it should be illegal".

We need to not lose the concept of wrongness.

John | March 12, 2008, 9:57am | #

"None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form."


No it assumes that women have a different view of their bodies and sex than men do. It is not about women saving themselves for their men. It is about women saving themselves grief. The fact is that more men seem to have the ability to screw multiple partners like rabbits and not ever feel bad about it than women. Maybe that is due to our cultural patriarchy. Maybe that is due to evolutionary differences between men and women or some combination of the two. I don't think we know. But, it is a fact nonetheless and nothing is going to change it. If I had daughter, I would tell her not to screw around not because I didn't want her to be damaged goods to her husband but because the chances are that doing so would cause a lot of psychological damage and heartbreak for her. It probably isn't very fair that as a women she faces such harsh consequences for screwing around when most men don't. But, fair or not that is the way things are.

Dickin D'Ass | March 12, 2008, 9:59am | #

What Men really like !

John-David | March 12, 2008, 10:11am | #

Dickin,

Now there's a girl who had a happy upbringing. Just like a whole lot of "sex workers" who didn't get the attention from Daddy she needed.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 10:11am | #

To expand on my earlier post:

Men and women both treat their attractiveness to the other sex as a commodity--the more you have, the more you will be able to get in exchange.

Women who are very good looking already have a high value. Women who are not need to boost their value. One way to do this is to be relatively chaste, and it has value because of my aforementioned observation about men wanting their woman to be pure because of genetic protectionism.

In looking for a mate, chaste women are saying "you won't need to fear me sleeping around and possibly having a kid that isn't yours". This raises their value above their pure attractiveness, and increases their ability to get a better (wealth, looks, provider) man.

Since this approach works (many men do not want to have a wife that is known for sleeping with everybody), it will continue to be used.

Women also reinforce this, because if you emphasize and denigrate promiscuity, it raises the value of your chastity. So of course chaste women are going to rail against sluts; it's in their best interest to do so.

This isn't going to change.

P Brooks | March 12, 2008, 10:13am | #

I was just watching the tape of Spitzer's news conference (whichever one it was), where his wife is standing behind, and to the right of him. She keeps looking at the back of his head, as if she is trying to decide whether the bullet should enter above, or below, his right ear.

John | March 12, 2008, 10:14am | #

"This whole tradition–the idea that women need be preserved in glass so as not to “ruin” themselves, lest they diminish their sexual value by “giving it away”–restricts the lived autonomy of women in ways I can’t even begin to articulate. None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form."


What Howley is argueing here is that shaming women for having multiple partners is wrong. She is probably right about that. We shouldn't do it. But should we not do it because we don't want to shame people or because there really is nothing to be ashamed of? If it is the latter and Howley really believes there is nothing wrong with selling yourself for money, then it is a valid question to ask why she doesn't do it or if not for money why she doesn't sleep with any and every attractive guy she meets? The answer I think is that Howley does find it shameful to do such things. So if it is shameful for her to do it, how does Howley find it so a ok for other women to do it?

SugarFree | March 12, 2008, 10:17am | #

Of course this all could just be much simpler:

Feministingists object to prostitution because is is an activity enjoy primarily by straight white males.

Heaven forfend we have sex in any manner they don't approve of...

Guy Montag | March 12, 2008, 10:18am | #

John,

I thought the preserved in glass passage was a breath control reference.

SugarFree | March 12, 2008, 10:21am | #

Also... no hat tip for the SugarFree? I'm in the trenches over there, people!

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 10:26am | #

You only get a cookie when you bring us something really good, NutraSweet. You must work for your treats.

John | March 12, 2008, 10:34am | #

"Feministingists object to prostitution because is is an activity enjoy primarily by straight white males."

They object to that and they really object to attractive women having power. The old canard about feminists being the ugly girls who never got asked to the prom is largely true.

SugarFree | March 12, 2008, 10:36am | #

Epi,

OK, fine:

please, oh please, tell me when we will all stand up and claim our true power as women: to DENY men the sexual attention they crave, to IGNORE their out-of-control egos, to STOP allowing ourselves to be used and treated as sex objects, to EMBRACE our independence from men, and DECLARE ourselves free from their ownership of our self-worth and identities to SHINE as the amazing, intelligent, productive, no-nonsense, compassionate natural leaders we were born to be??

dhex | March 12, 2008, 10:37am | #

If it is the latter and Howley really believes there is nothing wrong with selling yourself for money, then it is a valid question to ask why she doesn't do it or if not for money why she doesn't sleep with any and every attractive guy she meets?

no, that's dumb.

if you think guns should remain free and legal for citizens, do you have to shoot every one you come across?

if you think drugs should be legal, does this mean you have to smoke crack?

etc etc and so forth.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 12, 2008, 10:39am | #

shaming women for having multiple partners is wrong

In a free society, we can shame anyone we want to, so long as we leave them legally free to pursue desires that do not infringe on other people's rights.

What you don't get in a free society is the blessing of everyone else for the choices you make.

I happen to agree with you John and with Kerry that shaming women for doing the very thing that we men find most interesting about them is at the very least, unenlightened.

Abdul | March 12, 2008, 10:40am | #

Not to mention the troglodyte attitudes of the Sean- and Abdul-types, who definitely take the Madonna/whore dichotomy to extremes: if you're not advocating all women be perfectly chaste before marriage, why don'cha be a whore, you hypocritical slut?

If there's no shame in being a "slut," why are you offended? I guess you buy into the whole assumption that "women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form."

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 10:40am | #

OK, that's damn good.

to DENY men the sexual attention they crave

That'll work. Such a scheme would require all women to do this at the same time, otherwise the non-deniers would get even more attention.

Do these people think? At all?

Abdul | March 12, 2008, 10:48am | #

If it is the latter and Howley really believes there is nothing wrong with selling yourself for money, then it is a valid question to ask why she doesn't do it or if not for money why she doesn't sleep with any and every attractive guy she meets?

no, that's dumb.


I agree dhex (and evereyone else who wrote some various of his arugment) that there's plenty of reasons not to be a prostitute even if you think there's nothing morally objectionable about it.

The point of the question, however, is that we question Kerry's assertion that not only does she find nothing morally objectionable about prostitution, but the only people who do find prostituion to be shameful are ones who insist that women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

That's pure BS. Even gay men criticize the more promiscuous members of their community. And it's not because they think men live to give themselves to other men in the purest possible form.

T | March 12, 2008, 10:51am | #

Epi,

to DENY men the sexual attention they crave

Also implies that she's fine with not getting any sexual attention from men, as that's a two-way street. This strongly implies sexless or lesbian, which just further reinforces all the old jokes about feminists, doesn't it? Damn, those people parody themselves and all we have to do is show up and laugh.

Mason | March 12, 2008, 10:53am | #

"Legalize and stigmatize."

Why would you stigmatize? The only reason I can think of would be negative externalities, but then why wouldn't you just tax? It's more efficient (we actually get tax revenue) unless you actively enjoy making people feel bad about their preferences.

For those who think sex is a savage act which needs to be regulated, and those who think the regulation is in-line with our nature; discuss. May I suggest that nature should have little to do with it.

For those who think it's wrong but want to legalize anyway, why? I think murder is wrong and don't want it legalized, I don't think its wrong for one person to pay another for sex, and I think it should be legal. Why just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong, I don't like tobacco, but I don't think it's wrong for some else to smoke it.

SugarFree | March 12, 2008, 10:54am | #

Epi,

How about this (emp mine):

Actually it is true - by the definition of the law you cannot consent to sex when you are drunk. Certainly you can have sex when you are drunk - but it can still legally be termed rape. Just like you can't get married if you are drunk - you can do it, and nobody would really question you - but technically it's not legal. When I talk to men about sexual assault I always tell them that the good rule of thumb is to think about whether or not they would let this girl drive their car. If the answer is no, she's in no condition to drive, she's in no condition to have sex.

So, if you've ever had sex with a girlfriend, wife, date whatever and she was too drunk to drive, no matter how often she said yes, you are a rapist. Under this crazy logic, how many men is she calling rapists? Millions? WHAT THE FUCK?

And then combine it with this charming sentiment:

Every rapist should be killed.

Jeez, I've said that so many times it barely even seems radical anymore.


I both cases nary a peep of dissension from following commenters.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 10:58am | #

Under this crazy logic, how many men is she calling rapists? Millions?
...
Every rapist should be killed.


It's a plot to kill us all!!! Get the guns which these women want to ban! It's all so clear now!

T | March 12, 2008, 11:00am | #

Even gay men criticize the more promiscuous members of their community. And it's not because they think men live to give themselves to other men in the purest possible form.

No, because it's a survival instinct. Promiscuous gay men threaten the health and well being of other gay men by increasing the overall disease rate in the community. If AIDS and gonorrhea weren't issues, I seriously doubt too many gay men would give a rat's ass what the man hos did.

P Brooks | March 12, 2008, 11:01am | #

whether or not they would let this girl drive their car

Oh, no! I'll never get laid again!

John | March 12, 2008, 11:02am | #

"if you think guns should remain free and legal for citizens, do you have to shoot every one you come across?"

Now that is a dumb analogy. Just because I think guns should be legal doesn't mean I think that it is okay to shoot someone abasent self defense. The correct analogy which would be, "I think guns should be legal but wouldn't own one". The question is why wouldn't I own one. Now applying that to the sex issue, is why wouldn't Howley be promiscuous. One answer could be that she is afraid of disease. That is a fair answer. But I would then ask Howley if she had the opportunity to sleep with a stranger who was attractive and she knew 100% was disease free, and the money he paid to have sex with her went to charity would she do it? If her answer is no, I think it is because she feels a sense of shame about having sex for money and again my question is, if it is shameful for her, why is it not shameful for other women?

alan | March 12, 2008, 11:04am | #

It is about women saving themselves grief.

I find that to be the most convincing argument I've read in the post because it is based upon experience in the world. Some make a case for social shaming, but that is a bit warped because it is based upon the idea of a collective mindset where there is the duty of each us to engage in slut shaming to preserve the social order. I'm certain the need for this is purely illusionary and would represent a magnificent waste of time that could be put to better and more productive use.

alan | March 12, 2008, 11:06am | #

In other words, you can be a rigid empiricist in your daily life and get by just fine, but to be a Platonist and avoid starving to death you have to compromise your beliefs every single day.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:06am | #

"Actually it is true - by the definition of the law you cannot consent to sex when you are drunk."

That is such a dramatic load of horseshit. The law says nothing of the kind. What is drunk? The varying degrees of drunk. You can only "not consent" if you are so drunk as to no longer be able to think. Literally passing out. That is long past blowing a .08. That woman ought to be shot so she doesn't further pollute the gene pool

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:08am | #

Argghh, you people: maintaining "purest form" has value for women, so some will do it. It is not something they are forced into.

Nobody forces women to wear makeup or work out, but when they do they find they get things they want like attention and being treated better by men.

Many men (who will make what they consider acceptable future husbands) will not consider a long-term relationship with a woman known for promiscuity. There are multiple reasons for that, but the important one is that of genetic protectionism.

By remaining "pure", they increase their pool of potential husbands. They CHOOSE to do this. A woman has every ability to say "I will fuck day and night and I don't want a husband so it's no problem."

Women who remain "pure" are investing in their future by their own choice.

Whether you think this is right or not is irrelevant.

robc | March 12, 2008, 11:09am | #

Mason,

Why would you stigmatize?

Immoral actions should be stigmatized.

The only reason I can think of would be negative externalities, but then why wouldn't you just tax?

Because Im opposed to government intervention in consensual activities.

It's more efficient (we actually get tax revenue) unless you actively enjoy making people feel bad about their preferences.

I dont enjoy it. I just think some behavior is immoral, and should be treated that way.

For those who think it's wrong but want to legalize anyway, why? I think murder is wrong and don't want it legalized, I don't think its wrong for one person to pay another for sex, and I think it should be legal. Why just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong, I don't like tobacco, but I don't think it's wrong for some else to smoke it.

There are different types of acts - some are wrong and harm others, like murder or theft, that should be illegal. Others are wrong and dont harm others (or, at least, the harm is consensual). These acts shouldnt be illegal, but I see no reason, I, or society, or anyone else who wants to, shouldnt stigmatize those acts.

Law and moral wrongness shouldnt be the same. Nothing should be illegal unless it meets 2 criteria:

1. Is morally wrong
2. Harms others against their will

I cant, right now, think of anything that meets #2 that also doesnt meet #1, but I hold open the possibility. Maybe self defense or a just war fall into that category. Yeah, that works, if I shoot a burglar breaking into my house, that harms someone against their will (although you could argue they accepted that possibility when they decided to commit the crime) but isnt morally wrong.

T | March 12, 2008, 11:10am | #

If her answer is no, I think it is because she feels a sense of shame about having sex for money and again my question is, if it is shameful for her, why is it not shameful for other women?

So, now people should answer questions based on what you think their motivations are?

Let me try. John, I think you make these posts because you're ashamed of being a moron. If you feel ashamed to be a moron, why should other people not feel ashamed for being morons?

There are a multitude of reasons for Kerry not to engage in the behavior we're discussing. Why is shame the only possible explanation?

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:13am | #

And John was correct about women saving themselves grief.

Kerry may consider the social opprobrium that comes along with promiscuous--and particularly sex work--behavior more than she wants to deal with. I can certainly understand that, as the stigmatization is extreme (even if undeserved) and certainly factors into a lot of female decisions about sex.

ChrisH (XY chromosomed) | March 12, 2008, 11:14am | #

DENY men the sexual attention they crave, to IGNORE their out-of-control egos, to STOP allowing ourselves to be used and treated as sex objects
Damn! They're on to us...

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:16am | #

Seeing as this thread has gone from Kerry's point to whether Kerry should be playing hide the salami for $20*, someone needs to work in the Catholic schoolgirl stuff that totally failed to materialize on its own thread.

* just kidding Kerry, I'm sure you're worth $25

SugarFree | March 12, 2008, 11:17am | #

OK, a thread arguing that Kerry should be a prostitute on principle? Ya'lls be trippin'.

But, on a more serious matter: Where's Warren? Kerry + Prostitute = Warren. I hope he's OK. Maybe someone should swing by his house and check on him.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:19am | #

"There are a multitude of reasons for Kerry not to engage in the behavior we're discussing. Why is shame the only possible explanation?"

Because if it is external reasons, then she should be willing to do it if those reasons are not present. Suppose for example, whoring herself out was the only way that she could pay for her child's medical care and she did it, never caught a disease and everything turned out well. Now, is it the case that Howley would do it and never think twice or feel any shame about it later? If so, then she has a point. But if not, then she is just kidding herself about there being nothing shameful or immoral about selling herself.

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 11:20am | #

... it's almost impossible to find any such redeeming feature when you're paying for it.

I spent 20 years in the military. I will attest that MANY third world brides of servicemen were, at the tome of introduction, bar-girls (that's pronounced whore by most people). Not a few, many. If you meet a sailor or an airman who met his wife in the Phillipines while he was stationed there, she was likely a prostitute.

When a well mannered person like myself is introduced to said bride, any excuse/lie about how they met is politely accepted and never discussed again. I'm told they make loving, caring wives. I challenge you all to fit that into your equations about the business without pulling a muscle.

robc | March 12, 2008, 11:24am | #

JsubD,

I'm told they make loving, caring wives. I challenge you all to fit that into your equations about the business without pulling a muscle.

Ive seen Pretty Woman. All hookers have a heart of gold, Hollywood wouldnt lie to us.

alan | March 12, 2008, 11:25am | #

The biological imperative is a bit over emphasized in some post above to a greater extent than sociobiology can explain contradictory behavior.

When I was in my early twenties I was pretty much a normal guy, the jealous type, and I was that way because I was insecure about myself. Now, I'm a bit older, and really possess no insecurities.

I'm at the point that I really don't give a damn what a woman does when she is not with me. The only two demands I have are, 1) don't give me anything I can't get rid of, and 2) pay strict attention to me when you are with me.

This has nothing to do with extending the species and has everything to do with fulfilling what gives me pleasure.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:26am | #

"Kerry may consider the social opprobrium that comes along with promiscuous--and particularly sex work--behavior more than she wants to deal with. I can certainly understand that, as the stigmatization is extreme (even if undeserved) and certainly factors into a lot of female decisions about sex."

That maybe true. If it is, then that means that she would be promiscous if we lived in an ideal world were no just stigmatization exists. I somehow doubt that is the case. I don't know her but my guess is that Howley wouldn't be selling herself for money even if it were encouraged in our society.

Let me give you an example. I would rather do almost anything than move furniture for a living. It is the most unpleasent awful work I can think of and I would only do it if it were that or starve. That said, if I ever did have to move furniture for a living, I wouldn't feel any shame in doing so. It would be one of those stories I told later in life about how that one year things got so bad I had to move furniture for a living and man that sucked. Now, apply this to prostitution and Howley. Suppose things got so desparate for Howley that she had to enter in the business for a few months to keep from starving. Social appropbation aside, would Howley look at those few months the same way I look at my moving job, a crappy job that had to be done, or would Howley feel in some way more degraded and ashamed of her experience than I would by mine? I think she would and given that fact, I don't see how she can honestly claim that being a prostitute is so hunky dory for some women just not her.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 12, 2008, 11:26am | #

I seriously doubt too many gay men would give a rat's ass what the man hos did.

For some, but I can assure you that many DO care. And it isn't necessarily about health, although that may be part of it, but mostly it's about shame and lack of class.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 12, 2008, 11:30am | #

I hope he's OK. Maybe someone should swing by his house and check on him.

LOL, if Warren was a cartoon character, Gahan Wilson would be the creator.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:32am | #

John, I look back at my furniture moving days with great shame, because I failed to take that MILF up on her offer to bang her. For shame.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:37am | #

"It seems to me that it is not the policy that deems it a crime against the American people to open your legs. Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs."

If you read that statement closely, Howley seems to be saying that to be a "sexually independent women" you need to bed a lot of men. Otherwise, why would the social stigma and laws against promiscuity be aimed at "sexually independent women"? My question is Howley promiscuous or is she not a "sexually independent woman"? In her world it seems you can't be both. If you have ever known a real life prostitute, something I doubt Howley ever has, they are anything but "sexually independent women". They are generally not into their work for enjoyment but for money and for a specific purpose and time period. They would never want their daughter or their sister to engage in that kind of work and they get out of it and try to forget it as soon as they can. Yes there are exceptions but they are pretty damn few. I guess what bugs me about this post is Howley, someone with the education and opportunities totally unavailable to most women stuck in a life of prostitution, lecturing the world about how what sexually independent women prostitutes are like some bad Penthouse Letter. I think if Howley ever tried such a life, she would find being a "sexually independent woman" sucks pretty damn bad.

alan | March 12, 2008, 11:37am | #

It does come across as weird to keep using Kerry, instead of, say, Kristen, as an example in this thread. I'm sure there are subconscious motivations involved.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:38am | #

That is something to be ashamed of Episarchic. But alas, we all have our skeletons.

T | March 12, 2008, 11:43am | #

would Howley feel in some way more degraded and ashamed of her experience than I would by mine? I think she would and given that fact, I don't see how she can honestly claim that being a prostitute is so hunky dory for some women just not her.

Given that feelings of shame and degradation are entirely internal to the individual, what you're saying is that if she feels one way about something, nobody else could possibly feel differently about the experience, and thus she is arguing that point in bad faith.

To use another sexual analogy, I would certainly find getting pissed on to be degrading. However, if it floats your boat, go ahead and convince someone (or pay them) to pee on you. I don't care, because I'm not involved. Likewise, no matter what anybody else's feeling on prostitution may be, if it works for the women involved, let them charge for it. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 11:46am | #

Ive seen Pretty Woman. All hookers have a heart of gold, Hollywood wouldnt lie to us.

But have you seen Olongapo City in its heyday? Have you ever sat down and discussed life, played cards, dice and chess with these women. Get tanked or blow a joint with a "hostess". Have you ever seen them walking on air because they think this customer might be the one to rescue them from their fate? Perhaps you've met some stateside who are trying desperately to integrate into middle class American society burdened by what is an open secret about their past.

Sure, some of these women can't adapt to a monogamous relationship, but the majority try their damnedest to be good wives and loving mothers. It's sad, funny and somewhat inspiring watching it from the outside. What I'm trying to convey is that prostitutes are real people. Making them outlaws is downright evil.

Full disclosure - I hired third world hookers when I was a young single sailor. I always treated them nice and was a good tipper in the morning. If you try to get to know them as people, it blows away many preconceptions you hold.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:47am | #

It is not T, you just so fucking stupid you don't understand what I am saying. Let me say it slower for you so maybe you will understand. It is not that Howley is wrong for claiming that prositution should be legal. It should be. Where Howley is full of shit is in her claim that being a prostitute is somehow not degrading. It is. Just because it shouldn't be illegal, does not mean that it is anything but degrading and lousy for the women involved. For someone in Howley's position to claim otherwise is frankly insulting.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:49am | #

Jsub, for some reason all I see in your final paragraph is "...third world hookers...blows...many...you..."

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 11:50am | #

My question is Howley promiscuous or is she not a "sexually independent woman"? In her world it seems you can't be both.

Only if you're a clueless dumbshit who thinks "sexually promiscuous" means "any woman who has ever voluntarily had sex with a man other than her legally wedded husband."

John | March 12, 2008, 11:51am | #

J Sub D.,

You are right. They are real people and for most of them being a prostitute is a really shitty experience they would like to forget. Howley seems to be claiming that that is not true and that they are just "sexually independent women". That is just crap and Howley at some level has to know it.

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 11:53am | #

I don't see how she can honestly claim that being a prostitute is so hunky dory for some women just not her.

John, read The Happy Hooker, by Xaviera Hollander. It probably is not at your local library. You may be surprised.

Kerry Howley | March 12, 2008, 11:55am | #

If you read that statement closely, Howley seems to be saying that to be a "sexually independent women" you need to bed a lot of men.

If you read the statement closely, it says no such thing.

Now, apply this to prostitution and Howley. Suppose things got so desparate for Howley that she had to enter in the business for a few months to keep from starving. Social appropbation aside, would Howley look at those few months the same way I look at my moving job, a crappy job that had to be done, or would Howley feel in some way more degraded and ashamed of her experience than I would by mine? If I were not in a committed relationship, I assume I would feel no more guilt than I felt, say, selling my ova. I fail to see a meaningful distinction.

Now applying that to the sex issue, is why wouldn't Howley be promiscuous.

Let's review the assumptions you have made about me, a stranger, in the course of this thread.

1. I am not "promiscuous." 2. If I were "promiscuous," I would feel ashamed. 3. I am a hypocrite because while I assert that prostitution is not inherently shameful, were I to sell sexual services, I would secretly feel humiliated.

I'm not even sure why you're so confident about the 1st, forget the 2nd and 3rd.

John | March 12, 2008, 11:55am | #

Jennifer,

That doesn't even make sense. If you want to be insulting at least say something that makes sense. No one has ever said "sexually promiscuous" means "any woman who has ever voluntarily had sex with a man other than her legally wedded husband." Take a deep breath and try again because right now what you are saying is so stupid that I can't even feed you as a troll.

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 11:55am | #

No, Ms Hollander is not the norm in the sex trade. The fact remains that some, not many but some, hookers are content with their careers.

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 11:58am | #

John, please define "sexually promiscious" as it applies to:

A) Men
B) Women

I don't blame you if you pass on that request.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 11:59am | #

So Kerry, you're saying that you are promiscuous?

See, I can misread what you write too!

John | March 12, 2008, 11:59am | #

Kerry,

Than maybe you would. I think you are sadly mistaken however if you think you could go prostitute yourself and walk away unscared by they experience. Maybe you could. Some women do, but most women don't. I only assume you are not promiscuous out of respect for you. Since I don't know, it is hardly fair of me to claim you are. I seriously doubt that many women who have actually been prostitutes would agree with you that it is no different than selling eggs.

John | March 12, 2008, 12:02pm | #

J Sub D,

I think it is the same rules for both. But for whatever reason women seem to get the blunt end of it. I have known any number of women who felt bad about being promiscuous. The only men I ever knew who felt that way were born again Christians who had been basically sex addicts. Maybe that is because society makes women feel bad. Maybe evolution makes it that way. I don't know. But, for whatever reason that is how it usually works and why it basically sucks for most women to be prositutes.

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 12:05pm | #

John, IMHO, the reason women who practice the sex trade are harmed by the experience is because religious and unexamined moral judgements have been shoved down their throat by a sexually confused society since they learned the local language.

Birds do it
Bees do it
Even Siamese do it

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Jennifer, That doesn't even make sense. If you want to be insulting at least say something that makes sense.

Neither does what you wrote in the context of Kerry Howley's comments.

No one has ever said "sexually promiscuous" means "any woman who has ever voluntarily had sex with a man other than her legally wedded husband." Take a deep breath and try again because right now what you are saying is so stupid that I can't even feed you as a troll.

Word of advice to all the men who have been so thoroughly and spectacularly missing Kerry's point here: the more you think with your dick, the more likely you are to be one.

KD | March 12, 2008, 12:08pm | #

John:
Let me say it slower and add italics to indicate the simple answer for you since it comes from your own posting: I think it is because she feels a sense of shame about having sex for money...

If that is the reason Ms Howley doesn't do it for money, what other reason is necessary? What is the big deal here? If that is the case, let go of it, it is HER reason.

Where Howley is full of shit is in her claim that being a prostitute is somehow not degrading.

Where John is full of shit is in his belief that Howley's doesn't have PERSONAL values that may differ from someone else's.

If you want to talk her out of her values, and can meet the $$ line that might overcome HER reasons (if there is a $$ line) have at it and keep us posted.

What exactly is your problem if some women might find it "hunky-dory" and others do not? Are you saying all women "should" have exactly the same values/feelings about every damn thing?

But, for whatever reason that is how it usually works and why it basically sucks for most women to be prositutes.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot here John-boy: note the words usually and most above.

Now listen closely, I'll attempt to say it again slowly, but in a slightly different way: If she feels shame it is a SUBJECTIVE response belonging to HER. Whether anyone else feels the same way or not is up to THEM, not up to YOU. Get it now?

J sub D | March 12, 2008, 12:11pm | #

I think it is the same rules for both.

You are not a very good verbal dancer John. I don't blame you for avoiding defining the term, because it is in the eye of the beholder. Defining sexual promiscuity says much about yourself.

John | March 12, 2008, 12:13pm | #

"Word of advice to all the men who have been so thoroughly and spectacularly missing Kerry's point here: the more you think with your dick, the more likely you are to be one."

I have seen your picture, trust me, when dealing with you the last thing I am thinking with is my dick.

joe/john baiter | March 12, 2008, 12:15pm | #

John, are you really joe?

Descending into personal attacks is what a joe does... or maybe it is what a John does too.

Dickin D'Ass | March 12, 2008, 12:15pm | #

What men like !

Still don't think it's worth $4,000

John | March 12, 2008, 12:18pm | #

"Now listen closely, I'll attempt to say it again slowly, but in a slightly different way: If she feels shame it is a SUBJECTIVE response belonging to HER. Whether anyone else feels the same way or not is up to THEM, not up to YOU. Get it now?"

That is not what she is saying. She is saying that "In sum: If we are ever going to introduce a conceptual distinction between the moral character of individual women and the integrity of their hymens, it seems extremely important not to criminalize aberrant sexual behaviors." If it doesn't effect moral character, why is it not right for her? At best it is just relativism. But Howley stated above, she doesn't feel shame about it, which I think is crap.

Guy Montag | March 12, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!

alan | March 12, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Damn, John, what is wrong, man? You start off with a really good point about the advice you would give a daughter about saving herself some grief, and then stumble into the deep end, tearing at some psyche scab.

The kind of vitriol you expressed should be saved for Communist, not for ladies of a libertarian disposition.

Abdul | March 12, 2008, 12:24pm | #

If I were not in a committed relationship, I assume I would feel no more guilt than I felt, say, selling my ova.

Kerry's kinda undermining her point here.

Why would being in a committed relationship make any difference? Because her significant other would regard hooking as a betrayal.

Why would he or she (no assumptions!) regard it as a betrayal? Because sex is linked to intimacy. Sex with a party outside the relationship violates that intimacy.

So why is it wrong that society regards people who buy or sell their sexual intimacy with shame? Don't we also shame gossips and blabbermouths who cheapen non-physical types of intimacy?

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 12:26pm | #

I have seen your picture, trust me, when dealing with you the last thing I am thinking with is my dick.

John, if you want to hurt my feelings you'll need an insult a LOT better than "My photo isn't being used as masturbation fodder by a military prude with scattershot spelling ability and multiple teeth missing from his mental gears."

John | March 12, 2008, 12:28pm | #

I should not have taken a personal shot at Jennifer. I was responding to what I felt was a personal shot at me and about 43rd condescending statement she has thrown my way over the course of the past few threads and should not have let that cause me to throw a personal shot. She started it is no excuse. My apologies.

John | March 12, 2008, 12:29pm | #

You right Jennifer. The better answer is to ignore you. You used to have interested things to say on here. Lately, all you can say is "stop thinking with your dick" and the like. My mistake was still taking you seriously. My apologies for still considering worthy of insulting. I don't insult Juanita, why should I inuslt you.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Why would being in a committed relationship make any difference? Because her significant other would regard hooking as a betrayal.

Whaaaaa? If she is monogamous in a committed relationship, then that precludes hooking and getting fucked in the alley by the guy at the bar for free.

Being in a committed relationship makes all the difference.

Guy Montag | March 12, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Episiarch,

I believe you are ignoring committed non-monogomous relationships.

Episiarch | March 12, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Sorry.

Being in a committed relationship makes all the difference for Kerry, it seems.

Jennifer | March 12, 2008, 12:37pm | #

If she is monogamous in a committed relationship, then that precludes hooking and getting fucked in the alley by the guy at the bar for free. Being in a committed relationship makes all the difference.

No, according to the jackasses here, it doesn't. There's only two choices for a woman: view any non-marital sex as inherently shameful, or prove your free-thinking sexual independence by being a hooker. No middle ground.

John | March 12, 2008, 12:37pm | #

"If we are ever going to introduce a conce