Am I on a roll tonight or what? Am I stepping on some toes,you bet I am, I have always had a problem with prostitution being illegal, for the whore, but not the john, interesting isn't it? If the definition for a prostitute is sex for money, or drugs, or goods, then no wonder men call most women whores, because if that is the definition, then all men pay for sex one way or the other,  so that would make yo momma a whore too?Cause you know yo papa did some fine begging and money trading along the way to get some from yo mama now an again don't ya think?  And while I am on this rant, I read a blog and on their header was  a picture of Hillary and the word BITCH next to her name, why is that? because she is powerful, shes a bitch right, or because she is a lawyer, she's a bitch right? or because she is damn smart, she's a bitch right? What makes her a bitch? People like this always call women either BITCHES OR WHORES, why is that? Any hoo, I thought this was another good read..............enjoy

 

In Defense of Prostitutes

Appeared in Spintech, August 12, 2000

by Wendy McElroy

Perhaps the most fundamental question confronting anyone who takes a position on prostitutes' rights and wrongs is "what is a prostitute?"

The media and others doing research into prostitution often take an amazing tack on the question. Like many feminists who've done work in this area, I sometimes get phone calls from people writing articles, who ask fairly predictable questions: "What is prostitution? Who is 'the prostitute'?" I keep a list of four or five phone numbers and email addresses on my desk: they are from current and ex-prostitutes who are willing to make public statements about their lifestyle. When I am asked a question such as, 'Who is the prostitute?', I offer to provide the caller with one of the phone numbers or email addresses, adding any caveats I think may be helpful. (For example, if a particular prostitute is a call girl, I make sure the person knows that her realities will be very different from those of a street walker.)

Usually, the questioner has one of two reactions to my offer: either he expresses skepticism about the possibility of a prostitute having perspective about her situation, preferring instead to consult 'an authority'; or he takes down the information and later asks the prostitute salacious questions or ones about her victimization, leaving political questions for non-pros like me. All of us have seen this approach in action on television shows on prostitution that present clip after clip of feminists, academics, social workers, police officers, and their like -- all making comments on 'the life', all offering a glimpse of its realities through stats and studies. Somewhere in the show's mix, a prostitute or two will probably provide emotional testimony or be videoed as she walks down a street in a high hemlined, tight skirt as she leans provocatively toward the passenger window of a car.

We've all seen this media-research approach to 'Who is the prostitute?' so often that it may seem balanced and informative. Yet there is something bizarre about the methodology. Imagine a researcher writing an article entitled, 'Who is the fireman? What are his or her realities?' Now imagine that same writer insisting, 'Whatever else we do, let's not ask these questions of a fireman! Instead, let's consult academics and others who've done work on the subject, but have never experienced a fire directly.' If such a writer refused to take the accounts of firemen seriously, his research would and should be dismissed as skewed and irresponsible.

Yet refusing to listen to the voices of prostitutes who do not consider themselves to be victims is the most common approach employed by those who consider the question, 'Who is the prostitute?' Only the heart wrenching stories of ex-prostitutes who have been damaged by their experiences are given weight. Whatever the motives underlie this methodology, one thing is clear: most researchers approach the prostitute, both the call girl and the street walker, with a foregone conclusion of who she is. Among the predetermined characteristics of the prostitute: she does not understand the political implications of her situation and must have an outside authority interpret them for her. She does not grasp the implications of what she is doing with her own life and body.

From my point of view, the opposite is true. I believe the woman on the street corner knows tremendously more about her form of prostitution -- that is, street walking -- than I do. I believe a woman who has been beaten up and forced to perform sex acts by vice cops knows more about police abuse and its implications than I do. I think the high priced call girl -- especially the one who goes on to become a madam -- has a better bead on the economics of prostitution than me. All I can add to the many and diverse portraits of what it means to be a prostitute is the outside perspective of a feminist and of an average woman who has chosen a more 'respectable' sexual role.

Accordingly, I let the prostitutes I've dealt with answer for themselves the question, 'Who is the prostitute?' (A caveat: the majority of the answers come from the upper crust of the class structure that exists within the prostitute community. The responses are largely from call girls who are also active in prostitutes' rights: that is, from women who are both economically and psychologically secure enough to divert energy into pursu- ing political issues.)

Their answers come from a questionnaire I circulated to hundreds of active prostitutes who were members of a rights organization named COYOTE. My first response was from Salt Lake City. It was entirely blank except for a line scrawled across the front sheet: "I could not get past the words 'sex work'. I don't like how it sounds. It was a turn off." I had used the term in the survey because it sounded neutral to my ears and it was in common usage. Although no one else objected to the term, the woman's comment served as a vivid reminder that no consensus exists even within a fairly homogeneous organization like COYOTE.

For example, Priscilla Alexander, a former Director of COYOTE (though never a prostitute) waged a vigorous four-year campaign within the World Health Organization to prevent them from using the term 'commercial sex work', which had been originated by Family Health International. She argued that the word 'work' means an activity for which people are paid. The only purpose served by adding the adjective 'commercial' to the term 'sex work' was to emphasize in a peculiar manner the 'for sale' aspect of whoring. After all, people don't commonly say 'commercial bank clerk', 'commercial ditch digger' or 'commercial surgeon.' It is assumed that these are forms of paid labor. Why describe sex work differently? ...unless, of course, you indeed to treat it differently than other forms of work.

Interestingly, Alexander has no similar objection to the terms 'commercial sex' or 'commercialized sex.' Meanwhile, Margo St. James, the founder of COYOTE, has suggested with a bit of whimsy that prostitutes call themselves 'bawdy shop workers.'

In general, however, prostitute activists seem to prefer the word 'whore'. Norma Jean Almodovar, ex-prostitute and author of From Cop to Call Girl, uses the word 'whore' pre-emptively. Since she knows the term will be hurled at her as an insult, she embraces it as a badge of honor and replies 'thank you' to those who attempt to crush her with its weight.

The "Whore" Word

I am a woman...and if I get out of line, you call me a whore
And if I have a good time, you call me a whore
And if I speak my mind -- you call me a whore.
You throw the word at me when I stand on my own
You use the word often to hold me down.
You ever remind me that whores are the worst-- "You're just a whore!" you repeat like a mantra--
Like a shot of cold water to dampen my joy.
"You're just a whore -- so what do you know?
and what do I care of whatever you think!"
"You're a whore," is a dagger you drive through my heart
as you pound into my psyche that name.
You equate everything that I ever thought good -- with that word
which you spit out like venom -- to show me how awful I am.
But I ask you, please tell me, just what is a whore?
A whore says what she think and she thinks for herself...
She's independent and feisty -- so what? is there more?
Why does it frighten you so to know I've a mind of my own
and don't need you permission to live or to love or to be?
And what if I tell you
I don't care anyone if you call me a whore...
What will you call me now?

Whatever semantic disputes exist, politicized whores seem to agree on one point: the basic definition of whoring is 'the act of exchanging sexual favors for money or other material gain'. Some go on to address the emotional content of whoredom. Some question whether the exchange is a benefit. One woman, who described herself as an escort, explained to me:

"Now in my life, sex work for money is not a choice, but I feel, for myself that responsibilities, credit cards and monthly expenses, which I incurred years ago have still imprisoned me in this business."

Still other prostitute-activists claim that whoredom offers spiritual benefits. For example, Carol Leigh of the Prostitutes' Education Network is an advocate of the Old Religion which celebrates the Goddess within: the Sacred Whore. Prostitution is the manner in which this religion is expressed.

The majority of the hundreds of working prostitutes with whom I've spoken or corresponded fall somewhere between these polar positions, and usually land far closer to the 'purely for money' side. In other words, the emotional content of the word 'whore' seems to be something every prostitute defines for herself.

Associated Press

CHICAGO —  Researchers have concluded in a yet-to-be published study of the economics of prostitution in Chicago that the women claim they were forced to service police officers, worked more on holidays and varied pricing based on race.

 

University of Chicago professor and "Freakonomics" author Steven D. Levitt and sociology professor Sudhir Venkatesh of Columbia University are the authors of the two-year study of street-level prostitution in Chicago's Roseland, Washington Park and Pullman neighborhoods.

 

The study has been seen by Chicago aid workers, some of whom take issue with its findings. "It's a classic example of an economist trying to tackle a very complicated problem just by looking at numbers," Samir Goswami, associate director of policy at the Chicago Homeless Coalition, told the Chicago Tribune. "It's flawed because the numbers do not explain the social situation these women are in. It's not just a business transaction."

 

A draft report of the study was presented last week at an economics conference in New Orleans.

Prostitutes taking part in the study — who were paid $150 a week — reported that about 3 percent of the sex acts they performed were "freebies" given to Chicago police officers to avoid arrest.

 

Police spokeswoman Monique Bond did not respond to requests for comment on the study's finding.

The study found full-time prostitutes made on average less than $20,000 a year. If they had a pimp, the women made a little more, even after giving up a 25 percent cut of their earnings. The women reported being beaten about once a month on average.

 

According to the study, Fridays were the sex trade's busiest days, Mondays the slowest. The study also found white and Hispanic men were charged more, while blacks and repeat customers paid less. Seasonal spikes in demand drove up prices, bringing more women into the market. Markets in Roseland and Pullman operated differently, the study found. In Pullman, prostitutes worked with one of four pimps, while in Roseland prostitutes worked the streets on their own.

 

Levitt, whose best-selling book "Freakonomics" made him a nationally known economist, and Venkatesh are refusing to comment on the study and asked its findings not be published because it was still preliminary and incomplete.

 

The full draft of the paper is on the University of Chicago's Web site, marked "extremely preliminary and incomplete." A university spokesman said a final version of the paper is expected to be released in April.

Want to see what these predators tell each other about cheating? Check this out (link to original site at bottom)





Why do men cheat? Why is it, their biological desires seem to go unfulfilled and lead them to divorce court in the end? Every man is different, but the consensus is that sex driven men are being denied at home by their wives. The wives are using sex as a reward to keep their men in check. For example, if men refuse to help around the house, they will be denied.

Vanessa Lloyd Platt an attorney in the UK is amazed by how many women file for divorce right after the new year, in her post “Why we divorce lawyers are having a VERY happy New Year” for the Daily Mail she writes:

“For as long as I’ve been a divorce lawyer - some 29 years - it has always been the same; the first working day after the Christmas break is the busiest of the year. It’s a bit like the stampede on the first day of the January sales, except we have customers queuing up round the block for divorces, not discounts.

…In simple terms, it’s the fact that Christmas is one of the few periods of the year when husbands and wives are forced to spend a lot of time with each other. For the same reason, September is also a busy time for divorce lawyers, coming straight after the long summer holidays, and it seems to be the same complaints uttered every year.

A lot of people, especially women, get very excited about the build-up to Christmas and New Year, and have an image in their heads of a perfect family Christmas - a beautifully decorated house, stress-free cooking, charming children and a happy family playing board games in front of the tree.

Naturally, the expectation is far better than the reality, leaving many wives frustrated and disappointed that their dreams and hopes for the festive season have come to nothing.

…Many women complain that their husbands spent most of the Christmas and New Year festivities in the pub and not in their company, depriving them of the love, attention and support so many of them crave.

Having believed the holidays were the one time that they could isolate their menfolk from work and other distractions, the distractions still won.”

…Other women complain that their husbands do not do their fair share with the children, leaving them not only to do the shopping, cooking and clearing up, but also to provide endless entertainment for the little darlings as well.“

And yes, American Women feel the same way as their UK counterparts. These women just can’t seem to understand that they cannot train a lion or a grizzly with this mentality. It’s simple. If a woman loves her man freely and shows him appreciation, her man will do whatever it takes to keep her happy. That’s the secret ladies! Write that down! Yet many women feel they can use the promise of sex or the denial of sex to manipulate and change their man’s behavior. That will never work. It goes against biology. Why do you think we are built this way? We are not built with wide child bearing hips? Why do you think we are physically the strongest of genders? It’s because we can go out into the jungle and kill things and bring it back to the cave for the family to eat. Don’t send us mail, citing examples of physically (hooked on roids) strong women. Yes we are aware of a tiny percent of the freaks out there who deep down inside have p*nis envy. Man is king of the jungle and will always be. To deny otherwise, is to deny our biological roles. It has nothing to do with Male Chauvinism.

Over at the Don’t Get Married Forum, some brothers of ours comment on the dillema:

thechief writes: “This is probably my favorite “theme”, if you will, to this board and the MRA movement as a whole. The fact that we aren’t losing out on sex if we refrain from marriage because sex eventually dries up in a marriage anyway. They stop giving it up. And as I’ve said before, I don’t even think it’s something conscious for most of them. At some point they just realize they have everything they wanted out of a marriage (the house, the kids, the security, etc, etc) and they don’t have to give it up any more. This, combined with a passive/aggressive streak I think most women have that makes them uncomfortable whenever their man is too happy or contented means that eventually they decide ‘OK, that’s enough sex for you.’

Did they honestly think we wouldn’t mind?

The good news is that some prominent women (Dr. Laura, Jennifer Roback Morse) realize this is a problem and are encouraging women to rethink denying their men sex. There’s also a body cream–the active ingredients are testosterone, estrogen and progesterone–that supposedly helps keep the female libido up. I’m an optimist, maybe there’ll be a sea change some day.

Until then, frankly, there are call girls. As I’ve said, I respect escorts more than most women because at least they’re honest about the fact they’re f*cking you for your money.”

The Reverend Porckchops (Always a favorite commented on our story “What Would Life Be Like Without Feminism?“: “The feminists at N.O.W. are working diligently to legalize prostitution everywhere in America, so once the feminists at NOW get prostitution legalized everywhere in America then the marriage rate should plummet to near zero.”

We got an email from M. Hunter in reply to the Reverend’s comments that we felt should be included in this main post:

“And why exactly is that a bad thing. If prostitution were legalized it would solve a lot of problems for both sexes. First of all suckers wouldn’t have to worry about buying their ‘dates’ a dinner and a movie just so they might get a kiss. That means that as a guy you are paying $55 just to get your foot in the door. If you’re lucky enough to get laid by the third date you’ve just spent $165 and that’s not counting the time you’ve wasted that could be put to other uses. I don’t know about you but I would much rather bang a hot 18 year old legal prostitute that has been tested for stds’ then try and pick someone up at a club (which is basically has to do with chance) or waste my time dating.

Also think about how legalizing prostitution would effect the dynamics of male/female relationships. A manipulative woman would no longer have “******** it would only backfire on her when her husband stopped by the local brothel for and banged a hooker just out of high school. For professional gold diggers (think Anna Nicole here) it would be harder to manipulate rich and emotionally gullible men. There would also be less marriages for *** or money. People might actually start getting married because they’re (gasp) in love. powe