Sometimes I think that prostitution should be comepletely safe & legal, and *soliciting* a prostitute should be punishable by 20 years in prison.

Jessica, I think you summed up my position on sex work very well. As I've always said, I think it's completely consistent to be "pro-sex WORKER" while not necessarily "pro-sex WORK." Recognizing sex workers' rights is just one way of recognizing the reality of the situation in a feminist way--i.e. there is a great demand for the service; sex workers should be protected from rape and have access to contraceptives. However, in recognizing these considerations we must also consider the root of the demand and the reality of exploitation in the industry.

Does anyone else find this portion of the advice column problematic:

his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future.

It's almost like the columnist is saying that if the woman he slept with was actually not poor and disempowered and objectified, then there would have been a problem with his behavior. I'd understand slipping up with an ex or with a close friend or something like that a lot more than this...

There is never any circumstance under which it is ethically or morally permissable (by feminist standards or any standards) for a man to buy a woman to have sex with her. Women in prostitution are overwhelmingly in poverty. This is especially true in Southeast Asia where white men travel to satisfy their racist misogynistic desires. I've been to prostitution bars in Southeast Asia, guided by women's organizations. I've spent some time with International Justice Mission (and they have some fucked up politics of representation). Bottom line: Money (for women to simply survive) is the coercive element in prostitution. It is serial rape in exchange for cash. And women are profoundly damanged by it: even women in prostitution who don't identify ever having been raped suffer from PTSD at rates higher than returning Vietnam combat veterans - check out the peer-reviewed research by Melissa Farley at www.prostitutionresearch.com

bittergradstudent, you raise an EXCELLENT point. Prudie herself is making the cheating "okay" by demeaning the woman with whom he cheated. This is stereotypical anti-woman behavior. If a man cheats, blame the woman -- because you don't want to lose the man! Any way you can make it *her* fault in your head, means you don't have to give up on him, because a woman without a man is nothing, and you don't want to become nothing.

You're right that Prudie seems to imply that if the woman was, say, someone he worked with, someone with a job and who was treated closer to an equal than this poor woman in Asia, then somehow it would be a problem. Yes, Prudie, it's a huge problem when men want to have sex with women they consider equals, rather than with nameless, faceless, identity-less prostitutes. Oh, but I'm sure he's such a great guy he'll always have respect for his fiancee as an equal. (sarcasm)

Ooh, that was exactly my first thought too! That Prudie somehow thought it was better for this guy to have cheated on his girlfriend with a woman he could completely objectify and deny even the slightest hint of personhood, than for him to cheat with someone he might actually treat as something more than a high-end blow-up doll.

Also, I'm kind of aghast at Prudie's cheery prospects for this woman's future. I mean... "most devoted of husbands"??? WTF? Call me paranoid, but it sounds a lot more to me like this guy is just gauging how much he's going to be able to get away with. I mean, if this woman is willing to let him get away with seeing prostitutes now, when she doesn't even have the added weight of a "commitment" to consider, imagine what he'll be able to get away with once they're married!

How do I reconcile my belief that it's morally wrong to commodify sex with my support of women who do sex work? But then I realized that I don't have to. I can want to ensure the safety and rights (health, work and otherwise) of sex workers while still believing that buying bodies isn't right.

I think it's hard to split the baby this way. I think taking a position on whether providing a certain service is acceptable necessarily entails taking the same position on whether buying that service is acceptable - and vice versa.

Supporting the basic legal rights of all persons is one thing. You can certainly say that, for instance, you think sex workers should be safe, have legal recourse when they are harmed, not be coerced or exploited by the police, and so on. But that is not on-point regarding sex work itself.

I think that if you say you support sex workers' "work rights" - i.e., their right to engage in sex work - then you are more or less committing yourself to saying it's OK for there to be such a thing as a legitimate sex work industry (however structured), and that it's OK to patronize sex workers (within a legitimately-structured, safe, profitable, uncoerced . . . sex work industry).

Think about other disreputable industries we do support: is there any women's work that you think should be legal, about which you would take the position you do on sex work? Are there even any commodifying, but "legitimate", industries on which you would take that position? ("I think every woman should have the right to work at Wal-Mart, but no one should ever shop there." "I think women should have the right to pick crops/stuff envelopes/sew cheap clothing - but no one should ever employ them to do so or buy the products they create.")

I suspect not. I don't think that position quite works, for "legitimate" industries or for sex work. "Supporting the workers but opposing the industry" just means supporting the workers' right to be unemployed - which is hardly supporting their work rights.

You can oppose sex work, or sweathshop labor, or migrant farm work, or poverty-level corporate work, as being, simply, jobs no one should ever have to take. And if you think closing those industries is better, overall, for women than letting women work in such abusive environments, then that is the position you should take - that no women should be allowed to seek such work because the work is inherently too abusive to expose any woman to.

But if, as many well-intentioned people do, you think those are "merely" bad jobs that, on balance, are still better than nothing, then in saying you support women's right to take those jobs but no one should actually patronize the industry that provides them, you're basically saying it's better for women not to have a job than to have a bad, but acceptable, job.

In other words, we do support the right of women to take crappy jobs. We much more prefer that they have access to good jobs and decent working conditions, but, realizing that capitalism doesn't value such things, we recognize that the best option many women have is something no one would have to put up with in a better world - and we then support not only the basic legal rights of all women in such jobs, but the right of women to take such jobs if they feel they have to. Which is why most of us feel that Wal-Mart should provide better wages and benefits, but not that it should be illegal to work at Wal-Mart if they don't.

If that's your position about "bad" jobs generally - and it is, realistically, almost everyone's position about them - then what you have to decide is not whether you support "sex workers' rights", but whether sex work is, in your estimation, on the "supportable" or the "never supportable" side of the "bad jobs" line. And, again, if it's acceptable for women to work as sex workers, it has to be acceptable for someone (men) to hire them as sex workers - otherwise their right to work is of no benefit to them. On the other hand, if it's not acceptable for that job to exist at all, then no woman should have the right to take that job (though they should still have all basic legal rights not related directly to such jobs: the right not to be harmed, to be treated with respect, to adequate medical care, etc.).

I absolutely agree with Kevin about the problem of splitting the baby, so to speak. I am a woman. I am a feminist. I am a sex radical. I do not think it is automatically exploitive for one person to pay for sex with another, regardless of the gender of the people involved. I do have a problem with exploitation of labor, no matter what kind of labor it is.

The buying and selling of sex needn't be any more exploitive than other kinds of work. Some sex workers have pride in their work, and work in conditions that are better than we might expect. Why should customers who treat sex workers well, pay them well, and respect them be treated like criminals or stigmatized for their commercial sexual exchanges?

Kevin, I think you set up an unfair and false dichotomy. You're essentially saying that women are somehow responsible for our own objectification. I *suspect* Jessica would agree that if we lived in a society of perfect equality, where neither men nor women were viewed as merely sex objects, and where men and women were deemed to be equal in terms of sex, in terms of work, in terms of everything, then there would be nothing wrong with a sex industry existing. Note that the obvious logical corollary to this is that there would be roughly equal numbers of male and female sex workers, and roughly equal demand for both.

However, we do not live in such a perfect world. I think it's important to note that most feminists are neither prudes nor defenders of sex fiends. The fact of the matter is, in the real world that we unfortunately live in, that women are disproportionately objectified, and there is disproportionate demand for female sex workers. It is the *demand* that is the problem, not because there is something inherently wrong with the notion of selling sex, but because the sex workers are not in fact *just* selling sex. They are selling woman-ness, and this causes injury to all women. This is why the sex industry *as it currently exists* is bad and ought not to exist. At the same time, however, many of the women in this industry don't have a whole lot of other choices (somewhat ironically, by virtue of the fact that the sex industry exists; if it did not exist, they would have a much easier time getting the same jobs as men, rather than being seen as "not fit" for certain jobs because they are "men's jobs"). The point here is not to condemn the women who are in the sex industry, usually without much choice of their own. It's really not even to condemn, individually, the men who pay for sex. It's to condemn the notion that *women* are for sale. *That's* the problem, and there's absolutely no incongruity as you seem to suggest.

his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future.

No, see, because it's all about *love.* He didn't *love* the prostitute so having sex with her shouldn't be a threat to the girlfriend.

Boy Kevin, did you nail this one right on the head.

I am so conflicted about this. I personally know a woman who is a sex worker and loves her job, and I support her right to do what she wants to do with her life and her body. On the other hand, I've read the studies on how damaged and exploited most of the women and men (and children) are in the sex industry, and I know damn well that if that woman who received Prudie's advice were me, my fiancee would be living on a street corner so fast his head would spin for exactly those reasons.

Here's my conflict: I would never support a person's "right" to another person's flesh, and yet, how can I bash someone who buys sex when the person selling it is perfectly willing and happy to do it? I don't have repugnance so much for the person who sells it as the person who buys.

Is it possible to be for sex workers, but against sex work, or for sex work but against those who buy it? I don't think so.

I'm going to have to think about this.

I posted this before a lot of you posted your own responses - thanks Law Fairy, you made an excellent point and did a fantastic job of pointing out the big picture.

I think the Law Fairy has it nailed pretty well--the manner in which women are viewed in mainstream society, alongside the extreme corruption in much of the sex work industry, it is simply indefensible to really be a sex work patron. I would think, from the consumer end, it would be very hard to distinguish the situation of a willing worker from a semi-coerced one.

That doesn't change the fact that many of the sex workers themselves are oppressed and often without other options. One can certainly fight to protect them without necessarily endorsing all the bullshit that goes into the industry that pays their paycheck, Just like I can support the rights of Wal-Mart workers without ever setting foot in the damn place (and believing that others should follow suit until they shape up wrt their business practices).

Supporting the people at the bottom of any oppressive system is not an endorsement of those at the top.

Supporting the people at the bottom of any oppressive system is not an endorsement of those at the top.

I think that sums it up quite nicely...

I think it's totally senseless to say that you can't oppose the buying of sex while supporting those who sell it. It ignores the completely uneven power distribution in most situations where sex is traded for money, and completely misses the point of the things that go wrong when it comes to prostitution. I oppose the buying of sex because I would like to prevent the creation of a situation where economic coercion into rape is a likelihood. Coercion is coercion, though, and no one can take away a person's "right" (odd choice of words, Kevin) to be forced into anything. Most prostitutes are not exercising a right in selling their bodies - they are acting in situations where the right to control their bodies has been taken away (or at the very least, diminished) by economic realities, by male-female power dynamics, and any number of other factors. I don't believe that the buying of sex is always coercive or exploitative, though I do agree that public policy ought to be more concerned with the prevention of coercion into sex work than with allowing the small number of people who adore it to continue their work.

Just like we have regulations ensuring safety at work but you don't get arrested for standing on the "not step" of your ladder at home, situations where a person's decision-making power is arrested by circumstance can only be alleviated by giving the powerless more power - not taking away what little they had to begin with. Exploitation occurs when one party has the power to make every decision you could possibly make a bad one. You could have sex with a stranger for money or you could let your children starve. You could sprinkle asbestos powder on christmas decorations all day or you could quit and not be able to pay rent. These are not decisions a person can make rationally, and when you've been put in this situation by someone else, they are exploiting the fact that your random choice may benefit them.

The justification of the sex trade industry is a very complex matter, and although I have a strong disagreement with Kevin's conclusion in that I firmly believe that it is perfectly reasonable to separate the act of selling on a marketplace of evil consequences out of desperation and buying on that same market out of a false sense of entitlement, and also reasonable to support the right of a woman to prioritize her ability to support herself even when the means involve a market with negative social consequences at the same time that one opposes the existence of that market, but it's not what I really want to address and this comment is going to be long enough as it is, so I must sadly leave the argument unsupported.

Instead, I want to turn to one of the fundamental assumptions behind the main question asked:

To me, it's about whether or not you really want to be with someone who is fine and dandy about buying sex and commodifying women.

We don't know that about him. Seriously, we don't, despite the fact that he did buy sex and by participating from that side, contribute to a culture that commodifies women. Human beings manage to do a great many wrong things when their brains, for whatever reason, temporarily disengage. (In fact, I must admit to being a little disturbed by the implied reasoning here, that it is forgiveable to be fully cognizant of a betrayal of one's oath and an action that will directly cause harm to one's mate, but not forgiveable to be fully cognizant of an act that merely contributes to or takes advantage of a general social disrespect -- but I think the better starting point is from a lack of thought on the matter.)

It's highly unlikely (especially given his guilt subsequently) that he started off the day thinking, "Hey, there are women here that I can use for my benefit, despite being in a monogamous relationship already -- let me go buy one." Much more likely is that he was at the nightclub mentioned in the letter, probably intoxicated, since that's what guys tend to do when they go out to nightclubs together, an exotic and beautiful woman draped herself all over him and turned up the flattery, wheedling, and charm¹, the blood drained from the big head to the little head and his remaining analytic ability went offline and he came back to himself several hours later thinking, "Shit, I just had sex with a prostitute."

It's still speculation, of course, but it's a not uncommon scenario, as I understand it, and it's more consistent with his subsequent guilt.

Even assuming this scenario, there remains the strong possibility that he still hasn't thought about it, focusing his guilt solely on his act of betrayal, and there's potentially a good argument to be made that it's a really bad idea to marry a man who hasn't thought (or isn't in the habit of thinking) women's issues through, because he's likely to have other bad related habits, for instance with respect to distribution of domestic labor, expectation of childbearing, and so on, that will turn into energy-sapping long-term corrections even if he's perfectly willing to think about them when prompted and come to the correct conclusions subsequently. That, however, is very much a different question from whether or not he should be avoided because he's "fine and dandy" with commodifying women.

If you're willing to let him off the hook for disengaging his brain with respect to a woman that should have been at the top of his consciousness, letting him off the hook for disengaging his brain with respect to an unfortunately uncommon social awareness should be just as easy. The only way for me to come to the conclusion that the commoditization issue is more significant is to assume that his brain disengaged with respect to hurting his mate, but that he had full awareness of the significance of taking advantage of a prostitute, and my brain is refusing to believe both of those things simultaneously.

¹ A terrifying aside about a possible side effect of prostitution: I read an account once from a former prostitute about one of her fellow prostitutes that had ingrained that behavior so tightly that she used it reflexively even on her coworkers whenever she had the slightest desire for something, and I've always wondered whether women who end up going that far can ever reintegrate into a regular society and have a normal relationship, or if they end up with a prostitute's version of PTSD forever.

Zed, that's a really good point but I'd like to posit a more subtle one: having nothing to do with his cognizant *awareness* of inequality, what might it say about him that he was even attracted to the prostitute, as clearly he must have been, in the first place? I think that who you are attracted to does say something about your character, and I think there's more to it than just plain chemistry. I've been attracted to *very* different types of men at different times, and I can realistically see how this roughly corresponds to my mindset at any particular time. That he would even *want* to have sex with a prostitute, regardless of whether his brain was on or off, I think legitimately *does* suggest something about his character. Maybe he can overcome it, but in my mind the answer is not simply "his dick did all the thinking." Actually, I think that's a stupid answer and *ALWAYS* the wrong one.

Just my two cents' worth.

I don't care what HIS feelings/motivations/intentions were. At all. He used her. He contributed to the sum total of suffering of women in prostitution. And by the way, there is no "prostitute's version of PTSD." There's just PTSD and an overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have it, no matter what.

When one is engaged (or planning to become engaged) there is an implicit contract of sexual exclusivity (unless stated otherwise). He broke the contract.

Why would you enter into a marital covenant with someone who cannot keep a simple implicit promise?

Now is the time for her to bail, like yesterday.

Finally, he confessed that he had cheated on me with a prostitute one night when he'd gone to a nightclub with two male co-workers. --LW

The fact that anyone cheats is grounds for a breakup but the fact that he bought sex is double grounds. It would creep me out to be with anyone who'd bought sex before or was capable of buying sex. Also, men have a choice to not buy sex whereas prostitutes usually sell their bodies to survive financially. This john could have had sex with his fiancee whereas the prostitute was probably either trafficked in a ring or desperate for money. I support the sex work, sweatshop laborer, migrant farm worker and poverty-level corporate worker and not these exploitative industries.

However, his brief encounter with a poor, nameless woman should not be a threat to your future. --Prudie

Wow. In one condescending swoop, Prudie is sexist, classist and racist.

sorry

*LW=letter writer

*This john could have had sex with his fiancee if he'd waited a couple days

*I support the sex worker

Just in response to the Law Fairy, we can't assume that he knew she was a prostitute right away. I knew someone who went to Vegas, met some girl in a club when he was really drunk, had sex with her, and was asked for money afterwards. He didn't know she was a prostitute until this point. Not that I think this situation is a common one, but it is a possibility that he saw this woman and found her attractive before knowing her profession.

Law Fairy, I agree completely. Such a lazy way out (makes me think of my uncle who told his 12 year old son one day that a man's brains leak into his balls during adolescence and stay there for another forty years).
Ugh. But anyways,...
A question to those with an opinion (or experience within the industry-I mean no harm in the question) but how is it a woman can be "happy," or even liberated, working in the sex industry?
I dont mean "happy they can afford a certain standard of living." I mean something that ascends material value, that is about enriching one's life...totally curious (though I understand the very question implies some sort of narrow-mindedness on my part-I accept, but I am open to responses and interested...)

The Law Fairy:

Zed, that's a really good point but I'd like to posit a more subtle one: having nothing to do with his cognizant *awareness* of inequality, what might it say about him that he was even attracted to the prostitute, as clearly he must have been, in the first place? I think that who you are attracted to does say something about your character, and I think there's more to it than just plain chemistry.

I'm starting to suspect that there may be US-centric viewpoint problem involved here, though: in most of the U.S., partly due to the fact that it's illegal, you have to jump through circuitous hoops to solicit a prostitute, and it's almost always a result of a man specifically going looking to do so. Elsewhere in the world, prostitutes solicit customers... sometimes very aggressively. (For the record, although I have been personally solicited in both Germany and Japan, I have never accepted. I also have firsthand accounts of prostitution in the Philippines, from both sides (I have heritage and family there, though I never passed through a place where it happened to me personally while visiting), and in Thailand (from the male side only, coming from acquaintances in the military). In the Philippines and Thailand, it can apparently be very aggressive, as the prostitutes compete for customers. I'll avoid repeating some of the more graphic stories.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that she should get back together with him, or that his letting his brain go offline was in any way a correct decision -- merely that it's a problem distinct from being actively happy with the commoditization of women, and that if you are going to be in the tradition of forgiving single errors at all, this seems a bad place to make an exception.

As a general thing, I'm not convinced that it's wise to trade someone who was tested and failed for someone who was never tested without a deeper look at what might have been learned.

I have been drunk in a fancy bar, been hit on by an attractive woman, and failed to realize instantly that she was a prostitute. Sure, I figured it out quickly enough, but it's not as if I was driving the street looking for sex.

That said, I see no particular reason to cut the guy so much slack: absent some indication it was "all a mistake" why assume such?

However, I do understand what Prudie is getting at. Prostitution is nonemotional. And I think that given two options to hear from your spouse:

1) "I slept with two nameless strangers last night" or
2) "I am madly in love with someone else, though we haven't had sex yet"

many people would rather their spouse said #1.

I know quite a few marriages that have survived #1. I don't know many that have survived #2.

I'd still dump him though.

L1:

I don't care what HIS feelings/motivations/intentions were. At all. He used her.

He contributed to the sum total of suffering of women in prostitution.

And by the way, there is no "prostitute's version of PTSD." There's just PTSD and an overwhelming majority of women in prostitution have it, no matter what.

The PTSD would be from violence, rape, battery, etc. not the prostitute's aggressive seduction techniques.

"Mhm, well, I'd have to say they probably used each other... and if the event played out the way I think it did, the prostitute was probably significantly better at it."

Uhm... you're not seriously suggesting that we "blame" the prostitute here? That somehow *she's* the one with the power, and not the rich white American man?

Zed, this:

"a reflexive tendency to use manipulation and charm and a reflexive tendency to use fear and violence"

is NOT PTSD. What you are looking at is a way of relating to one's environment. PTSD, on the other hand, is a specific set of symptoms which appear in some people who have been exposed to a traumatic event (something outside most human experience) and the event, the emotions that surrounded it, and the actions of the person affected are relived through thought, dream, actions. This is accompanied by sadness, fear, anger, fear of dying early, inability to form close relationships, and poor sleep among other things.

PTSD is a very real and very difficult disorder; before you make pronouncements about it, please educate yourself.

And yeah. I was married to someone who had surreptiously using prostitutes on the side for YEARS (once I found out I dumped him). Men who think women are objects to be consumed are not relationship material. That attitude leaks over into everything.

If a man love's a women, he doesn't have sex with a prostitute, unless he is coerced into doing it by some fairly strange circumstances.

The question is, is prostitution exceptable under any conditions. Some wise old internationalist once told me that the Anglo-American armies traditionally are the only ones that went to war without their brothels.

The male impulse to have sex is something that is impossed upon him while he is an emotional midget and lacking any wisdom what so ever.

If a man has no relationship, and many men do not for a variety of reasons (shyness, geekness, poor communication skills etc...) then suddenly being thrust into a cultural situation, in a geija house type setting, where there is social coercion to indulge, then it is going to be the rare hetro that doesn't enjoin - and either way he will suffer his regrets.

A male in a relationship where he has a constant stream of sexual relations, and implied or overt understanding of monogamy it is wrong to engage in sex with the prostitute. He is, in effect, ending his relationship with his Girl friend/wife.

One should not underestimate the social coercion that takes place in some East Asian societies. Often the will of the group is expected to prevail and so does not let up until it succeeds, or if not, total social shunning ensues. This can be devistating in business relationships.

That addresses the male side of the equation, not the prostitutes side of the equation.

As Gandhi said, there is no greater violence then poverty - and I agree that impoverished women trapped in the sex trade are in effect, serially raped for cash. But at the other extreme you have wealthy porn stars who are paid cash for sex, some times 'serially' who obviously don't need the money. In between the two extremes you have you typical European Brothel, and in some countries, like Germany, every town has its brothel. What about those situations.

In essence the relationship exchanges is all about power. Men have it, women want it. Men want women, giving women bargaining power. Then it comes down to how good of a bargain one can get? Ivan Trump or Asian sex slave? It seems the trade is all the same.

All of this goes out the window when one arrives at love. In general, I believe you cannot hurt someone else, without hurting yourself. In sex that gets cubed. In love, it gets cubed again.

We need to create a culture of love, or of greater recognition of love. The problem is love is highly irradic, pops up sometimes rarely and for some, never at all, and in between those long gaps we need or at least could use sex.

After saying all of that, I just don't have the brain for this question - except to remember what the Greeks espoussed - no not their 'brothers behind' (not that there's anything wrong with that - but moderation in all things... all things but love.

I tried to write this before and got all bogged down - but did anyone stop to consider that the original letter writer was just asking for some advice on her personal situation, and not for a treatise on the plight of sex workers the world over, or the political and/or gender-equality ramifications of her fiance screwing a hooker?

I don't pretend to argue that the issues raised aren't important, but that's not what the LW was asking, and TO HER CREDIT, it's not what Prudie offered. You may not like her advice (I'm torn on it myself), but not one of us here knows how the LW feels about prostitution, how her fiance feels about prostitution, or for that matter how Prudie feels about prostitution. Is it not remotely possible that her fiance got drunk and did something incredibly stupid that he actually feels genuinely guilty for, and that this woman could forgive him, forge a life, and move on from this mistake - maybe even with some of the introspection and soul-searching on the wider issues that everyone here seems so bent on forcing on them?

People screw up. All the time. And other people who love them forgive them those screw ups. And sometimes, just sometimes, people learn from their mistakes. Maybe this is one of those cases - we just don't know, and shouldn't go around assigning motivations to people we don't know.

I found this posting from above to be very profound:

-Just in response to the Law Fairy, we can't assume that he knew she was a prostitute right away. I knew someone who went to Vegas, met some girl in a club when he was really drunk, had sex with her, and was asked for money afterwards. He didn't know she was a prostitute until this point. Not that I think this situation is a common one, but it is a possibility that he saw this woman and found her attractive before knowing her profession.-

While I haven't bought sex, and I don't like strip bars - I think because of the banal exploitation going on there - I have learned one thing, really good practitioners of the trade make it seem like they really do like you or are really attracted to you. The better the actor the more they make, I suppose. Then again, a beautiful women sits on your lap, bats her eyelashes, and the brain just quits working and judgement goes out the window.

I don't buy into that idea that men are rendered helpless and incapable of thinking--that is to say, incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions--just because they're turned on by a sexy woman. It's a myth that has been used to justify bad behavior on the part of men for many years, and it's nonsense. Men are adults. They are fully capable of making their own decisions regardless of the proximity of pretty women, and they should be held responsible for those decisions. If they can't behave responsibly in the presence of attractive women, then they shouldn't be trusted to make important decisions at all.

The Law Fairy:

Uhm... you're not seriously suggesting that we "blame" the prostitute here? That somehow *she's* the one with the power, and not the rich white American man?

I think you're still thinking in the model of clients soliciting prostitutes. In parts of Asia, it works in the other direction much of the time. The key to me here was that it happened at a nightclub in Asia, not on a street or at a bordello or procured by a taxi driver. This screams "bargirl swarm" to me.

Incidentally, if a man ran the same technique on an intoxicated woman, offering her blandishments and charm and pressured her into bed, you'd probably call it rape. The bargirl technique is sometimes not that much different, except that there's also a mandatory bill at the end.

Not all prostitution happens in the form of a man going somewhere, selecting a woman whether or not she wants to be selected, taking her off to a room and using her as a sex toy. (That happens in Asia too, but I suspect it isn't what happened here.)

I could be wrong. Maybe the guy is pure scum, "nightclub" was shorthand not for a Philippine-style nightclub where if there's dancing, it's clothed and not the pole-dance style, but a Japanese-style stripclub/whorehouse, he went there deliberately for that end because he does that every time a business trip takes him to a foreign country, but he realized that word was going to leak this time, and decided to pretend remorse so that the girlfriend would hear it from him first, and he's such a skilled sociopath that he's got her and her mother and the rest of her family completely fooled about his nature. That's not how I read it, though. I'm reading it that he was in a place like the Philippines or Thailand, was at a nightclub/bar, got in over his head when he got drunk and got swarmed by pretty girls all sweet-talking him and rubbing up against him, and all trying to get him to pay their "bar tab" and "pay for a room" and acting upset that he didn't think they were pretty or didn't like them if he wouldn't stand up. His two buddies probably weren't helping by cheering him on or taking rooms of their own.

That makes him a bit stupid and low on willpower, personal honor and responsibility, but not predatory. Whether or not those flaws are ones that should shred his relationship is a question she's going to have to make a decision on, ideally with more information about his character than has been provided so far. I was primarily interested in commenting only on Jessica's question and the assumption that paying a prostitute means consciously paying into the entitlement of human ownership that often accompanies it.

I'm also not commenting on the type of man that makes a regular habit of patronizing prostitutes (this incident was presented as a one-time lapse of judgement that he regrets, and I'm taking that judgement at face value), nor am I commenting on the issues of social discrimination or other gender imbalance that drives the existence of nearly female-only prostitution and the associated poisonous male attitudes.

I hadn't intended to get into this level of detail at all, actually; I think my general argument about a probable lack of understanding or conscious acceptance of the underlying objectification involved (as opposed to someone who would still think it was okay even if he was forced to think it through) stands without the detail of my speculation, and stands even if the incident played out somewhere between the two models above. However, since I managed to write something potentially offensive in casual reference to the details of my speculation, there they are.

"If they can't behave responsibly in the presence of attractive women, then they shouldn't be trusted to make important decisions at all."

Brilliant, EG.

Bubble, I'll put to you the same question I put to Zed: are you *actually* suggesting that prostitutes have more power than their overwhelmingly rich, white, male customers?

He contributed to the sum total of suffering of women in prostitution.

Whatever happened to "her body, her choice"?

Bubble, I'll put to you the same question I put to Zed: are you *actually* suggesting that prostitutes have more power than their overwhelmingly rich, white, male customers?

I don't think Bubble's suggesting that at all. The observation that prostitutes need to be good at sales doesn't mean they have more power than their customers any more than customer service workers have more power than their customers.

"Incidentally, if a man ran the same technique on an intoxicated woman, offering her blandishments and charm and pressured her into bed, you'd probably call it rape."

What's meant by this? You want to talk about offensive, I think this takes the cake. Zed, do you have friends who have been victims of date rape? Because I fucking well do and I can't even express how EXTREMELY offensive it is to suggest that a physically stronger male forcing himself inside of a drunk woman and tearing up her insides so that she bleeds for weeks and has to submit herself to a pelvic examination by complete strangers (likely also male) so that she will be *allowed* to get EC (which also wreaks fucking HAVOC with your body) and has to worry that she may have contracted an STI and lives for years with guilt and feelings of worthlessness, is IN ANY WAY similar to what happens to your average male picking up a prostitute in Asia. This displays some SERIOUS ignorance about what constitutes rape.

If this dude said "no" at any point, yes, it would be rape. There's no indication whatsoever that he did, and there's no indication that he was even ambivalent about wanting it.

And comparing prostitution to MUGGING???? What??? Would you also argue, then, that young boys coercing their other young male friends into making derogatory comments about women *also* qualifies as mugging? Hell, by your definition, any kind of peer pressure qualifies as "mugging."

HERE is the bottom line, Zed. From the information we have from Prudie's column, it looks like this guy willingly had sex with an Asian prostitute, in spite of the fact that he was engaged. This demonstrates ON ITS FACE disrespect for his fiance and disrespect for women in general. Trying to justify his actions as though he "had no choice" puts your viewpoint smack dab in the middle of the dark ages. Noting that this displays astoundingly bad character on his part says nothing about what his fiance should do, if she should forgive him, if she should take him back, if she should move on. It simply states the simple FACT that he lacks moral character. Period.

Whatever happened to "her body, her choice"?

Whatever happened to "Economically pressuring people to do something doesn't equal choice"?

Jenna, the post is "Should you stay with a man who buys sex?". Jessica asked for our personal opinions on the subject and told us her feelings and her friends'.

Western governments have passed laws against sex tourism involving children but it is not enough. Bush passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000 which pressured countries to enact anti-prostitution laws with sanctions. The TVPA was actually used to appease the Christian Right and to impose sanctions on countries that weren't the world's worst in trafficking. The Netherlands makes it possible to crack down on trafficking without harming women who on their own make a living in the sex trade but Bush was only interested in outlawing prostitution outright. The ultimate solution is changing human attitudes and human values because laws do not necessarily change human behavior.

Changing Attitudes Key to Ending Child Sex Trade

Why are we assuming this guy was white? Because he did something shitty?

Also, what does everyone think about the difference between illegal prostitution in America and legal prostitution in, say, Amsterdam? Would prostitution be less objectionable if it were above-ground, with benefits, counseling options, STI tests, etc.?

Sometimes I think that prostitution should be comepletely safe & legal, and *soliciting* a prostitute should be punishable by 20 years in prison.

Sweden's way ahead of you on this (though, being Sweden, it has less harsh punishments for buying sex than you'd like). It doesn't work any more than a straight ban on prostitution - all it does is drive prostitution underground.

My brother said the prostitutes in Shenzhen, China were all over the place and very pushy. This new degradation of women in capitalist China made him very sad.

The article I linked above says poverty is the main cause of prostitution in Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Taiwan so it may be possible in some cases that they are so poor and desperate prostitutes very aggressively seduce men.

But to "Torn", definitely dump this loser!

Coming to think of it, making the ring LW's boyfriend bought probably oppressed way more people than his paying for sex did.

Diamond mines aren't exactly the epitome of empowerment.

TLF:

Okay, if you don't believe my description of the way things can occur, the only thing I can suggest is that you go find a military type that's been stationed in either Manila or Bangkok and ask him about bars, nightclubs, and bargirls. He won't be a very sympathetic figure, as he almost certainly will have bought into the woman-for-his-entertainment meme, but if you can stomach his storytelling, you should be able to independently confirm the mechanics.

But you're rewriting what I've written, and I suspect it's because you're so upset you're not reading clearly (and I apologize for writing something so upsetting, but I stand by it) -- I didn't claim that it's the equivalent of a violent rape, or a date rape as you've described; I'm claiming it's the equivalent of the men who plied a woman with alcohol and managed to get her to agree to having sex with three of them in a van, despite it not being something she would have done if she hadn't been intoxicated. (This was covered in the comments on Feministing a while back, I think as part of a Girls Gone Wild thread, though I'm not sure exactly where, and it was pretty widely considered rape by the commenters, despite the fact that she never said no and wasn't in any fear of violence.) The rule is, once you are intoxicated, you are incapable of consent, and this doesn't slow down a bargirl for a moment, who will keep bringing you alcohol, and keep trying to drag you away.

As for the mugging comparison, I'm comparing this very specific form of prostitution, used on someone who has never seen it before, not prostitution in general. It is not a reference to peer pressure in general, except perhaps to the case of surprise-peer-pressure-by-ambush enacted on someone who has never faced much peer pressure at all before by a group of people who have spent years practicing deception and manipulation.

But let me cover your final paragraph in detail, because from it I find that you think I am of a belief that I am not:

HERE is the bottom line, Zed. From the information we have from Prudie's column, it looks like this guy willingly had sex with an Asian prostitute, in spite of the fact that he was engaged. This demonstrates ON ITS FACE disrespect for his fiance and disrespect for women in general.

Trying to justify his actions as though he "had no choice" puts your viewpoint smack dab in the middle of the dark ages.

But coercion doesn't always imply violence or even physical coercion at all, and I strongly suspect that a professional made his decisions as difficult as possible to make correctly. The bargirl game is as much about getting men who aren't really interested in a prostitute to pay for one anyway as much as men getting women who aren't really interested in them to have sex with them anyway. An inexperienced youth who runs into this for the first time may lose the game before he realizes one is being played.

If I may use U.S. law as a metaphor (with the crime being contributing to the commoditization of women), we're looking at the difference between conspiracy and, at most, being an accessory after the fact (if he fails to recognize the societal, as opposed to personal, significance of his error, though his immediate confession mitigates that), or at the other end perhaps nothing at all (you are attempting to claim accomplice liability applies, and I am noting that for that you need intent mens rea and am asserting that only criminal negligence applies).

It simply states the simple FACT that he lacks moral character. Period.

Does it help any to break the dispute down to the difference between intention and criminal negligence?

(... and if you aren't a U.S. Law Fairy I'm probably not helping, but I felt compelled to give it a try.)

I realize what the name of the post is, and that actually reminds me of another point - should you judge another woman's choices? Whether it be the prostitute he was with or his fiancee, should we be standing in judgment of the actions of anyone whose motivation we can't possibly know - including this guy, who people have completely dismissed ("I don't care about his feelings, motivations, at all," blah blah blah)? To steer clear of judgmentalism, the post could have been worded "Could you stay with a...," in which case it would have been much more personal. As it stands, we're having an awful lot to say about a bunch of total strangers, it's coming off VERY holier-than-thou, and it's leaving a nasty taste in my mouth.

We certainly have the right to our opinions, and to use this letter to Prudie as a jumping-off point for a thought-provoking discussion of prostitution, sex work, marriage, etc., but the one thing I think many people are forgetting is that this isn't a test-case - this is some woman's (and man's, and another woman's) lives we're talking about (very meanly, I might add), not a hypothetical situation.

There have been some amazingly good points made, I learn things every time I come here, but we're a little low on empathy. To this woman, this is not about the sex trade, oppressed, underaged women in Asia, rape, the diamond trade (non sequiter, anyone?) or any of the other talking points. It's about the fact that the man she loves slept with a prostitute overseas. And all anyone here could do was judge her harshly for even considering forgiving him.

Me personally? I truly have no idea what I'd do if my husband came home and told me he'd slept with a prostitute. I really don't. Logic tells me I'd leave him. But as anyone who has been in love can tell you, logic plays no part. And in this case, the personal is not political.

I just wish we could learn to wield our feminism with a little less judgmentalism on the side. It doesn't mean I missed the point.

magpie_malone:

Why are we assuming this guy was white? Because he did something shitty?

Also, what does everyone think about the difference between illegal prostitution in America and legal prostitution in, say, Amsterdam? Would prostitution be less objectionable if it were above-ground, with benefits, counseling options, STI tests, etc.?

As to whether making prostitution in general legal, unionized, taxed, and health-monitored is overall a better societal model in the short term while the underlying problems driving it get fixed, I'm not yet willing to take a position. A cursory comparison of attitudes of countries where prostitution is legal and monitored (Australia, the Netherlands) with the United States implies to me that the results of legalization at least aren't significantly worse than prohibition, but the issue is highly complex and difficult to measure.

Science fiction authors have speculated at social models where prostitution as a roughly equally-gendered art form works, but I know of no example of this, past or present, anywhere in the real world.

Okay, Zed, I'll grant that you didn't mean to be as offensive as you were, and to that extent I apologize for overreacting a bit. I'll admit I don't know enough about how Asian prostitutes operate, so I can't really do much more than simply take your word for it. However, what you need to recognize is that the coercion, wrong as it is, doesn't happen against a clean slate. It happens against a backdrop of female degradation and male supremacy, which is as prevalent in Asia as it is here and elsewhere.

I'll agree that drunk people pretty much can't make real choices, and I'm sure you're right about the girls bringing more and more drinks. But I'm still unwilling to say this is absolutely comparable to a similar situation if the genders were reversed. And here I'll get really cynical: lots of women will accept drinks from men simply for the drinks themselves. I suspect the vast vast majority of these men, however, are accepting the drinks because there is some accompanying interest in the women, who of course are dressed to suggestive and submissive perfection for the men's tastes. This is very different from a random guy offering me a drink. The prostitutes are behaving cynically, yes, but they couldn't exploit the men if there was nothing to exploit. And I'm saying that the fact that these desires exist to exploit is problematic.

Note that I'm not blaming "men" here per se, but rather the underlying social heirarchy that makes it okay for women to be desirable playthings. I am saying that I am unable to see how the men would associate with these strange women if they did not have some baser (learned) "instincts" at work here, and this is troubling.

And I'll readily admit that as for women who let men buy them drinks, this can be just as cynical. Lord knows I am no fan of women who can't pay their own way and in fact *expect* men to do it for them.

In addition, I can't see that getting a guy to pay for sex when he doesn't want to is somehow akin to getting a woman to *have* sex when she doesn't want to. Losing control over your money is a bummer. Losing control over your body shatters women's lives permanently, and I have seen this happen. Now if you were to posit that the men don't really want to have sex with the women this could be a different argument... but my sense is not that this is the argument you are making (though please correct me if I'm wrong).

I simply don't understand the mugging point, still. It really just sounds like peer pressure to me.

As for the law analogy, there are plenty of crimes for which negligence mens rea is wholly sufficient. If we're calling contributing to the commodification of women a crime (and I'm wholly in favor of this), we haven't defined it yet. From what you say it appears you think this crime ought only to apply to the purveyors of the trade, but that customers would be caught only on accomplice liability (and if my memory of criminal law serves me, I believe this is the current approach of most states with respect to prostitution) (and yes, I am a U.S. lawyer). However, you could just as easily say that engaging on either side of the purchase contributing to commodification, is itself the grounds for liability, and define the mens rea to be only negligence. In which case I think we have a pretty good case here. So, as with many things in the law, it all depends on how you define it.

To this woman, this is not about the sex trade, oppressed, underaged women in Asia, rape, the diamond trade (non sequiter, anyone?) or any of the other talking points.

Why's that a non sequitur? It's a good indication that, as you say, she doesn't care about these things: if she cared about the social justice aspect of prostitution, she'd probably also care about the social justice aspect of wedding rings.

It's about the fact that the man she loves slept with a prostitute overseas.

Right... and it's all about whether she cares about that sort of thing. Personally, I don't; I don't give a damn who any girlfriend I might have sleeps with. Your mileage may vary, obviously.

Science fiction authors have speculated at social models where prostitution as a roughly equally-gendered art form works, but I know of no example of this, past or present, anywhere in the real world.

Science fiction authors have also speculated at social models where there's no gender inequality, and in particular no social expectation that men are supposed to screw around as much as possible without their wives knowing while women are supposed to be sexless to everyone except their husbands.

In addition, I can't see that getting a guy to pay for sex when he doesn't want to is somehow akin to getting a woman to *have* sex when she doesn't want to. Losing control over your money is a bummer. Losing control over your body shatters women's lives permanently, and I have seen this happen. Now if you were to posit that the men don't really want to have sex with the women this could be a different argument... but my sense is not that this is the argument you are making (though please correct me if I'm wrong).

Seriously. He loses his money, honor and maybe some dignity. The power differential between genders makes similar scenarios much worse for women. Now I'm all curious, Zed. What the hell kind of techniques are these? When my brother came back from Shenzhen, he told me he was disturbed at how they are everywhere in plain sight plying their trade. They are especially in force around hotels.

From what you say it appears you think this crime ought only to apply to the purveyors of the trade, but that customers would be caught only on accomplice liability (and if my memory of criminal law serves me, I believe this is the current approach of most states with respect to prostitution) (and yes, I am a U.S. lawyer).

I was just going to ask you that! It's absolutely galling that prostitutes are penalized instead of johns! Galling! With drugs, they penalize both dealers and users but they made a special case for prostitution because women are naturally seducers, up to no good, evil, what have you? It only reinforces the stereotype of women as deviant, tricky and manipulative. If this is what you were suggesting, Zed, that's crazy.

So drug dealers are criminals but drug users are only "accomplices"?

I find it distressing that you said this, "I can want to ensure the safety and rights (health, work and otherwise) of sex workers while still believing that buying bodies isn't right. [emphasis added].

The guy isn't buying the person, he's buying time, and performance.

I don't think the machinist's boss owns the machinist's body, even for the 40 hours a week the machinist is being paid.

The turn of phrase objectifies the woman, and diminishes her existence; while implicitly demeaning her work (even if it's freely entered into).

The Law Fairy:

In addition, I can't see that getting a guy to pay for sex when he doesn't want to is somehow akin to getting a woman to *have* sex when she doesn't want to. [...] Now if you were to posit that the men don't really want to have sex with the women this could be a different argument... but my sense is not that this is the argument you are making (though please correct me if I'm wrong).

Back to the legal analogy, I am in fact considering the commodification of women to be a metaphorical crime that can be applied to either side, with the initiator acquiring primary responsibility and the other party being assigned accomplice liability, except in the case where each side is seeking out the other, in which it becomes conspiracy to commit.

(Here's where I get in over my head, since I'm only a law geek and not a professional, though I keep wobbling on making the plunge, going back to school and passing the bar. If I start talking out of my ass legally, please warn me before eating my head.) My understanding (which may be badly flawed) is that criminal negligence is used as the required class of mens rea only when great and immediate physical harm is at stake or has occurred (homicide, child endangerment, vehicular operation), or when strict liability applies in civil law.

As an analogy, I think it still holds, except that there is no legal exemption for choosing between hunger and infraction, so there's going to be an eventual problem with justice in assigning penalty to all parties, and I think trying to extend strict liability in contract law to a wedding oath is probably stretching the metaphor a bit. But you must have walked into that bar intending to pay a woman for sex to be completely guilty (and I will not dispute that many, if not most of the men who walked into such a bar and ended up in bed with a prostitute did exactly that), and those who walked in, found out it was available, went, "Dude!" and went along with it happily have at a minimum before-the-fact accomplice liability (expressed criminal intention once the act was proposed, and I will agree that if the first group didn't constitute a solid majority, the first and second definitely do), and those that walked in, got a bit drunk, went "Eh, why not?" after substantial prodding meet at a minimum the standard for recklessness/gross negligence (a reasonable man should have been aware of the significance, and numerically we're probably at least up to the top fifth percentile here with this group, if not the top first), and those that walked in, got sloshed, answered "Um, okay" to a few of the wrong questions or pleadings after substantial manipulation despite intending not to take advantage of the services at all, and found themselves in a bedroom with a woman taking off her clothes before they realized quite what they'd agreed to... well, you've got to have something a little wrong with your head to let it get that far, and there's definitely negligence of a sort going on unless you were so virginal that you had no idea what was going on even when it was happening, but it's more the sort of act where you look at them afterwards and say, "Man, you're such a goddamn idiot," not, "Man, you're such a goddamn asshole, and even then, if it happened to a woman without the money being involved, you wouldn't have even called her that. I'll also agree that there is a social heirarchy problem that justifies that distinction in final reaction -- but I don't think making the comparison is intrinsically inappropriate.

And if the man attempts to conceal it or justify it afterwards, that makes him an accessory after-the-fact, but if he is up front about what he did afterwards and can honestly say, "I didn't intend to encourage treating women as commodities, it just sort of happened when I wasn't thinking," then you have at most criminal negligence resulting in the support of someone else's crime, not likely to result in grave bodily harm. Give him some a stern talking to, and maybe assign some community service, but let it go.

That's as far as the crime of commiditization goes, anyway. I'm still not touching the question of whether or not his girlfriend should still marry him, and for that matter, I wouldn't lay money that he was very solidly in the last category either, but from his contrition I'd judge he's at least somewhere between there and the one prior, if it really is his first offense.

"This was covered in the comments on Feministing a while back, I think as part of a Girls Gone Wild thread, though I'm not sure exactly where, and it was pretty widely considered rape by the commenters, despite the fact that she never said no and wasn't in any fear of violence." - Zed

Very interesting comparison, Zed. Here is the thread:

http://feministing.com/archives/005340.html

I've seen this point touched upon, but not thoroughly explored. This guy, about to commit his life to his girlfriend, has shown he completely doesn't give a rat's ass about her.

Why would you treat someone you love like this? He didn't just victimize a vunerable woman over seas, he victimized his girlfriend too by showing her that his impulses are more important than her.

Personally, my dick and I have a deal. It gets to offer its input on any situation, but I always have the final say, usually beginning with understanding the amount of pain it would cause my wife. Why is this so difficult for some guys to do? It's fucking infuriatingly easy to understand. Because deny it as much as they want, guys like this don't care about or respect their lovers. Period. No other answer is plausible.

Healthy relationships are a constant balance of power. He has raped her of all her power between them and she is trotting back for more.

He won. He got everything he wanted. Why WON'T he do it again?

But I am, in fact, making the argument that in this specific case it is not improbable that the man, preparing to marry a woman back home with whom he is in a solid, long-term monogamous relationship, did not go into that bar intending to have sex with anyone at all, and did not have the capacity to consent at the time it finally happened, and his understanding of what he agreed to may have been a bit shaky until she closed the door behind her.

So you think he was raped? So you do think johns generally shouldn't be punished like prostitutes? Shouldn't all the drug users in prison go free then? After all, the dealer got the user high while he bought the dope. He was manipulated by the dealer to buy and use the dope! I think you've got it upside down.

"So you think he was raped?" - nonwhiteperson

"Incidentally, if a man ran the same technique on an intoxicated woman, offering her blandishments and charm and pressured her into bed, you'd probably call it rape." - Zed

nonwhiteperson:

What the hell kind of techniques are these?

* make a point of highlighting anything anything non-local about a guy's appearance as if it were really special and exotic
* complain about how expensive it is to live in the big city
* complain about how nobody tips, and that you aren't even allowed to get a drink when serving customers on your feet all day in the heat unless you pay for it (this will garner more sympathy there than here -- even during a Philippine winter, it may still be over 90 during the day with high humidity, which will hit most foreigners like a hammer).
* spend time "innocently" brushing up against him when you bring him a drink or chat
* take a break sitting in his lap, and if he's shy, pull his hands up a bit in a hug so they're under your breasts
* get upset if he isn't taking the bait, pretend to get really self-conscious, that he doesn't like how you look or what you said
* make a point that you'd be really grateful if he'd cover your tab for drinks during the day
* make a point that they have rooms here that can be rented, but she can't afford them, so she has to stay with friends

The general idea is to leave a pleasant illusion that they like you for you, and any money you might spend is just to help her out. The girl might not take any money at all, but have all exchanges happen through the woman who ownes the bar. Sometimes it's more direct. One of the tricks with the direct ones is to admit that she's a prostitute, but use the line that she really really likes you, but she has to find a customer or she won't have enough money to live on in the city, much less to send back to her poor family, but if you could just afford that fee and a room then she could stay with you instead of having to deal with a guy she doesn't like forcing himself on her and then having to walk home afterwards... guilt and rescue fantasy all in one convenient package.

The guy I knew who'd lived in Thailand said that they've got a slightly different system where they sometimes actually try to become your girlfriend over a longer period of time (leading you up to "save them" from their life of prostitution), if you'll pay for an apartment for them to live in and give them some spending money... on a very regular basis, with the constant threat of "slipping back" if they don't have enough to live the way they want. He fell for that one despite being warned (there's apparently actually an Army saying along the lines of "you can take the girl out of the bar, but you can't take the bar out of the girl") and it took him a number of months to realize that she had something like half a dozen apartments all being paid for by different men. She was trying to get him to marry her and take her to the U.S., too. (To be fair, I have to add that I don't think that he'd stopped visiting other prostitutes during that time, either, so it wasn't a bad girl taking advantage of some innocent angel.)

When my brother came back from Shenzhen, he told me he was disturbed at how they are everywhere in plain sight plying their trade. They are especially in force around hotels.

Though I've actually been approached both at train stations and in arcades/bars in Germany pretty openly, but where it wasn't quite as brazenly as has been described to me about Thailand. The first time it happened, I was playing pinball and an older woman, not dressed particularly unusually, started chatting me up about the game, complimenting me (which I thought was a little weird, as I wasn't doing all that well), and after I'd finally finished she attempted to get a lot more physical than I liked (which sounds worse than it was -- just cuddly and hair touching, but I was really touch-sensitive back then, and very wary of strangers), and when I reacted somewhat badly to that she expressed a certain hurt and confusion that I wasn't interested in coming back to a room with her.

My second encounter some months later was actually kind of funny (well, at least in retrospect, years later), due to the language difficulties. I was at a late-night pool place, and a woman came up to me and without preamble asked me if I'd be "interested in a little French" (or that's how it directly translates), which was apparently slang for a blowjob that I'd never heard before. It took me a number of exchanges, including a mangled attempt on my part to say in French that I didn't speak any French, before she moved on to different a bit of slang I recognized and figured out what she was offering. And then another woman came across the room ten minutes later and offered the same. I was left alone for the rest of the night, though.

One more bizarre note on that is that they always used the informal mode of address, the way you speak to kids, family, or close friends in German. I was 17, and looked a tad young for that, so it's really ambiguous which way it was being used, which is a disturbing angle I never thought about until just now.

But I'm rambling. Back on topic...

It's absolutely galling that prostitutes are penalized instead of johns! Galling! With drugs, they penalize both dealers and users but they made a special case for prostitution because women are naturally seducers, up to no good, evil, what have you? It only reinforces the stereotype of women as deviant, tricky and manipulative. If this is what you were suggesting, Zed, that's crazy.

(... and one more section before I post, since I see on Preview more questions...)

So you think he was raped?

So you do think johns generally shouldn't be punished like prostitutes?

Shouldn't all the drug users in prison go free then?

There are certain similarities in terms of economic conditions that may prevent drug dealers from making a living wage at a legal profession, and not all drugs are equally harmful (frankly, I think marijuana should just be legalized and taxed like hell, for instance) but I think the ratio of harm inflicted to harm received swings far in the opposite direction with drug dealing than it does with prostitution, so I am in fact inclined to punish a drug dealer much more severely than a drug addict.

I don't consider that particular fact relevant to the discussion of prostitution, however.

Zed, I don't have time at just this moment to respond to your earlier comment, though I do intend to, as I think it deserves a response (just meaning that, I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring your points, some of which I think are valid to some extent).

The "techniques" you list are basic, common manipulation. Nothing anywhere near approaching fraud or anything that might make the actions understandable, even if not defensible. If men fall for that sort of thing... I hate to sound harsh, but it's their own stupidity that gets them in trouble. I'll bet you good money that any woman could tell from a mile away that the affection from those women was one hundred percent fake. That most men can't see through it is a testament to their own blinding egos more than anything else. Really, this does not even sound like manipulation to me; it's a girl acting like an idiot and a guy, even more of an idiot, falling for it. I'm failing to see how this adds up to some complicated scheme; it's basic stupid bar behavior that any halfway sensible man ought to see right through.

They sound like regular hookers to me. zed, I don't have time to read all this but will read it later.

TLF:

If men fall for that sort of thing... I hate to sound harsh, but it's their own stupidity that gets them in trouble. [...] That most men can't see through it is a testament to their own blinding egos more than anything else.

I see nonwhiteperson's assertion that they seem just like regular hookers, and I can't really answer that, not knowing enough regular hookers. I've never solicited them, and the ones that have tried to solicit me were never that subtle. Maybe it's common practice and the relatively obvious ones I've known are the exceptions. To that I can only say that if it comes as a surprise to me, when I've at least had a few personal encounters and talked to a number of people willing to be frank about their experiences, then I have no doubt it could blindside someone who had never done even that.

I'll bet you good money that any woman could tell from a mile away that the affection from those women was one hundred percent fake.

It's funny though; a lot of my analysis on male reactions to women is just as speculative as my analysis on female reactions to men, because I have an odd personal reaction to any kind of seduction tricks, or for that matter rapid personal interaction. You see, I did fall for them myself, once (though not with a prostitute); I guess I wasn't a halfway sensible man, though I beg a little forgiveness as I was fifteen at the time, and a shy 15 at that. The woman was 19 or 20.

I won't go into details on that one, even if asked directly, but the result is that I ended up instinctively treating flattery and unexpected physical contact as attacks, no matter how mild or apparently sincere. I was shy before; I became positively jumpy after. I've mellowed a lot in the last fifteen years, but I still react that way, all the way down to an adrenaline surge sometimes, any time someone I don't know well tries to be affectionate. It's been handy, sometimes, but the price has been high.

If I fail to conceal my reaction, the response from both men and women is often that I'm a paranoid stiff-necked jerk and that I need to loosen up. I've gotten pretty good at hiding it, but I still sometimes slip, and I don't seek out contact. It's not the only reason, but it's contributed well enough to a lifestyle in which I've found only a few close friends, and not many acquaintances. I write more easily than I speak, and I speak much like I write: somewhat formal, planned, revised if I have the time, and a little stiff. I'm not bad at reading people who aren't trying to get too close to me, but I end up with a giant blind spot when they do.

When I look at the result of where my line between suspicion and gullibility ended up, I find myself mostly unable to condemn people who suffered mishap for putting it too far on the opposite end. I can't shake my head and call them stupid for not seeing it without calling up times people have called me stupid for driving away someone who I'm told was just being friendly, that they really weren't trying to get something out of me.

Maybe that means your judgement is just that I'm just as stupid as the others, but differently. I can't really defend myself against that except by saying that between those that trust too much and those that trust too little, I've seen a lot of company among both men and women, and I have to admit suffering more than a little envy of those few I've known that seem to consistently get it right.

I've seen this point touched upon, but not thoroughly explored. This guy, about to commit his life to his girlfriend, has shown he completely doesn't give a rat's ass about her.

Why would you treat someone you love like this? He didn't just victimize a vunerable woman over seas, he victimized his girlfriend too by showing her that his impulses are more important than her.

He showed her that his impulses are more important than sexual exclusivity. If she's the kind of person it's important to, then you're right... but nothing positive can come out of assuming that everyone's like that.

This certainly is an interesting position for a column that's ostensibly about morals to take.

It sounds as if this guy has issues about autonomy. Ostensibly, since he felt so guilty that he had to confess, he hasn't done this before. It seems odd that he couldn't help himself in a situation where the woman was frankly unable to demand anything but money in return.

Prudie seems to think that makes this OK, presumably because in their shiny new middle-class existence he's not going to be running into poverty-stricken bargirls and gentle reader won't have to worry about him hitting on equals.

What she doesn't seem to have thought about is that when they're married, he's going to have to make a great many concessions on his own autonomy, and a man who celebrates the imminent loss of his "freedom" by taking advantage of a faceless stranger isn't a very good risk for fidelity when he's asked to deal with the heavy lifting of an equal, and supposedly permanent, relationship.

Particularly since he seems to have missed the memo about the equality part to begin with - he asked the mother of an adult woman for permission to marry her? Does mom get a veto? What else about their lives together will mom be invited to vote on? How about his parents?

This guy is a really bad risk.

bittergradstudent: There is never any circumstance under which it is ethically or morally permissable (by feminist standards or any standards) for a man to buy a woman to have sex with her.

No. But there's no suggestion that he did buy the woman. Slavery still exists, of course, and it's possible that he did, but all he confessed to was having sex with a prostitute.

Which would probably make me want to dump the guy, yes, but then I'd have wanted to dump him for asking my mother's "permission" to propose to me.

Ugh. Prudie now officially makes me physically ill. Sleeping with a prostitute isn't a "slip up". It's a dealbreaker.

If he does this rigth after proposing, I shudder to think what he'll do right after marrying her.

This was what caught my eye...

"And they both pointed out the fact that this all happened in Asia is super relevant as there's a much better chance (rather than say in Amsterdam) that the woman was coerced or at the very least in a precarious economic situation. As Amanda said to me, "I think men should avoid prostitutes, but I find it much easier to understand slipping up with someone who's got health care, freedom, etc."

"Asia" is huge. Referring to poverty in all of Asia , making the assumption that prositutes in "Asia" are more often not free ,or are destitute, or are 'coerced' more often would offend most Japanese and Koreans...if you mean Thailand, well you might be right, but the article doesn't say he had sex with a child.

Making sweeping assumptions (even 'super relevant' ones) about an entire area including Japan ,Korea, China, India, the Phillipines, and other culturally diverse nations smacks of ignorance and prejudice.

Wow, I'm not as well-read or verbose as most posters, so here's my very limited $.10:

I feel that both Prudie and Jessica are falling into the trap of reinforcing the patriarchy's stereotype that sex work is intrinsically wrong. There's nothing wrong with selling things or giving people (and I use "people" because we also often fall into the trap of thinking of sex work as a male dominating female only proposition) orgasm, what is wrong is our skewed perception of sex as dirty therefore buying and selling sex is dirty. I believe that getting away from this dynamic can go a long way towards solving the paradox of how to support sex workers without denigrating them.

Justifying prostitution is the equivalency of rape apologism. Period. I don't care about his feelings. I don't care how alledgedly manipulative she was.

Zed, to clarify, I think women who don't see through such male tricks are also stupid. I, too, used to fall for a smooth line, etc., when I was younger and stupid, and I really don't have sympathy for people who don't wake up and figure this stuff out. This is a large part of why I have a HUGE problem with older guys dating girls who aren't even old enough to drink. These girls don't know any better and I really think it's no better than taking advantage of a child. So if the guy was completely naive (doubtful since he's basically engaged) I would give him a pass here.

I think most women *would* recognize the prostitute's behavior as fake, because it does not take a genius to figure out that some gorgeous, dolled-up Asian woman (who plays into disgusting white male fetishes with practiced perfection) in most cases will *not* be interested in some random white guy who walks into a bar in a non-American, non-European country. Sure, not in every case, but you don't need to be a statistician to understand that your average guy being "lucky" enough to stumble onto a perfectly packaged fantasy woman who's absolutely crazy about him, is probably living in a little bit of a dream world.

But I'm right there with you about the girls who believe some of the bullshit that men will say to get these girls to fall for them and sleep with them. As I said, I used to fall for that crap and I no longer do. And I'm not so old that I consider youth to be a very good excuse at all (with the exception of *serious* youth (18, 19) coupled with a total lack of experience). It only takes one bad experience to teach you about what liars people can be.

"Justifying prostitution is the equivalency of rape apologism. Period. I don't care about his feelings. I don't care how alledgedly manipulative she was."

THANK YOU.

lieinveigleobfuscate -

The issue isn't the rights and wrongs of prostitution. The issue is should this woman stay with a boy who - right after he proposed - went to another country and slept with a prostitute (in a an area of the world well known for it's child sex trafficking)? The implication in the article is that the woman expected her partner to remain faithful. He didn't. Prudie's advice is simply deplorable.

Hey Zed,

I'm personally confirming that there are prostitutes in Arab countries. Their rates are based on the woman's race.

As for this situation: I know a guy who is EXTREMELY shy. I mentally put him in this situation, with women pulling on his arm and trying to talk to him, and realised he would probably just stare at the floor, turning more and more red. Then I asked him how he'd feel in the situation, and he sounded a little panicked about being the subject of so much attention. (On a side note, he's also said that he doesn't want to have a wedding because everyone would be looking at him.)

I would prefer to believe that he would be able to say no, but it's possible that he wouldn't. However, he would still deserve to lose his girlfriend/fiancee as a kind of punishment for his stupidity/assholery. I don't think it would make him inherently exploitative, but he would have to think long and hard about his role in the exploitation of women, and what he would need to change.

And yes, I believe that prostitution is inherently exploitative. It's not because I think sex is dirty. It's because it commodifies both women and sex, and suggests that the best thing women have to offer in situations of poverty is sex. It's not a judgment on the women who are forced to engage in it by circumstance or coersion. It's a judgment on society for allowing those circumstances and such coersion to exist.

Lastly, I wouldn't be upset if my boyfriend asked my parents for permission to marry me. It would be more of a way to make them feel included and important than anything else. (I asked him about this. He said she should dump him because if she doesn't, he'll do it again.)

Dear Lya Kahlo,

"To me, it's about whether or not you really want to be with someone who is fine and dandy about buying sex and commodifying women. Personally, there ain't no fucking way I would stay with someone who bought sex.

But then, after saying this to myself out loud as I read the column, I felt conflicted. Because I support sex workers' rights. How do I reconcile my belief that it's morally wrong to commodify sex with my support of women who do sex work? But then I realized that I don't have to. I can want to ensure the safety and rights (health, work and otherwise) of sex workers while still believing that buying bodies isn't right."

This is the part of the article I'm commenting on. A hypothetical woman's forgivness of his ethical failure, and for that matter making the mistake of taking Prudie's advice, are a matter of personal choice to me. I don't see it as a base-line issue defining the feminist dynamic because it brings up the commoditization of sex, in fact, the commoditization is the only part of the article I find interesting enough to be worth debating.

Also, on a personal note, I've been anti-Prudie since she castigated those of us who've chosen to remain happily childless.

Respectfully,

lieinveigleobfuscate

lieinveigleobfuscate

My mistake. Clearly I thought you were responding to different posts. Apologies.

Well, obfuscation isn't just in my handle, it's a personal struggle against my own inability to keep thoughts seperate.

Prairielily: I wouldn't be upset if my boyfriend asked my parents for permission to marry me. It would be more of a way to make them feel included and important than anything else.

I wouldn't want my parents to feel included and important in my marriage. They're not included in my marriage, nor important to it. They're my parents: I have a wholly separate relationship with them than I have with the woman who just proposed to me. (Imaginary woman, I admit. I'm just reflecting.) Of course they should be told, and told ASAP: but their permission is not needed, and any implication that it is needed is an implication that they own me.

Slavery still exists: but not in this country.

Jes, I have the same thoughts. I did like that apparently the woman's boyfriend asked her mother rather than har father (although maybe this was just because the father's dead/absent?), since obviously the latter is horrifically offensive -- but still, the notion that parents should have any control over an adult's life isn't even "quaint." It's antiquated.

It's funny, but once upon a time it was often referred to as asking the parents for their blessing, not their permission. I never hear it referred to that way anymore, and I wonder why, especially given that in general, the population is supposed to be much more allergic to the "permission" concept.

It's because it commodifies both women and sex, and suggests that the best thing women have to offer in situations of poverty is sex.

Does it? It's not as if prostitution is the only unskilled, maligned job in the world. You can say the same thing about virtually every crap job: waitressing suggests the best thing women have to offer is serving food, domestic service suggests the best thing they have to offer is cleaning houses, babysitting suggests the best thing they have to offer is raising children, and so on.

Zed,

I actually do consider it more of a blessing. The word "permission" was used, so I used it too. I still don't see what's so wrong with him saying, "I really like your daughter, and I want to marry her and become part of your family." There's a lot of cultures, including mine, where marriage is very much a family affair. How do we know that this couple isn't part of one of them?

Alon,

Yes, it does.

I asked my future father-in-law for permission.

He's a semicrabby guy but has a good sense of humor and the first words out of his mouth were "what if I say no?"

My honest answer was "I'd marry her anyway. I'm just trying to be polite."

I think a lot of "permission" requests are in that category, myself. I mean hell, all a "no" means these days is "well, I guess we're flying to vegas and your parents aren't paying for the cake!"

Whatever happened to "Economically pressuring people to do something doesn't equal choice"?

Posted by: Alon Levy

This comments thread is a mess. Let's separate out several things:

1. Cheating on fiancee. Obviously bad. We don't know the circumstances as to why he admitted it, and we also don't know how likely it is that he will do it again. In general, most people who cheat do cheat repeatedly. At the same time, some people decide to learn to live with cheating, or cheat themselves. For others, it is a deal-breaker.

Bottom line, this person should evaluate, in a realistic manner, how likely he is to cheat again, and if he is likely to cheat again, how important that is to her.

2. Seeing a prostitute. Against, obviously bad. Bad for reason of risk of disease as well as because of inherent inequality of transaction, especially in Asia where we all know there's so much exploitation of women in the sex trade.

At the same time, I doubt most guys think about the coercive aspects of the sex trade when they patronize prostitutes. Rather, they are thinking with their ______'s. One goal of feminism is to raise people's consciousness about what the sex trade really entails, but unfortunately, horny men probably have something else raised, not their consciousness.

This DOES NOT excuse the guy. He is responsible for his choices, and frankly, if she dumps him, it is richly deserved. (I might add that the idea that some have floated here that if the prostitutes aggressively seek out customers, that he should be excused for not saying "no" is fatuous and offensive.) But again, that comes down to (1) how she feels about the fact that he saw a prostitute, and (2) what the likelihood of recurrence is.

I have to say that while this issue is certainly related to the feminist critique of the sex trade, it is easy to read too much into this issue. For instance, "gentlemen's clubs", porn, and Hooters' restaurants are also exploitative of women. But I have a feeling that there would be some more sympathy towards a guy who went to strip clubs, and quite a lot more sympathy for a guy who viewed porn or dined at Hooters. This isn't to say that the offenses are exactly the same-- they aren't. But it does point out that if one takes the position that nobody should ever marry a man who ever patronizes any activity that is sexist or exploitative of women, that probably holds out a standard of perfection that excludes many reasonably good men (and leaves a fair number of men who wouldn't be suitable marriage candidates in other ways).

I would add one other thing. There is simply a lot of prostitution around. Not only in foreign countries, but also here in the United States. There are strip clubs and massage parlors that offer "extras". There are women who hang out in the bars in Las Vegas. My bet is that a pretty large percentage of American men have, at some point in time, received some service from someone that fits within a definition of prostitution. They just don't tell their girlfriends or wives about it.

How do I reconcile my belief that it's morally wrong to commodify sex with my support of women who do sex work? But then I realized that I don't have to. I can want to ensure the safety and rights (health, work and otherwise) of sex workers while still believing that buying bodies isn't right.

"i believe western sex-negativity lies at the root of your instinct to treat prostitution differently from any other personal service."

Ahhhh. I knew it was only a matter of time before feminists against prostitution were accused of just not being positive enough about sex! :) I say, everyone do a shot when men accuse women of "sex-negativity." It'll be Happy Hour all day long.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to not want your personal beliefs to be legislated. For example, I think smoking is bad but I think smoking should be legal. Does that make me inconsistent?

Because you can't pull out the "economic pressure" (e.g. "payment") argument only for prostitution.

You know, usually I'm the person who says these things (indeed, I said something very similar in this thread about diamond mining).

"are you suggesting that the vast majority of the employed U.S. population is operating without choice? Because you can't pull out the "economic pressure" (e.g. "payment") argument only for prostitution."

If the woman had a choice between being a prostitute and being a doctor, then yes I would say she had a choice. But if she had a choice between scrubbing floors and starving and being a prostitute then she didn’t. Having sex with people you don’t have any desire to have sex with so you can earn a living is just not equivalent to working at a desk to earn a living or selling coffee to earn a living. It is just not equivalent in terms of physical and psychological effects that it has on people. People who work at shitty jobs wouldn’t do so if they had a choice, but people selling coffee do not suffer PTSD, right?

And yes you can support sex workers but not support sex work. I want those women to be safe, I want them not raped, not beaten, and if they are doing what they are doing by choice I definitely think they should be able to without being harassed by law-enforcement. But I can still think that prostitution is inherently exploitive and damaging to all women.

I just wanted to comment on the issue of “sex workers� because I don’t think the seriousness of the issue has been full discussed. Although I do not necessarily disagree with the term “sex worker� it implies that the woman (or man or child) voluntarily sold her (or his) body for payment. It is just as likely that a third person “owns� her and that it was this third person did the selling (or, more to the point, “renting�). This is very (very) common. A large number of “sex workers� do not sell their bodies, but are instead coerced into having sex with paying customers by a third party. I also note that the age of the prostitute was not discussed, which would have been the first question I asked.

In this likely scenario, the Fiancé didn't just have sex with another person. Instead he was an accomplice to rape.

sojourner, you just summed up what I have been wanting to say all thread but wasn't sure how to phrase. So, thank you.

zed: I have an odd personal reaction to any kind of seduction tricks, or for that matter rapid personal interaction. You see, I did fall for them myself, once (though not with a prostitute); I guess I wasn't a halfway sensible man, though I beg a little forgiveness as I was fifteen at the time, and a shy 15 at that. The woman was 19 or 20. Law Fairy: Zed, to clarify, I think women who don't see through such male tricks are also stupid. I, too, used to fall for a smooth line, etc., when I was younger and stupid, and I really don't have sympathy for people who don't wake up and figure this stuff out.

These seem to be personal issues. You were 15 years old. The guy in the article was an adult so was less naive and susceptible. I know about sex workers only from reading and watching movies. The sex worker in Pretty Woman made the john feel sorry for her because she was poor and the very pushy one in Risky Business literally pulled the rug up from under the naive, unsuspecting teen. I also have little sympathy for those who are fooled a second time. I think the drugs and sex workers issues are related. Both dealers and users are punished. Sex workers are punished but not johns. The only reason I can think of for this injustice is sexism and the idea that women are naturally deceptive.

Lots of people who don't need the money and could easily afford to supply all their kids' needs still want their kid (say, between 16-20ish) to get summer jobs or even part time jobs with school for the experience of responsibility and self sufficiency.

They tend to be happy for their kids to work in many potentially unappealing jobs as manual labor, customer service, even if they belong to a class that wouldn't consider these jobs as long term career options.

Do you think they would be happy for their kids to be prostitutes over the summer to earn their spending money?

Until we live in a world where they would be (which kind of scares me), then prostition isn't comparable to those jobs. Period.

So, basically, prostitution in Asia isn't comparable to other low-brow jobs in Asia because the average American parent is a prude.

Hmmm… Alon, are you suggesting non-prudish parents encourage their children to engage in prostitution? Or do you just feel a need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing all the time?

No, I'm suggesting American parents feel differently about prostitution versus waitressing because of prudishness.

To see that there's a huge cultural element here, consider domestic service. American parents don't encourage their children to work as maids; they encourage them to work in sales and customer service and food service. In this case, it comes from a view of domestic service as more demeaning than working at Wal-Mart; in the case of prostitution, it comes from prudishness.