Why is sex work so heavily stigmatized?

[Guest Ou**or**n]

The stigma of sex work is the single greatest source of both its danger to women and one of the greatest sources of its emotional toll. When feminists argue for abolitionist models one of their reasons is that there are studies showing women leaving sex work suffer mental health issues similar to post traumatic stress disorder. I understand that events during the course of sex work can cause psychological damage - rape, violence, constant pushing of personal boundaries. However I also believe that that that the stigmatization of sex work itself is a big source. It is very difficult to feel positive about yourself and your work when have to keep it secret from your family and friends. The constant lying to those who are closest in our lives must take a great toll. I recently was with a fine escort and she commented that she needed to start thinking about finding a 'real' job. She was doing very well financially but to me I felt when she was saying 'real', she was saying a job she could openly share and discuss with everyone in her life.

 

So what is the source of this stigmatization? Even in a very secular society like Canada it is very prevalent. As my daughter recently went through her teenage years this could be clearly seen. At 14 and 15 there was an order of insults girls would use against each other. First was a skank, second was a slut but the worst insult of all was a whore. While I find men not as judgemental against sex workers in general they are far from immune. I know in many an argument males reserve the 'whore' insult for when they really want to hurt.

 

The most common argument of course is that sex is the most special, intimate and loving act that can be shared between two people and thus to sell it is to completely degrade it.

 

However I think that is poppycock.

 

I think the stigmatization of sex workers is a sign that despite many advances in male-female equality that there is in fact a long way to go. I think this because of how women are taught there one true power in a relationship is the power to withhold sex. We see this over and over endlessly in conversations, movies and TV shows. The guy who offends his wife pays for it by spending a night on the sofa or 'won't get it for a month'. We don't teach that relationships are equal and that issues are best dealt with a conversation between two equal partners. Instead we teach that a women simply needs to withhold sex to teach her lessons and get her way.

 

Thus of course if women believe in their hearts that their one true power is the power over their partners sexuality then their single greatest enemy is the sex worker, the 'whore' with whom their husband can just go and get sex whenever he pleases. This would completely undercut her power in the relationship.

 

Men stigmatize as well but from different angles. The one I observe the most is the 'macho' mentality of sex workers existing to being lower forms of life that exist to provide sex to equally lower forms of male life who are not macho enough to get women 'naturally'. Essentially the view that paying for it is the ultimate admission of not being macho.

 

I haven't even touched the religious aspects of stigmatization. A tenant of almost all religions is both the sanctity of marriage and the evils of any sex prior to that marriage or with anyone else during that marriage. Look at the Christian ten commandments forbid not just adultery 'Thou shall not commit adultery' but even thinking about it - 'Thou shall not covet your neighbour's wife'.

 

What are other thoughts and experiences on the sources of stigmatization? I'd be interested in hearing from all sides including the ladies here. Given many have likely experienced the stigmatization directly they are likely to have further and deeper insights than me.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

There is so much stigmatization in society. Not just in the escorts world, but in every aspect of human lives.

 

I've often said, that prostitution is considered bad, because the men who make the laws and rules, really don't like it when women have a means to say "these are my terms, like it or leave it". They are not in control of our bodies, and they don't like it.

 

I was talking to a guy once, he knows what I do, and he was bad mouthing a girl who used to have a bad addiction. She has been clean for months, but in his mind, he kept talking about how she would give BJ's for $5 so she could get her drugs. He didn't even seem to realize how much of a dick he was being. She was on a new path in life, doing well, but in his mind she was still a dirty street whore. I gave him a piece of my mind about this, and let him think about how two-faced he was being. Needless to say, he is no longer welcome in my life, as I don't ever want to have to listen to his crap and views.

 

I feel that women are given the short end of the stick in life - and those of us that fight for equality fight in every part of our lives. I am a feminist - always was and always will be. I will not let others dictate their views on me - just like I don't dictate my views on them. If they don't like it, they can move on. If I don't like theirs, I move on.

 

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. However, it doesn't mean I have to listen to it. I am proud to be a slut, whore, friend, lady, tramp, bitch - what ever you want to call me, as long as you call me!

[MightyPen 67414]

I pretty much agree with you. The stigma comes from the old view of male/female power dynamics, and you're right that despite many advances in many areas of society, this one fiercely resists change.

 

For a very long time in Western society, a woman's value lay entirely and exclusively in her sexual and reproductive powers. There was a long time even in English law when women couldn't own property and had no particular claim on her children; she and they were mere appendages of the husband. (Even today, the father walks his daughter down the aisle in the marriage ceremony and "gives away" the bride-object to her new owner, and how many people really stop to ask "wait, what?"? We're all too busy being caught up in the happy security of a familiar tradition.)

 

When sex is the only measure of your value and using it to secure a husband is your only path to financial security, you do all you can to ensure it retains its value. Women will shame another woman who shares sex freely because she's devaluing the currency in general; and everyone shames, or at least pities, the prostitute for "squandering" her own sole value for the sake of an income when she should be conserving it to secure a husband.

 

And from the man's side you're right; his value was measured by his ability to secure a good wife (and the access to sex and reproduction that entailed). A truly successful man should have a large supply of women throwing themselves at him in the hopes of securing him as a husband. Simply buying sex with money suggested he was incapable of acquiring it through merit.

 

Everyone was supposed to stick to the rules for the sexual "transaction", or the authorities (and their peers) would come down hard to preserve the accepted order. Or at least... everyone should always appear to follow the rules.

 

And that's the rub, because even in such a rigid society prostitutes wouldn't exist without men to secretly be their clients. And plenty of young women, and wives, experienced sexual attraction and acted on it outside of marriage. But when institutions hold sway and individuals are lesser partners in society, you maintain appearances at all costs lest that all-powerful community turn upon you.

 

Essentially: the powers that be, and even the individual participants in a rigid society, won't tolerate others who challenge its rules. The same thing happened to gypsies, who owned no land and therefore were seen as rootless and untrustworthy. People who disregarded the rules of sex=marriage were like sexual gypsies and suffered accordingly.

 

These things all sound silly today, BUT... traditions die hard, even when the reasons they arose don't apply any more. Most people still think that the standard life script -- marry in a church and have kids -- fundamentally rules any successful life, regardless of other changes in society. Parents and other authority figures are happy to reinforce this idea. So you get the dual behaviour of people becoming freer with sex to a point, but still buying into the idea of it as currency to purchase marriage, and that ultimately, sex should reside exclusively within that marriage. Anything else is a threat to all those who still buy into that idea.

 

Still... there's change underway. It's had to wait until the Old Guard largely die off and those that remain becomes outnumbered by a newer generation growing up with different ideas. Just as same-sex marriage has unexpectedly begun to achieve normality, the other anachronisms about marriage and sexuality may give way too. This could be helping to pave the way for acceptance of sexual service providers too. There will always be a conservative rump who will never accept the change, but I think those numbers are changing. We'll see.

[CristyCurves 169032]

We ourselves-(sp's) stigmatize one another. Sp's with an education will brand themselves "courtesans" rather than an sp, escort or provider. This title implies or eludes to a higher status than an escort, provider, prostitute or whore. This way of thinking in itself is stigmatizing in the sense that an escort/prostitute is of a lower class, less deserving of respect, even though we all do the same things. Which is a shame as this is how society stigmatizes this profession, they see us as the peons of society. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, teachers, architects, accountants, nurses, etc as the respectable and accepted. It's a shame more didn't view a persons character as the way of determining respect and acceptance.

As long as levels of superiority are valued and sought stigmatizations will be made especially concerning a persons walk in life. This walk in life (providing/escorting) will always be thought of as less than because it deals with sex and sex to many still remains a taboo subject, something that is feared, misunderstood and immoral. Anyone who practices it, shares in it freely is also thought of in the same way.

Human beings seem to thrive on power, control, reaching pinnacles and imposing titles and until we start realizing we are all equal just doing different things stigmatizations will exist:(

[Guest Ou**or**n]

She has been clean for months, but in his mind, he kept talking about how she would give BJ's for $5 so she could get her drugs. He didn't even seem to realize how much of a dick he was being.

 

Very interesting and insightful reply Meaghan. It sound best that you decided not have this person in your life. I am always struck by the power games behind the concept of 'sucking dick' so to speak. It is a term completely bound up in power.

 

I pretty much agree with you. The stigma comes from the old view of male/female power dynamics, and you're right that despite many advances in many areas of society, this one fiercely resists change.

 

Your whole post is thoughtful and insightful. I also agree that this is one particular stigma in society that has been very resistant to change.

 

Many social revolutions take a long time to hit mainstream but you can usually see them coming where they ideas (civil rights, LGBT rights) first emerge in arts and literature. I'm not as widely read as I would like and I would be interested to know if there are novels where a society is portrayed that truly doesn't stigmatize sex work.

 

I know in mainstream media, especially TV the stigma is continuing to be reinforced.

 

First, for the geeks here take Firefly. In this series, society is supposed to have significantly changed and sex workers have a professional designation of 'companions' a prestigious educational institution, a powerful industry regulation group and status in society. However despite this, the main protagonist, Malcolm Reynolds still calls the show companion Inara a whore and even worse shows her being hurt by those words. The show got cancelled before it could develop very far but you could see that her character was falling in love with Reynolds presumably because of his courage to value sex so highly. To me this aspect was very sad and one of the few big misses I've seen Josh Whedon make.

 

On the other side of the equation we have the current TV series 'Almost Human' which takes place in the near future on earth. One of the technologies that has evolved is robotics and one of the main dynamics is the use of robots in police work. There have been episodes where robots have also been used in the sex industry - sexbots and we see the typical macho male derision of the alpha male lead, Kennex, showing his disdain for those who use them. Also is shown the embarrassing denials of other co-workers for seemingly knowing a bit too much about them. Sigh.

 

Even Star Trek which prior to the reboot movies existed largely by positing that human society evolved to greater enlightenment still completely side-stepped that society's attitudes towards sex. When the show did show sex it was the tradition of alpha males such as Kirk or Riker and their numerable conquests.

 

These of course are all main steam shows and I guess it would be expected that they would reflect current attitudes but I would have hoped for one of these three shows about the future to at glimpse the possibility that society can root out and de-stigmatize sex work.

 

]We ourselves-(sp's) stigmatize one another. Sp's with an education will brand themselves "courtesans" rather than an sp, escort or provider.

 

Very interesting point cristy and one I hadn't considered. This brings to mind how in the wider world of sex workers - dancers, MPs and SPs that some dancers consider themselves to be superior to MP's because they don't 'release' their clients and MP's superior to SP's because they don't allow their clients inside them. I always saw these three 'levels' of sex work from the male perspective how close each one was to cheating in a relationship.

 

I had not considered within the SP world that the different service levels or price points stigmatized each other downwards. Very interesting food for thought.

[MightyPen 67414]

First, for the geeks here take Firefly.

Thanks for the comments. And huge bonus points to you for the Firefly reference! (Shiny!) But that's probably no surprise, since Jayne Cobb is my avatar. :)

[Lowdark 5613]

I feel religion also plays a large in the stigmatization as well. I'm not saying that we're all religious people in Canada or making sweeping generalizations that individuals who consider themselves people of faith are all bigots or are prejudice, but the major religions have all played huge parts in the founding of modern civilizations, and all three of those faiths have, for most of their histories, had less then stellar perceptions of sex and particularly women in general. In countries where laws are still skewered against women, many of they'll use religion as a basis for their legalized sexism, and even in countries like Canada and the United States, how often do we see opponents of marriage equality (among other social and education issues) use the Bible to justify their perspective? It isn't even uncommon to see politicians and celebrities say unbelievable things (like "a wife should always submit to their husband") out loud, often using faith as a cover. Religion isn't the only smoking gun-let's be honest folks, we live in a culture where women are often depicted and programmed that they are objects and that sex is their only real value, though if they use or enjoy it they're somehow worth even less (think of how many guys rush out to snatch up the annual SI Swimsuit edition but if one of the models they adore so much has an opinion that makes the news, they write her off as only being swimsuit model)-but I think it plays a pretty big role.

[moj0llama 600]

I definitely agree with the opinions stated in the thread so far, and it reminded me of a very funny Doug Stanhope bit about slut shaming.

 

Here is the 4 minute bit if anyone is interested:

 

I understand his crassness can put people of, but he certainly has some truth to his words.

[Guest S****r]

Interesting thread, and lots of good comments here. Most of them I agree with. I think one thing mentioned though is a misunderstanding of women (generally speaking) and that is the reference to women "withholding sex" in order to get something. <sorry, mightypen!>

 

I think men see "this" when in fact it is almost always "something else." When a woman is pissed off or harboring resentment or anything in between, she is not interested in having sex with the person she is upset with. Seeing someone in a negative light, as in when we are angry, is a real sexual turn off for women. I won't go so far as to say no woman has ever purposefully withheld sex to get something because unscrupulous, manipulative people exist in both genders and across the entire spectrum of society, but....I do think it is ascribed to women far, far more often than is warranted. If we don't like someone, we don't want to have sex with them. <Unless they pay us! hahaha And even then, there are some we won't do, no matter what we would be paid.>

 

So...why the stigma? I, too, suspect it has an awful lot to do with the teachings of religions. And those teachings are probably to try to control women so they don't run off and leave their man. And to keep men from running off on their women in order to have sex when their women are upset with them and won't have sex with them.

 

Why is it shameful to have sex outside of marriage? Maybe because they fear that a person won't feel the same drive to get married. And the fear is that without the marriage of couples and formations of families, which then have to consume (sic buy) all the things a family "needs" then the whole foundation of the society will fail? I don't know. It is all pretty crazy when you sit and analyze it for very long. All quite ludicrous and a ridiculous notion.

 

I do think our children's generation is going to form society quite differently from how we have, with very different sexual mores.

 

Just my two cents, for what it's worth

[MightyPen 67414]

I think one thing mentioned though is a misunderstanding of women (generally speaking) and that is the reference to women "withholding sex" in order to get something. <sorry, mightypen!>

Whoops! I'm with ya Summer, and that wasn't me that said that. :)

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

very interesting thread .. love the comments such a variety of input. I have a couple of comments...can't remember who said what and it's too much to quote, so forgive me not crediting those who said....

 

the bit about how women hate the idea of 'whores' being available to their husbands. Big time I agree with this. Wives who don't give their husbands sex are bound to be freaking out about the laws changing... you think?

 

Sex workers stigmatizing eachother ... I am well educated and have never used the term 'courtesan' in any advertising. I have also never felt those using it were somehow making themselves out to be better, or classier, or more educated.

 

The reason, for me, is that it simply sounds sooo serious. No offence to anyone using the term, it's classy and sounds nice. But I'm a fun, silly, relaxed person, and the term just doesn't suit me at all. I'm a temporary girlfriend, a pleasure provider, or something.

 

I used the term 'hooker' on another board and got grief for using it, but it wasn't meant in any way to be derogatory. it's just a word, really.

 

People used to look at smokers years ago, and it was a status symbol, a sign of wealth, of social standing. Now people look at smokers mostly with disdain, sometimes even with disgust. It takes years to change people's opinions of any behaviour.

[MightyPen 67414]

Remember! When choosing you professional descriptor, there's no more reliable source than the Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide "random harlot table".

 

Simply decide your classiness for the day and choose the appropriate title... or go full-on Random Encounter and roll d00 before composing your ad!

 

[roamingguy 300291]

Well some spitballed thoughts here

First is the idea that women need to be protected, men don't...and that women need in particular to be protected from men

Second is perhaps the idea that sex while an enjoyable pleasurable act for the man, is something distasteful and bad for the woman.

And woman need to be protected from men so they don't have to do something distasteful and bad

Third is labels. As much as the women's right movement has advanced, there is a double standard about sex. A man with multiple partners, a ladies man. A woman with multiple partners, promiscuous, slut, tramp etc...but she isn't known as a mans' lady (in the same vein as a man called a ladies man) In other words it isn't complementary for a woman to have multiple partners, but it is for a man to have multiple partners

Fourth, the idea that woman gives sex, men take it. And a man can take it with or without strings (but his choice), but a woman can only give it with strings, such as a relationship, marriage.

Fifth sex has a value beyond money so when a lady charges for sex with no strings, she cheapens sex and herself...meanwhile the man enhances himself as a ladies man

Sixth is the bias. If all sex workers were men, we wouldn't even be discussing this IMHO, because only women need protection, not men.

Seventh is belief that all that a professional companion provides is sex and nothing more. They do provide that, but also provide so much more, companionship, intimacy (in the broader sense of the word), an escape, a non judging trusting environment, in some cases friendship. Some of the most wonderful memorable encounters I've had with some special ladies sex didn't even take place.

Just a few off the cuff ramblings

 

RG

[Carrie Moon 68826]

One thing that I'm pretty certain makes slut-shaming of escorts from non escort females.. is a type of jealousy that underlies their fear that all their husband/boyfriend or potential mates have to do.. is make a quick phone call to book an escort and be unfaithful with (likely) zero consequences.

 

With so many statistics of cheating spouses and cheating spouse websites.. this is commonplace anyway.. and you can easily view the drama on a number of reality shows or Jerry Springer type shows how volatile the cheated on party reacts.

 

The fear of infidelity (ownership of a human being from another perspective) and tied to the marriage 'vows' and religious dogma.. adds to their belief that being 'betrayed' gives them the right to display 'the wrath of a woman scorned'.

 

My female non-escort friends are very secure in the knowledge that I'm not 'after their man' and easily trust me.. but I think in general that it taps into the fears of insecure jealous woman that we are 'filthy whores' and can distance themselves from us with this mentality.

 

If we don't exist we aren't a perceived threat...

 

Having been previously a very devout religious person prior to entering this profession (I'm spiritual now.. but definitely not religious and happier for it) I used to be one of those people into slut-shaming for religious beliefs.. boy have things changed for me!

 

But for all the previously mentioned reasons in this thread.. if we can label someone 'dirty' by connotation of the word.. we can distance ourselves and judge openly in an effort to curb the activity. Making it illegal in many countries and parts of it illegal in most just helps justify these types of opinions.

 

Even in Australia where it's legal they still have laws (or perhaps by-laws rather) to preclude certain types of activities in certain states.. ie no BBBJ in Queensland I believe.

 

In the states not even the whole of Nevada is it legal.. only in Pahrump outside of Vegas.. It's so hypocritical!

 

If religion weren't such a major selling point in the political arena with voters there wouldn't be as much stigma in my opinion. Candidates are usually sure to pander to the puritans and increase the stings esp in the US around election time to satisfy the 'burn the witch at the stake' types.

 

We become the scapegoats to appease the religious hypocrites for a while.

 

Speaking of the history of witch burning.. most witches were women who tried to take their own health into their own hands with herbs and nutrition.. advising others to their own knowledge and power. Medicine being a mostly patriarchal business didn't appreciate that.. some similarities there.. and again of course religion being the excuse to discriminate and punish.. literally to death.

 

I do think in the last couple decades though we have advanced the stigma by leaps and bounds. Having been in the business for a quarter century I've seen it for sure. I know several who work in the business though who still feel a strong need to hide what they do.. and it's so unfortunate. Of course many men who visit escorts can't be open either! But then again.. it adds to the titillation factor doesn't it really? A 'walk on the wild side' is part of the thrill of doing something naughty :P

[fortunateone 156618]

If you don't control who a woman has sex with, you can't control whose children she ends up having. And without that, apparently it is just chaos out there :)

 

Sex is still used as a weapon of war. Girls are still thrown out or killed if they have sex before their assigned marriages. Girls are still mutilated in order to ensure they are not capable of enjoying sex, because apparently they are so controlled by this that they will do crazy things in order to have sex with multiple partners.

 

The mutilation, fear of death, ostracizing, keeps them in line, so, again, we can all know who's the baby's daddy.

[roamingguy 300291]

One thing that I'm pretty certain makes slut-shaming of escorts from non escort females.. is a type of jealousy that underlies their fear that all their husband/boyfriend or potential mates have to do.. is make a quick phone call to book an escort and be unfaithful with (likely) zero consequences.

 

With so many statistics of cheating spouses and cheating spouse websites.. this is commonplace anyway.. and you can easily view the drama on a number of reality shows or Jerry Springer type shows how volatile the cheated on party reacts.

 

The fear of infidelity (ownership of a human being from another perspective) and tied to the marriage 'vows' and religious dogma.. adds to their belief that being 'betrayed' gives them the right to display 'the wrath of a woman scorned'.

 

My female non-escort friends are very secure in the knowledge that I'm not 'after their man' and easily trust me.. but I think in general that it taps into the fears of insecure jealous woman that we are 'filthy whores' and can distance themselves from us with this mentality.

 

If we don't exist we aren't a perceived threat...

 

Having been previously a very devout religious person prior to entering this profession (I'm spiritual now.. but definitely not religious and happier for it) I used to be one of those people into slut-shaming for religious beliefs.. boy have things changed for me!

 

But for all the previously mentioned reasons in this thread.. if we can label someone 'dirty' by connotation of the word.. we can distance ourselves and judge openly in an effort to curb the activity. Making it illegal in many countries and parts of it illegal in most just helps justify these types of opinions.

 

Even in Australia where it's legal they still have laws (or perhaps by-laws rather) to preclude certain types of activities in certain states.. ie no BBBJ in Queensland I believe.

 

In the states not even the whole of Nevada is it legal.. only in Pahrump outside of Vegas.. It's so hypocritical!

 

If religion weren't such a major selling point in the political arena with voters there wouldn't be as much stigma in my opinion. Candidates are usually sure to pander to the puritans and increase the stings esp in the US around election time to satisfy the 'burn the witch at the stake' types.

 

We become the scapegoats to appease the religious hypocrites for a while.

 

Speaking of the history of witch burning.. most witches were women who tried to take their own health into their own hands with herbs and nutrition.. advising others to their own knowledge and power. Medicine being a mostly patriarchal business didn't appreciate that.. some similarities there.. and again of course religion being the excuse to discriminate and punish.. literally to death.

 

I do think in the last couple decades though we have advanced the stigma by leaps and bounds. Having been in the business for a quarter century I've seen it for sure. I know several who work in the business though who still feel a strong need to hide what they do.. and it's so unfortunate. Of course many men who visit escorts can't be open either! But then again.. it adds to the titillation factor doesn't it really? A 'walk on the wild side' is part of the thrill of doing something naughty :P

 

Your post got me to thinking. Would society and the government be OK

with prostitution then if only single women were escorts and only single men partook in this lifestyle.

But as for the walk on the wild side bit, I sure wish I had walked on the wild side much younger in life, like before I needed a walker to help with my walking LOL

 

RG

[Guest Ou**or**n]

If you don't control who a woman has sex with, you can't control whose children she ends up having.

 

This is an insightful comment as it pre-dates the current three major mono-theistic religions. Many of the biases inside religions come from the less structured belief systems that pre-date them.

 

Having been previously a very devout religious person prior to entering this profession (I'm spiritual now.. but definitely not religious and happier for it) I used to be one of those people into slut-shaming for religious beliefs.. boy have things changed for me!

 

Thanks for all the insights in your post Carrie, certainly lots to consider.

 

I guess one of my poorly made points at the start of this thread is that the stigma against prostitution is certainly deeply embedded in religion and the degree to which prostitution by a female is illegal in any given country certainly closely mirrors the intensity of religious belief in that country.

 

However my main point was that in many ways our secular society here in Canada has made great strides in social progress on some issues such as homosexual rights (also something religious people are quite dead set against). However lets face it - it is far easier in today's society for a women to come out to her parents / family / friends and announce she gay than to announce she is a prostitute.

 

I agree that that there is little practical threat to relationships, family or society by prostitution. In fact I think it can be argued that it acts as safety valve. However as Carrie so insightfully points out, as long as we continue with the notion of romantic love and especially marriage as being possessive and exclusive, then these attitudes will be very hard to change.

 

RG had an interest comment about what it would take for escorts to be acceptable (used by only single men). I think escorts would be completely acceptable in a society where polyamorous love was the norm.

[fortunateone 156618]

 

RG had an interest comment about what it would take for escorts to be acceptable (used by only single men). I think escorts would be completely acceptable in a society where polyamorous love was the norm.

 

 

And yet you don't see the Mormon multiple spouse marriages set up with one woman multiple husbands. That is a society (the off shoot at least) as is some Muslim arrangements, that it is acceptable to have multiple partners, provided the partners are multiple women with one husband.

 

i doubt if a woman who expressed a desire to ensure her offspring would come from the strongest, brightest and best would be increased if she had multiple partners would actually go over well. :)

[Guest Ou**or**n]

And yet you don't see the Mormon multiple spouse marriages set up with one woman multiple husbands. That is a society (the off shoot at least) as is some Muslim arrangements, that it is acceptable to have multiple partners, provided the partners are multiple women with one husband.

 

Oh, I agree completely. When I was using the term polyamorous I meant in the more modern context as both the male and female participating in polyamory.

[Frank7 3939]

RG had an interest comment about what it would take for escorts to be acceptable (used by only single men). I think escorts would be completely acceptable in a society where polyamorous love was the norm.

 

I do think it's a large part of the stigma. If there wasn't cheating, everyone who wants to stick with monogamy would be reassured. It's one of the arguments i hear the most, after human trafficing, that prostitution breaks marriage.

 

Of course, there would still be other stigmas, but it would have greater supporting i think.

[CristyCurves 169032]

very interesting thread .. love the comments such a variety of input. I have a couple of comments...can't remember who said what and it's too much to quote, so forgive me not crediting those who said....

 

 

 

Sex workers stigmatizing eachother ... I am well educated and have never used the term 'courtesan' in any advertising. I have also never felt those using it were somehow making themselves out to be better, or classier, or more educated.

 

.

 

Thank you Jessica Lee-I'll take credit for that point as I said it and have seen it and felt it as have others, or so I'm told:) Just recently I was told of a provider referring to "escorts" as "common"-a quote and courtesans as "educated" -quote. We all have different experiences within this profession. Not feeling something or experiencing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Actually in all forms of employment and professions stigmatizations happen. Some people have to put others down to feel better about what they are doing. I've heard some cab drivers being put down by limo drivers, some teachers being put down by some professors? Perhaps this isn't the same as stigmatizing sex work as stigmatize actually means labelling something as disgraceful or ignominious. As some in society do deem sex work as disgraceful, not just below them. To sum up, I believe that a job title doesn't define a person or their worth it simply outlines their duties, abilities within their chosen profession.

-my apologies for the name mix up

[Guest Ou**or**n]

It's one of the arguments i hear the most, after human trafficing, that prostitution breaks marriage.

 

I guess it depends on the full meaning when someone says 'breaks' marriage. If they mean it reduces the number of people who get married because males have the option of paid sex instead of marriage then perhaps. If they mean it breaks an existing marriage I think they would have to back such a statement with some hard research. I have certainly read stories from the ladies on this board of men saying that the ability to see a prostitute is in fact quite beneficial to the marriage. It always a man to have sexual relations and even intimacy that can be lacking in the marriage and thus allowing them to continue. Having an affair on the other hand with all the levels of emotional complexity strikes me as much more harmful to marriages.

[Frank7 3939]

I guess it depends on the full meaning when someone says 'breaks' marriage. If they mean it reduces the number of people who get married because males have the option of paid sex instead of marriage then perhaps. If they mean it breaks an existing marriage I think they would have to back such a statement with some hard research. I have certainly read stories from the ladies on this board of men saying that the ability to see a prostitute is in fact quite beneficial to the marriage. It always a man to have sexual relations and even intimacy that can be lacking in the marriage and thus allowing them to continue. Having an affair on the other hand with all the levels of emotional complexity strikes me as much more harmful to marriages.

 

Males already have the option of no-string relationship, friends with benefits, open relationship and one-night stand instead of marriage. =P

 

Sure if the guy doesn't get caught, the marriage is "saved". But when they do get caught or admit it, the majority of marriage probably ends.

From a monogamous view point, a marriage where one partner secretly have sex outside of it is already a "broken marriage". Many think it's better to divorce or break up then be in a marriage while your partner cheats and they don't know. That's why so many are against prostitution i'm guessing.

[Carrie Moon 68826]

I've had this experience 2 or 3 times with clients over the years where they use Islamic law to invoke a 'temporary marriage' for the purposes of seeing me. They actually say prior to touching me 'we are married' and after the session.. 'we are divorced' or something to that effect.. to me of course it's laughable.. but hey whatever works for them.

 

If only we could satisfy all the religious zealots with this simple ritual :)

 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3748/uk-islamic-temporary-marriages

 

But no.. I don't think that if only single men saw escorts that the law would change. Puritanical christian beliefs still prohibit pre-marital sex..never mind with a variety of partners.

 

A polyamorous society is a long way off in my opinion.. but yes.. sounds like a plausible scenario where the stigma would be removed.

 

Some wonderfully communicative marriages are not only encouraging of their partner seeking sexual pleasure outside of the relationship.. occasionally I'm lucky enough to participate with a couple together in their exploration. That's always fun!

[scribbles 6031]

I'll admit I read most of but not all of the preceding posts, so take this statement as my disclaimer in case I repeat something someone else already said.

 

I've seen a lot of mention of religion, patriarchy and control. I think those things definitely play a role in the stigma, but I think chalking it up to those things entirely is an oversimplification, as it would be to say it's about spousal jealousy or fear of infidelity.

The physical act of sex is supposed to, according to very old cultural norms, carry a certain gravitas or depth of meaning. Our culture (and not all cultures are like this) see sex as necessarily emotional and personally intimate, so we reserve it for certain relationships that are expected to be founded on a similar emotional depth. Simply fucking because you're horny and you think someone has a nice ass devalues the sex act, according to these values. And, while men are definitely regarded differently from women in this respect, I don't think men who do this with one or multiple partners are held in a positive light except by like minded individuals.

Women who sell sex are thought of poorly because they further devalue sex by commercializing it. By doing so, they are thought to have some deep moral lack or defect, because only in lacking those morals could they reduce something so emotionally intimate and reserved to something so physical as to be a commodity to exchange for money. I don't really care what a sex worker calls themselves, the title is just window dressing on the same thing: you sell sex. And, our culture has habituated itself to seeing that sale as morally defective because it goes against the principle of emotionality and intimacy that sex is connected with in people's beliefs.

 

I personally think the thing that would help dispell this most would be less examination of the provider side of the equation, and more examination of the motives that drive men to purchase sex commercially in the first place.