| .. |
|
||||
| To those entering the forbidden garden of sex work, my blessings
to you. As Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore said, "you are invited
to the festival of this world and your life is blessed." Or as
Yogi Berra said, "when you come to a fork in the road...take it."
Having worked as an escort and a dominatrix for over a decade, I can tell you it's not an easy road. A profitable and exciting one, yes. Profitable in knowledge and discovery as well as income. And that new body of knowledge is indispensable. If you're going to be happy working as a whore for any duration, chances are you're going to need to develop a highly personal moral framework within the context of which to meaningfully place and understand your new experience. Our relationship with mainstream popular morality has historically been an antagonistic one. "Whore," says popular morality with skeptically raised eyebrows, in a pinched undertone - a breathy little exhalation like a snake's hiss. Well. Perhaps we don't think any more of popular morality than it thinks of us. Maybe we don't need it, what with its constipated psyche, and its predilection for reality TV. But does this mutual rejection leave us whores inhabiting a moral void, a floating world deprived of moral gravity? Actually, it can form a profound invitation. The realization that popular morality leaves much to be desired can be a superb point of departure towards critical inquiry, towards a richer understanding and a personal moral framework. So let's take a peek behind some of the masks of popular morality and see what lies there. Let's unmask it. But first - what is morality, anyway? Where do we get it from, and what informs our understanding of morality? Do we tacitly absorb our ideas of morality from our upbringing like plants absorb minerals from the soil they're rooted in? Does morality come parceled in with our cultural conditioning? Or does the law form the backbone to our understanding of moral and immoral actions? Does religion do this? Or is morality inherent within us, simmering in our cells? Morality and the Law Ask many people why whoring is "wrong" (immoral) and they'll cite that it's against the law - the popular overlap of morality and legality. On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in the United States as unconstitutional. Before that, in 14 states, including Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi, anal sex was legally prohibited. So my question is: would anal sex in Dallas have been immoral on June 25 - but not on June 27? Legal codes are subject to change and amendment; is morality? And what was a good, law-abiding gay cop to do before June 26, 2003? The law is simply easier to enforce and justify if it's seen and accepted as a moral code, if what is illegal is "naturally" immoral. There are, however, obvious dangers in the prescriptive nature of an external, enforced moral/legal code. One of these dangers is its very externality. Whose rules do we have to play the game by? Not only are we asked to ratify with our behaviour a code that we may or may not agree with, we are asked not to decide for ourselves if we agree - not to explore that crucial question "what is morality, anyway"? This removes a vital dimension of personal responsibility from the equation. We're asked, in effect, to base our behaviour on a moral and legal code that does not necessarily respect our diversity or freedom of critical choice. This code becomes especially troubling when it prescribes how consenting adults are allowed to express love or desire for one another. How is one person or legal body to decide how another body should or should not expresses these basic human drives -what the "right" or legal way to love and desire is? How is the decision to be made - on whose grounds, preferences, values, scriptures and terms? Morality and Governance Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, proposed a reasonable solution to this question: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." As Arthur Hoppe commented about consensual acts in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1992, "the function of government is to protect me from others. It's up to me, thank you, to protect me from me." So if I desire to sell sex; if I desire to indulge in anal sex - and I engage in these delectable pursuits with other consenting adults in private, our right to do so should be sanctioned under constitutional law, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, that's not the function government serves today. We don't have a government which leaves us free to regulate our own pursuits of industry and improvement. What we do have is state control over the sexual behaviour of consensual adult citizens at play. "If we've learned anything in the past quarter century, it is that we cannot federalize virtue," commented President Bush in 1991. Nice sentiments, but in that year alone, the United States spent more than fifty billion dollars catching and jailing consensual "criminals". Fifty billion dollars. Half of those charged in the year were charged with consensual crimes, such as prostitution and drug possession. Over 750,000 people are in jail in the U.S. today for consensual crimes. * What precisely makes a consensual crime a crime? Where is the victim in the crime? T Is the victim the criminal? In essence, the trespass is a moral one; the crime is not injuring another, but breaking the moral/legal code. Is degrading, stigmatizing, and incarcerating someone for disagreeing with someone else's moral code acceptable? Is this moral? On the other hand, is granting the freedom to follow pleasure and make highly personal choices potentially dangerous? Sure. Can people do harm to themselves? Most certainly. But don't we as a society value that autonomy, that personal freedom and diversity? In fact these values set us apart from many other world cultures: the stubborn "right" to make our own stupid individual choices. If we could be said to have a cultural religion, I'd say it's the sovereignty of experience, and the freedom to pursue it. Power Play & the Masks of Popular Morality Ask yourself why there are, and have always been, everywhere, so many laws and rules governing sexuality, and you'll probably come to the conclusion that it's because it's powerful stuff. Power inspires folks, but not always in good ways. Often it inspires them to make up all kinds of rules and codes to contain, to quantify and harness power, and to put it to work for them. Look at spirituality, and drugs, and the myriad rules and codes we've thought up through the ages to encompass and make these things safe - or unsafe - for consumption. Everyone - the Church, the State, Freud, Hollywood, the big Corporations - seems to agree on that much: the power of sexuality. But where they go from there, what values are attributed to it, and what conclusions governing sexual behaviour and norms they draw, depends largely on their separate agendas. What is each trying to achieve? The perpetuation of the Church, a stable social order, a rationale for psychoanalysis, mass entertainment, higher beer sales. These power players' ideas of appropriate sexual behaviour - and the requisite moral code to regulate that behaviour - are comically, radically different. Each version presents itself as "right," as just and inevitable. Each insists that you endorse their moral rationale with your behaviour. That you consume their brand of morality, swallow their sexual logic. And each condemns you if you don't - to Hell, to stigmatization and a criminal record, to maladjusted polymorphously perverse homoerotic latency, to being unlaid and uncool. Recognizing the divergent forces and logics vying to harness the power of your sexual behaviour can help in the process of breaking down previously unquestioned assumptions about the nature of sexuality, and how we should and shouldn't express it. "The freedom to choose one's reasons for engaging in sex is an important part of sexual freedom," notes Alan Soble in Pornography, Sex and Feminism. Towards Moral Relativity Conversely, is sexual expression between consenting adults always and inherently positive? I would have to answer no. In my experience as a dominatrix, I've shared playful to profound BDSM experiences with clients willing to test their boundaries and limits, to explore new territory and try on new roles. For this, I consider myself blessed. I've also had clients in the dungeon beg me to visit upon them the same abuses their parents perpetrated, confessing that their early memories of love are inextricably bound to these childhood violations. I've struggled deeply with this and ultimately have advised them to seek counselling instead of my services. I find myself uncomfortable participating in this particular cycle of desire, uncomfortable with the role I'm cast in it. But does this mean my clients' desires to submit should be illegal, that they're "wrong"? How could coding their desires as such ever serve to do anything but harm to everyone involved? And who has the right to decide this for them? I would also argue that it's not the scenarios, not the acts or items my clients have requested: the spankings and humiliations, the strap-ons and paddles and bindings, which are inherently positive or negative. They're neither, or possibly both. And this is the trouble with isolating "things" as good or bad, and slapping laws on them accordingly, when in fact the things or acts: sex for sale, recreational drugs, alcohol, anal sex, BDSM play - are neutral. They're just things or acts, after all. It's how and why we use them, our volitions and meanings that are key. An example: a hand strikes a body. In the first scenario, the hand is motivated by violence, the volition is to do harm. In the second scenario the hand is motivated by compassion, the volition is to jumpstart a stalled heart. Same act. Immensely different moral value. And all this brings us to moral relativity, and the specific question: Is prostitution wrong? To whom? Is it wrong to you? For you? Why, or why not? What moves you to want to sell sex, besides financial gain? If you explore these questions before you begin, and as you practice selling sex, you'll have an easier time distinguishing between externally prescribed moral codes, and your own internal compass and what it's telling you. Love for Sale I have a girlfriend who counsels me to stop what I'm doing. She tells me that prostitution is wrong, immoral, a sin, but all the while she has an intricate set of criteria governing exactly how many dinners, how many gifts and expenses a new boyfriend must incur before she'll grant him sex. Peter McWilliams riffs nicely on this theme in Aint Nobody's Business if You Do: "Sex always involves some sort of exchange. Those who are attractive enough exchange their attractiveness with other people-their attractiveness is the coin with which they pay for sex. Some people have a good personality; they trade charm for sex. Others spend time with and do things for the people (or person) they have sex with. Some people exchange the exclusivity of their emotional affection, tenderness, and care. The list of what people "spend" in order to have sexual and sensual needs fulfilled goes on and on." What price is acceptable to you to pay for sex - and in what currency can it be paid? Is love the only fair price for sex? Seems a bit steep to me. My girlfriend would tell you that she's not cheap. I'd probably say the same thing about myself, but she and I would mean quite different things.. "Sex for money is a very honest relationship: no one's trying to mislead anyone else. And that in my book makes it pretty special. Honesty is a rare enough commodity; combine it with pleasure, and I think you've got a good working definition of love," declares Scott O'Hara in his article "In Love with my Work" (Tricks and Treats). Some feminist theorists such as Sheila Jeffreys and Kathleen Barry hold that we whores are motivated by economic forces beyond our ken, that our will is acted upon by the capitalist market, by the dominant culture, by internalized misogyny, and so is not free will, is not our own - that we are, in effect, blind slaves. Possibly this is the case. Who knows? If it was the case, we certainly wouldn't know. But then aren't we all acted upon by economic forces, driven by external - as well as internal - motivators? Does this necessarily make us blind? And does it invalidate desire? To be honest, I doubt either Sheila or Kathleen have ever given whoring fair trial. And if they did, would the will that propelled them against all cautionary tales to dip their toes into the forbidden pool suddenly evaporate, their clear sight suddenly cloud over in the blinding headlights of economic forces? Raised by a feminist activist from a wealthy family, the choice to enter sex work was a revolutionary one for me. It was in effect going counter-culture. Wearing make-up and high heels raised eyebrows in my family. Becoming a sex worker was not a sad slide into circumstance for me; it was a willful exploration of erotic extremity, choosing a glut of experience over safety - crossing the line - and wise or unwise, it was a wide awake decision. The underlying assumption of these feminists is that we whores didn't choose this career; it chose us. That this is in fact not a career at all, but a cry for help, a state of desperation. They can't comprehend that others could desire and willingly, willfully elect to do something which is alien to them. Hence it must be those economic forces that made us do it. Obviously, economic motivation is an inextricable part of the attraction to whoring. But are we selling ourselves, our bodies, selling our souls, by selling sexual services? That's ludicrous - we still have our bodies. Rented them out perhaps. But isn't that what professional athletes do, what actors do? Doesn't every job have a corporeal component? Selling ourselves, selling our souls? I suppose that depends on how you define the self and the soul, or if you even go in for the soul. Are we our labour? Our time? Our capabilities? Are our "souls" our ideas and our talents? If so then everyone - including Sheila and Kathleen - are busy selling themselves and their souls. A Snake in the Cathouse One of the legal/moral arguments against prostitution distills and personifies these nefarious "economic forces" into the pimp - the sex trade as victimizer, night thief of innocence - and imagines that since exploitive figures and forces exist around prostitution, that the prostitute body must therefore be one exploited - and the sex work should be prohibited to prevent this exploitation. The logic of this argument once again hopscotches over our will and agency (It's the pimp that made us do it). We become objects, not subjects - natural resources almost - to be exploited and protected by the power and will of others. Exploitation does exist within sex work. As it does within every trade, and every relationship known to humans. To locate exploitation within one sector or role - or gender - obscures its universal root causes. It's similar to the prohibition argument that primly pinned human excess and wickedness on alcohol, rather than on the underlying human folly and tendency towards excess. It's the drink that made me do it. At all times in history, and in all places, whether it was deemed legal or illegal, moral or immoral by those with say-so, people have found ways to consume alcohol. The same is true of selling and buying sexual favours. What prohibition has accomplished - for both alcohol and prostitution - is to create a thriving black market of organized crime, keeping pimps and bootleggers in business, and corrupting our law enforcement system. So how can crime and exploitation around sex work be significantly reduced? To me the answer seems obvious: remove prohibitive legislation. While this wouldn't magically solve everything - you would still have human nature in the mix, and it would require the introduction of new zoning and licensing legislation - pimps would be out on their ear. Police would serve to protect rather than intimidate street hookers. Exploitative escort agencies would be reported and charged, as would abusive clients. "Common bawdy houses", or shared prostitution facilities, which are the safest arrangements for independent escorts (such as myself), would no longer run the greatest legal risk. Prostitutes would feel safe to share information, support, knowledge, and resources with one another. Those who argue against prostitution perpetuate its prohibition and stigmatization. However, on closer inspection, prohibition fosters a great deal of the exploitation and crime many of these very people claim is the reason they are in opposition to sex work.) Out of my Bedroom, Thought Police Consider sexual surrogacy. This is a relatively new therapeutic field, but it is gaining fringe acceptance as a valid form of therapy. No sexual surrogates have, to my knowledge, been charged with prostitution. Why? They are setting a fee for having prearranged sexual relations with a client, yes? Yes. But they are trained therapists trying to help clients overcome sexual neuroses. I would argue, so are many whores. The primary difference here seems to be one of frivolity, of sexual pleasure. It's okay to commission a sex surrogate for serious, therapeutic sex, but not to hire a sex worker for a good, raunchy roll in the hay? Seems a strange and humourless moral value to place: as long as it's not for fun, it's moral. Or perhaps it's class lines that the moral boundary is drawn along here. Sex surrogates are educated professionals, where prostitutes - street hookers - are often seen to belong to an underbelly of vice and squalor. Call girls and escorts are rarely given grief by the law. But in all cases the same act is performed: sex for sale. Does its moral value hinge on the income and education level of the person performing it? Selling sex is not an inherently immoral act to me. Advertising junk food to children is. It's all about volition. What positive or benign motivation could inspire anyone to push what they know causes health and developmental problems directly to children? Whereas selling sex can be driven by a gamut of motivators and can be carried out with anything from compassion to contempt. To me an immoral act is one that harms oneself and others; a moral act helps oneself and others. But that's theoretical. What is my physical, personal experience of morality and prostitution? I would love to say that in the act of selling sex I feel alight with moral certitude, saintly even. But I don't always. There are moments when I have some client's cock stuck in my mouth and I am awash with a sense of moral violation, of wrongness. In glancing moments feeling a client moving inside me, I've suffered the conviction that these intimacies would be better off expressed within an intimate context, and that I am somehow misusing them. At other times I feel on top of the world, or at least like I am providing a humane and valuable service, creating a non-judgemental play space where desire and diversity can be explored, respected, and savoured. But that's just me. And the pleasure of falling is an undeniable part of what compels me - of going the other way, dancing outside my own boundaries - that neon trespass. The illicitness of sex for sale is definitely part of the intrigue. For you, this might be an entirely different equation. Your experience and moral compass may point you in wholly different directions. What is right and wrong to you, for you? In your adventures in sex work I wish you pleasure, safety, and the open mind to enjoy the richly mixed experience that lies before you. You'll gain many things through sex work. You'll lose others. Of the things you'll gain, possibly one of the most valuable is a highly personal body of knowledge and the relative moral framework to house it. Welcome to the festival of this world. |
|||||
|
|||||
| * Source: Peter McWilliams, Aint Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual
Crimes in a Free Country, 1998, Prelude Press **** Annika Stratford lives and works in Toronto, Canada. "Welcome to the Festival" is an excerpt from the Hand Guide to Whoring, the first ever comprehensive guide for call girls; the first how-to for whores. As well as offering an instructive, full-frontal view behind the bedroom door of the world's oldest profession, Hand Guide takes a critical look at popular notions of morality, and state control over the sexual behaviour of consensual adults at play. You can contact Annika Stratford at: annikastratford@yahoo.com |
|||||
|
|
12.07.06: Scarlet Letters -- in case it isn't glaringly obvious -- is currently
on an extended hiatus. The web has changed, we've changed, and
we're trying to figure out how we both fit together now, which isn't a process we want to rush. If you're looking for more current SL-related content, you can
have check out upcoming books from editor Heather Corinna and previous co-editor Hanne Blank, check out Heather's current sexuality sites, or explore sites through the femmerotic network. We hope to be back with you soon, as fresh, challenging and
unexpected as ever.
In the meantime, by all means, enjoy our years of past content,
all of which still remain in the public and subscription areas.
| .. | visual art • prose & poetry • nonfiction • artists in residence • archive • home |
