Sex is Degrading

That’s the only conclusion I can draw to explain the constant hysteria over prostitution.

What is degradation?

In this feminist debate, the idea of degradation seems to rest on the assumption that a woman is degraded when she loses her “value.” I explain, keep reading.

All women in prostitution are degraded

The base argument seems to be that having sex with lots of men is degrading. (This is true even without money involved.) And having lots of sex with one man for your entire life somehow isn’t degrading – even if you’re completely miserable in the marriage and only hope he soon dies of a heart attack to free you from the holy bonds of matrimony.

I digress. The core assumption seems to be that having sex with lots of men for money is degrading for the woman involved in the equation.

Why?

Why is sex degrading only for women? Why is it not degrading for the man involved? Why does a woman have to lose something every time she has sex? Why can it not be an equal exchange? How can the act of “becoming one” be so two-sided? And why aren’t men coming forth en masse to say whether or not they believe prostitutes are degraded?

The answer, to me, seems to lie in the old chastity thing. Women are only worth the value of their pure womb. (Notice how this belief still requires a value to be put on a woman?) And men are beasts ruled by their hormones, incapable of higher thought or feeling.

I feel I’m a hell of a lot more than an incubator. I don’t know why feminists embrace the idea that women are devalued (degraded) when they have sex. That idea was created a very long time ago by men for the benefit of men and is outmoded today. The people espousing this philosophy come very close to suggesting all women need to go around covered head to toe to avoid arousing male lust, which magically seems to degrade women within a certain radius.

The double-standard

The inherent degradation of women who have sex puzzled me from a young age. In high school, when the school “studs” were being worshipped, I always wondered why the girls they had sex with were reviled. I mean, how can an act that requires two people (unless the boys were making things up) leave one covered in glory and the other covered in shame? Or what about the logic of the fathers of teenage boys? They want their sons to have “experience” but their daughters had damn well better stay pure? What about the mythical girl that these boys were supposed to have sex with? Wasn’t she someone’s daughter too?

Today’s feminists rail against prostitution. They reduce women to their orifices and make judgments based on sexual activity – the exact same crime they accuse all men of doing to them. I fail to see the difference. One person who bases my value as a woman on my baby-making abilities and purity is pretty much the same as any other person who does – regardless of gender.

Women as receptacles

Nor do I like this oft-repeated perception of prostitution: men use women like a toilet to relieve their needs. So a man’s orgasm, his pleasure, is just a nasty thing to be gotten rid of, like a germ or bodily waste? Yet often these are the same people who’ll turn around and crow about the sanctity of life (like in the abortion debate). So I’m confused, is a man’s sperm a filthy contaminant needing frequent release? Or is it part of the great miracle of life, without which sacred bouncing babies can’t be born?

All prostitutes just lie there and think of England. God knows a woman cannot actively make choices in her own sexual activity, nor does she take any pleasure in it. Once someone pays her, all thoughts just go out of her tiny little brain (smaller than a man’s or a feminist’s brain, of course) and she becomes a vegetable-like victim, coming to life only when she’s been “rescued.” As long as she accepts money for her femininity, anything she says cannot be taken seriously. It’s common knowledge that she doesn’t know her own mind in a situation like that.

Sounds pretty Victorian, doesn’t it? Maybe with a little tinge of the arguments used to promote slavery?

Perceptions and the Media

Ultimately, I guess I’m just sick of these ideas in the media. They’re getting so much attention. Other voices are not being heard. (Yeah, I’d like mine to be heard, but I don’t have Melissa Farley’s publicist). There are very real issues that need to be solved. They’re not getting solved. Money goes in the pockets of “researchers” who are “experts” in a field they’ve never worked in. Lots of men (who would never admit to “paying for it”) weigh in. And the buyers and sellers and arresters keep doing their thing. Nothing changes, nothing is solved.

The problem is that perception gets changed. Well, maybe not changed. Entrenched. The public becomes ever more firmly convinced that prostitutes (and by extension, any sexual woman) aren’t real humans at all. Victim-prostitutes are many things, but not fully-functional and aware adults. This doesn’t help solve any real problems. It creates problems.

There are a series of unsolved prostitute murders in Winnipeg and Massachusetts right now. Anyone want to bet how long they’ll remain unsolved? I mean, the prostitutes who died were just meant to be victims anyway, why does it matter that their miserable lives were violently shortened?

Amanda Brooks