In my long look into the sex business, I came across many primary sources on what exactly it is like to be a porn star, a prostitute, or a stripper. I felt connected to the experiences of the women I read. I felt that what they did was so normal and wrongly stigmatized. I could see myself doing what they did, hating doing what they did, and most of all, hating the people that asked them to do it. Part of letting go of my zealous relationship with the Madonna/Whore dichotomy was to stop looking at sex workers as whores, manipulative she-witches, and weak downtrodden sex objects.
What I discovered, however, from reading the first hand account of Johns was anything but empathy. I am a serial monogamist. When the inclination to stray is strong enough, I cash in my chips, break the poor guy's (and one woman's) heart, and engage in sowing my oats without being a lying sack-of-shit cheater. The thought that fucking random people would be fun is not something that I have never entertained. However, I have never understood the point of being self-destructive and letting my libido do the driving, so I do not understand the actual action of cheating.
Perhaps I am a rare and horrible imitation of humanity, but the objectification of a sexual partner does not turn my crank either. Paying someone to mimic an intimate action, which should be a gesture of mutual respect and affection, never occurred to me. I'm not a fucking kind of gal. My bullshit detector runs smoothly. I am not some pathetic slob that invents romance and respect where there is none. Chances are that if you shop for a sexual partner with all the emotion of shopping for a television set, you're not getting the best deal.
So I do not sympathize with the two primary motivations for buying sex: (1) I'm too good for monogamy and (2) sex is all about me, me, ME!
Morality in hand, I delved into Letters From Johns, a blog that features the sexploits of random johns, most of which are men. My knee jerk reaction was a feeling of intense sorrow for all of humanity. As I nit-picked through the various misogynistic woe-is-me confessions , I was struck with the thought, "okay, your intense angst is nice, but what about the other side of the equation -- isn't it quite ridiculous to do all of this introspection without once thinking about the humanity of the woman you just bought?"
Well, one sympathetic John was nice enough to make sure that the Chinese woman he purchased was not trafficked. After, of course, he climaxed. Orgasm before morals, you know:
I like Asian girls (have since I was a teen). I like their skin, their soft features, their hair. I ordered one over in the middle of the day a month ago. I was very horny, and only wanted a little talk before sex, but after fucking her, cumming on her face and helping her clean up, it's always a good time to get to know someone with the remaining part of the hour. She was straight off the boat. With Human Trafficking being the boogie man of the 21st century, I wanted to find out how she came to NYC and this line of work.
Retroactive concern does not work. I am guessing that a guy that will fuck a potential sex slave before he determines whether or not he is raping her is not very nice. The half-assed interest in her personhood does not fool me.
I also really liked the guy who was "Faithful in Every Other Sense of the Word" and very good at authoring horribly ironic titles. His reason for buying sex was not the simplification of an entire culture to attractive things to look at while fucking (see above), but because his wife had the audacity to ask for sexual satisfaction in bed:
I'm happily married, but my wife and I don't have sex nearly as often as we used to before our daughter was born, and unfortunately, it's starting to wear on me. Not only that, but when we do end up having sex, I have to do all the work, get her all worked up and then get to humpin' at her command. It's fine and everything, but sometimes it's nice to have someone focus on me, and my sexual needs and wants, for a change.
You mean like porn, right? Where the other half of the equation is nothing but a place to sheath your uncontrollable prick and tell you how much they love it when you ask them to do demeaning things with no regard for their pleasure. Oh yeah, exactly like that:
The last time I went, I got to have sex with an older (then me, she was about 38. I'm 31) Russian lady, who still occupies a warm place in my heart because she looked me in the eyes as I climaxed and genuinely seemed to be interested in my pleasure. That's what turns me on.
I am guessing that she was faking that interest. Probably because you paid her to, genius. I am also guessing that your wife would be more interested in your pleasure if you were more interested in hers. Reciprocity: it's hot. Random John B wants all the pleasure without the work. I also find it unspeakably pathetic that he is bored with his wife and has affected such a world-weary tone at the tender age of 31.
I also found the woe-is-me letters, from Johns that want our sympathy so badly:
The answer that I have [for seeking prostitutes], and that many others in this website have also provided, is rejection. Rejection, and its close associate, the loneliness that comes after it, leads many of us to believe that we are fundamentally unloveable. And for us, the prospect of trading some of our money for the affection and the satisfaction that an escort, or a masseuse, or a prostitute (you name it) can provide is not just about sex--it's more about safety, the feeling that all you have to do to keep this girl by your side is treat her right and pay her promptly.
My guess if that if you have to pay someone to fake liking you that you are generally unlikable. That is probably not anyone's fault but your own, probably because you really do not care if you are raping a trafficked woman:
My latest experience was with an escort called A. She came from the same South American country I did, a tall, dark-haired girl with a great body. She says she's in town to "learn English," which I doubted, but who cares? For an hour and fifteen minutes, I had someone listen to me wholeheartedly, rub my back, provide me with the ersatz-girlfriend that I crave for but feel that I am unable to attract, and then at the end of it all she even asked for my phone number.
"You will call me again, right?" she asks.
I would like to say that I won't. But my hour with A. felt like water washing my wounds, easing the pain of my brutal loneliness, helping me feel accepted and valued again, a feeling that I haven't felt in many, many months.
Some people say that love is priceless. Well, to those people I say, for two-hundred and seventy Canadian dollars, something quite like it is there for the taking. At least until the hour is done.
If you are such a sorry human being that you equate "something quite like love" to raping a sex slave, then you probably belong in jail or the ninth circle of hell. I am also guessing that people that find nothing more sublime that sticking their dick in a woman/object/rape victim because they are "lonely" should probably remain lonely far far away from me and the rest of civilization. The best word I can use to describe someone that only feel goods about himself because he just raped/fucked a potential trafficked sex worker is criminal. Perhaps that's why nobody wants you, even though you describe yourself as "obedient, fundamentally good man in his 20s".
Those gems came from just the first page. The blog is packed of pages and pages of people justifying the objectification of female, and a few male, prostitutes. The harder they try to make their reasons sound plausible, the sillier and more pathetic they sound. Nothing is more unspeakably disgusting than someone that avoids responsibility for their actions with appeals to their humanity while avoiding the topic of a sex worker's humanity.
If it really needed saying after that long post here it is: I am absolutely and fundamentally against prostitution. I commiserate and have nothing but empathy for those women that choose to make a living doing something so potentially dangerous. However this feeling does not extend to the other end of the equation: the Johns that profit off of the exploitation, objectification, and rape of sex workers.
The aforementioned blog does nothing to foster the sympathy for Johns. Our rage should know no limits for those who excuse death, rape, and misery with hollow excuses.
Posts
31 comments:
I want to say this as a bit of constructive criticism. I support the vast majority of what you said, but some of the language (swearing) was distracting. Your anger was understandable, though.
Also, you wrote, "If you are such a sorry human being that you equate "something quite like love" to raping a sex slave, then you probably belong in jail or the ninth circle of hell."
I was unsure about your meaning of "sex slave." It gave me the impression that you were talking about trafficked women, as if you were saying that johns know when they are having sex with trafficked women, which, sadly, is not the case.
I would also like to offer a thought: I see every reason to be angry with these specific Johns. I read what they said with disgust and disbelief, but what about the society that gives men this privileged position in which they can put their satisfaction before their wife's, or their desires before the safety/wellbeing of a sex worker who is potentially an exploited, trafficked woman?
If it wasn't for patriarchy, perhaps sex work wouldn't be such an exploitative realm of work, and women could do it because they chose to (which I believe might be possible).
I am a believer in sex workers' rights. But I also understand that the reason that sex workers need protection/legalization of their work is because society has made conditions in which some women fin sex work necessary for financial reasons.
I guess that was a long-winded way of saying, your anger is justified, but where should it really be aimed? At individual johns or a society that privileges them and allows them to exploit potential victims and justify themselves?
I have been working on a Porn Culture post for a while, so my anger is not just at individual Johns. I haven't put it up here because I need to get my thoughts more in order first.
I do think that Johns know if they are having sex with a trafficked woman. If she works in some place with cameras and locks everywhere, if she looks terrified and undernourished, if her genitals show signs of stress, if she speaks very little English... all of those are signs that the prostitute you go to probably is not there legally or consensually. Some are harder to spot than others, but I found it funny that he didn't worry about her being there willingly until after he climaxed, and that another John didn't care at all.
I absolutely think that their motivations for buying sex, and their attitudes toward doing so are so normalized by a perverted culture. I have yet to make a post about that.
My answer, therefore, is that my anger is towards a society that enables and excuses this disgusting behavior, and the Johns themselves. It's a two prong outrage, I just choose to focus my ire on the Johns themselves because of the glut of primary sources I found in the posted website.
I agree with Amelia. As strongly as I disapprove of pornography and prostitution, I can't get behind statements that damn people to "the ninth circle of hell."
These men must, of course, answer for their own actions, but if we're assuming our culture has a hand in tacitly or covertly approving of the "business" of sex, then we can't hold them absolutely responsible for the attitudes that got them dialing a sex worker in the first place.
In other words, I guess, responsibility is a slippery thing, and I'd much rather try to get these men to come around to a more enlightened way of thinking instead of just dismissing them as complete failures. I'd like to think that the fact that they're writing about it and reflecting on their experiences in some capacity suggests that they might be willing to consider another point of view.
These men are absolutely responsible for their own actions. Other men grow up in the same porn culture, and do not turn to prostitutes for a for-pay imitation of love.
I picked the excerpts that I did precisely because those Johns were the more callous and shallow of the many entries on the site. One cheats on his wife because she does not act like a porn star in bed. One turns an entire culture into a fetish. The last does not care that the woman he paid to have sex with was probably trafficked.
We all live in a culture that glorifies sex, rape, violence, and all sorts of nasty things. We cannot help our socialization. However, I reserve all of my sympathy for the sex workers, and none for the Johns.
The victims of socialization always get more of my concern than the benefactors. Those Johns live in a society that demonizes women doing nothing wrong before them.
For illustrative purposes, consider this analogy: in war times, people are told to do heinous things if they are in the military. Reference the Rape of Nanking or the reports coming out of Iraq about the rapes of female personnel. American soldiers in both instances can claim they had no choice due to PTSD, superior orders, or stress at the time. However, those defenses mean nothing in International Courts (see: the sentencing of Adolf Eichmann, whose defense during his post-WW2 trial was superior orders). People are responsible for their actions in these cases, even though society has orchestrated an environment in which doing the right thing is harder than normal, or getting away with the wrong thing is easy.
So while society is ultimately a huge contributor to the disgusting state of our sex industry, everyone reacts to socialization differently. Some become prostitutes, the victims of a system. Some do not buy sex. Some take advantage of the situation and become Johns, the benefactors of a corrupt system.
We have to hold John's responsible for their actions. While it is demonstrably important that we aim to change society and erase the incentives to objectify women, we cannot excuse the benefactors of privelege from their actions. Not all men are Johns. However, all men have some sort of privilege because of the fact of their gender. Thus, because socialization does not affect everyone the same, it must be the case that socialization is not wholly to blame for these actions.
Also, I clarify again: I am not denying that socialization contributes to a culture in which buying sex is encouraged and excused. I am saying that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody held a gun to these men's heads and made them buy sex. They did that all on their own, and benefited greatly through the enjoyment they freely express on the aforementioned site.
Excellent point, Jen. I'm thinking about that one...
I see your upset about how these Johns are objectifying women. Yet you don't blame the sex industry itself and the "sex workers". I understand in places where women are forced into the sex industry and they have no choice. These women are objectifying themselves! they are letting men come and use them for their own sick and twisted pleasures. Don't get me wrong, the johns don't get off scot free, however, i feel BOTH parties are to blame here. You seem to think that being a "sex worker" is an honest living, that's how I'm interpreting it. Let's say we legalize the sex industry, what happens next? More abortions, more broken homes, more sexually transmitted diesease, etc. So i see complaints about how our culture glorifies sex, rape etc. but legalizing prostitution will ,A. make the industry more prevelant and B. only further the glorification of sex, rape etc. Prostitution isn't the only option for these women. If they need money so bad, go work at McDonalds, go clean toilets in a truckstop bathroom. These women (the ones who decide to prostitute of their own accord) are just as much to blame as the men.
I would just like to say for the record, that i thoroughly enjoy coming to this blog and reading it (eventhough I disagree alot). I also enjoy engaging in civil discussions with people i was surely convince I couldn't have a civil discussion with...feminists. You guys are cool.
Thanks for your thoughts (and politness!) Great American, however, I disagree that it is so easy to find work. Sex work often times pays well, or at least better than McDonald's otherwise so many women would not chose sex work over more "normal" jobs.
Also, many prostitutes are runaways, who came into sex work willingly, but can't leave because of their pimps or fear for their lives. Are they to blame if they entered the job willing?
Personally, I believe that if sex work were legalized, it could be regulated and condoms would be mandatory, and sex workers (and johns) would be better protected from STDs and pregnancy, not less so. And maybe if sex work were more out in the open, it would become less "sexy" in a way, and more of a regular job. Does that make sense? I'm a little tired.
but because his wife had the audacity to ask for sexual satisfaction in bed:
Or more that he was tired of his own needs getting ignored.
Funny thing about sex: It's not all about women.
If you read his statement, it's about the fact that his wife demanded all the attention, and focused none on him.
Unless you agree with the concept that sex should be all about the woman involved.
I am also guessing that your wife would be more interested in your pleasure if you were more interested in hers. Reciprocity: it's hot.
Except he said she wasn't.
Random John B wants all the pleasure without the work.
Sounds more like what his wife wanted. Wanted him to do everything while she just laid there.
Which, well, generally, is what most women do. Expect him to do all the work, and basically lay around and wait for him to do so.
Though, at the end of the day, it's not really up to you to get angry at how people use sex. If they use sex for sex, and not some "act of mutual love", it's not really your place to tell them they're doing it wrong.
Being against prostitution is fine, and that's your opinion, and it's not a big deal. But the added snark against casual sex isn't nearly as welcome, or objective.
Hey Great American. We have no problem with you here, because you generally tend to be nice with your objections.
I do blame the sex industry itself. The primary profiteers of the sex industry: the pimps and madams, do bear some sort of blame. However, many many women entered into prostitution for various reasons. For the sake of simplicity, I'd say probably because (a) as an underage runaway, there was no other work, (b) with no education or a child at home that makes regular working hours difficult, prostitution is the best option, (c) it pays better, pimps will give you free drugs if you are already addicted and you cannot pass the mandatory drug tests elsewhere or (d) you genuinely want to make money off of your body, (e) you are a trafficked woman, (f) your abusive boyfriend/pimp requires you to sell sex, or (g) you were sexually abused at a young age and associate your worth with sex.
If you'd like, I can dig up the statistics, but a majority of prostitutes all fall into every category but the consensual one, and most of them would leave prostitution in a heartbeat if a viable option came up.
Also, I am not for legalizing the sex industry at all. I know that is the argument that is most often shared by liberal and feminist blogs. My opinion is that a culture that objectifies women and still has not achieved gender equality cannot sell sex without some sort of duress and widespread abuse. Evidently, that is the case, being that every sort of statistic I have found shows that the majority of sex workers are there because there are no other options, hate their work, and have been raped and abused repeatedly on the job.
My personal opinion, this is tangential to the original post so I apologize in advance, is that we legalize the selling of sex and prosecute the selling and "pimping" of sex. Concentrating law enforcement on the side of the equation that is more often than not guilty of abuses would remove the stigma from the sex workers who are too afraid to seek help because of the risk of legal repercussions.
That's just my two bits though. I'm less socially libertarian than many other feminists when it comes to the question of legalizing prostitution, so don't come away from this conversation thinking that my opinion on that point is mainstream or that I'm some sort of spokesman, please.
I agree with you Jen, I just wanted to point out the difference between the actions themselves and the attitudes that drove them to those actions.
You're right, most men don't solicit sex workers, but a much larger percentage of men use pornography. Are they just as bad as the others? Or mostly harmless, because they only participate on a visual level? Or perhaps worse, since they're not even willing to put themselves in a (sexually or legally) vulnerable position?
Anyway, I just wasn't down with the omnipotent hammer of justice you seemed to be wielding in this post. That's all.
"We have to hold John's responsible for their actions."
(first time commenter...)
I agree with Jen. Saying that we can't hold John's responsible simply because they are acting out due to being socialized to seeing this behavior is like saying that we can't hold rapists responsible for being rapists. It is a fact that we live in a society that encourages men to buy sex and even to commit sexual violence. We absolutely must do whatever we can do change this reality. However, men are still ultimately responsible for their behavior.
"Prostitution isn't the only option for these women. If they need money so bad, go work at McDonalds, go clean toilets in a truckstop bathroom. "
Your statement presumes that women can survive off an income that they would earn scrubbing toilets or working at McDonald's. Most people can not survive off of the wages paid for this type of job. If a woman happens to be a single mother, this is almost certainly the case. I am a single mother of 2 children. There is no way in hell I could survive working at McDonald's. If that was my only option, I'd have to become a prostitute to keep a roof over our heads and to keep food in our bellies.
"It gave me the impression that you were talking about trafficked women, as if you were saying that johns know when they are having sex with trafficked women, which, sadly, is not the case."
I find it difficult to believe this statement. Many men use sex slaves for the very fact that they do know that the woman is a sex slave. And what of child sex slaves? Even child sex slaves are forced to serve upwards of 20-30 men a day. Obviously these men know what they are doing.
I would also like to reply to Great American.
I went to a talk about sex workers in Tijuana with Kate, and the speaker said that there was advocacy for safe-sex (condoms) among sex workers (in Mexico there are places where sex work is legal).
The speaker also noted that many of the sex workers who got STDs did so when they were not working, because in their more permanent relationships they were more comfortable and careless.
That is in Mexico, but I do not see how it would be much different in America if sex work were legalized.
And Jen, when you said you wanted to see the prosecution of "the selling and "pimping" of sex. Concentrating law enforcement on the side of the equation that is more often than not guilty of abuses would remove the stigma from the sex workers who are too afraid to seek help because of the risk of legal repercussions, I agreed.
And to respond to Faith, I was trying to say that I do not believe that all johns understand the problem of trafficking women for prostitution (I wasn't talking about single-owner sex slavery). My statements were meant to be about regular johns on the street who might be ignorant that the woman they are having sex with was trafficked.
There was a post about an awareness-raising campaign about this problem over at Feminocracy that made me think that this needs to be talked about more.
That's not an excuse, but it is part of the problem.
http://feminocracy.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/it-started-with-an-oh-no-they-didnt/
Andrew-
You're right, most men don't solicit sex workers, but a much larger percentage of men use pornography. Are they just as bad as the others? Or mostly harmless, because they only participate on a visual level? Or perhaps worse, since they're not even willing to put themselves in a (sexually or legally) vulnerable position?
I know this is tangential again, but I'm also against pornography for the same sorts of reasons. You will probably see more posts on that point as I finish up a couple of essays I'm working on and read "Pornified", which I just picked up at the library yesterday.
Faith,
My personal opinion is that if you are now to the level of prostitution. That should tell me that you have exhausted absolutely every other option. Would you honestly be willing to accept the risks that come along with prostitution. Let's say you get a customer who doesn't want to pay, so after you've done the deed he pulls out a knife and slits your throat and now your kids have no parents. Or you contract an STD, HIV maybe. Are you really that desperate? Do you see my point?
My personal belief is that sex should be reserved for ones spouse. I know thats not a popular opinion these days, but for the sake of argument let's at least say that sex is something that should be shared between two people that genuinely care for each other. With the legalization of the sex industry would surely result in it's increased prevelancy. Now what we've done is made sex just a casual thing that any regular shmuck can get for a little bit of cash. Do you believe that would cheapen the whole "sex between two people that care for each other" thing. I certainly think that sex would no longer be a special thing, but more of a means for self-satisfaction.
See, Great American, I agree with you to an extent. I do not necessarily believe that sex is meant to be solely between spouses, but I definitely believe (personally) that it should be between people who really care about each other.
When I think of legalizing sex work, and I really do believe that it should be, I do not say that because I think that sex should be in any way cheapened.
The thing about sex work is that it often IS a last-resort or a confused option for people who were abused or just really need the money. If sex work were legalized, I think it might be a step in the right direction toward truly valuing the work that women do, and that in turn, could end up leading to better pay, and perhaps more opportunities for women outside of sex work.
I think that we, as a society, just need to reevaluate the work women do, why the do it, place more value on their contributions to society, etc. That could start with legalizing sex work, and perhaps it could help end sex work as one of the only options for women.
I really hope that makes sense.
Also do you think if we legalize the sex industry that there might possibly be an influx of trafficked women into our country? Because the advantage for the traffickers would be that they have nothing to hide, all they would have to do is make sure that their ladies keep their mouths shut.
Amelia,
going back to STD thing. I was purusing some older posts on this blog. I noticed one actually posted by you on March 11th. It was about a study done by the CDC which concluded that 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD. To relate that to the whole sex industry legalization, let's say that 5 years from now it's legal. "John" walks into a brothel, 16 women work at this brothel, just going by the statistics (and assuming that they haven't changed in that 5 year period) he has a 25% chance of having sex with a woman who has an STD. Now he's had sex and recieved a lovely parting gift known as an STD. He goes home and gives it to his wife/girlfriend. She now has it. He decides to pay another visit to a brothel. This time brothel #2, he gives to his prostitue, who gives it to her next customer who gives it to his wife and so on and so forth. I think you get my drift. And this whole time, nothing illegal was done. It's really something to think about.
"My personal opinion is that if you are now to the level of prostitution. That should tell me that you have exhausted absolutely every other option. Would you honestly be willing to accept the risks that come along with prostitution."
Great American,
I'm afraid you completely misinterpreted my statement. I have no desire whatsoever to become a prostitute. If you, however, believe that a woman can honestly subsist and survive on an income from Mickey D's - especially if she has children - you are sadly mistaken and clearly have no real understanding of the reality that women (particularly single mothers) face. My stance on sex work is apparently quite similar to Jen's. I do not support or believe in prostitution. I did when I was younger, I do not anymore. At this point in time, I view prostitution as violence against women. I support the Swedish model of legislation for prostitution. Meaning I believe in making the act of purchasing sex illegal while decriminalizing the act of selling sex.
"My personal belief is that sex should be reserved for ones spouse. I know thats not a popular opinion these days, but for the sake of argument let's at least say that sex is something that should be shared between two people that genuinely care for each other."
I'm sorry, I really don't agree with that statement at all. I've had lots of sex with lots of different people. I cared about some of them deeply. Some I barely knew. I do not believe that engaging in sex in this manner "cheapens sex", not in the slightest. Sex can be and is whatever two or more people wish it to be. It's as simple as that. I am against prostitution because I believe it reduces women to sexual commodities and reinforces their subordinate status in society. My feelings of repulsion for the sex industry in general have little to do with a belief that sex should be between two people who care about each other. I have a quite liberal view on sex but I draw the line at supporting prostitution.
"When I think of legalizing sex work, and I really do believe that it should be, I do not say that because I think that sex should be in any way cheapened."
I personally understand what you are saying completely, and it's a stance many take. I personally can't support legalization. I'm all for decriminalization of selling sex, but not legalization...which is actually two different things entirely. If you legalize it, to some degree, you normalize it. Even if that isn't your intention you are sending the message that it's at least to some degree ok for men to purchase sex from women. The other major problem with legalization is that areas which legalize sex work attract higher rates of sex trafficking. Which makes perfect sense: If you are trafficking human beings for sex, obviously it's going to be easier if you are in an area in which sex work is legal.
"Meaning I believe in making the act of purchasing sex illegal while decriminalizing the act of selling sex."
This makes absolutely no sense. Please explain the logic behind this. If there actually is any...
Okay, so a one job can't satisfy the price of bills, etc. Get two jobs. Buy only the necessities. It might suck, but thats life. There's also government assistance, and these days they hand that stuff out like candy. So the only way I would feel bad for women who voluntary enters the sex industry is if they've applied and been rejected for every job they could possibly have inquired, they have exhausted every single government assistance program, they have asked every family member or friend they have for help and prostitution is the absolute dead last option conceiveable. Then they have my sympathy. Before I really got my life back on track with the Lord i went to a strip club or two, and let me tell you, they hire ANYBODY these days. So if someone feels they need to take their clothes off for money, go to a strip joint and ask for a job. And while I believe strip clubs are almost as equally disgusting and immoral, at least it's legal.
Also, how would legalizing the sex industry help women in any way? What would be the the main requirements for the job? Have a vagina and be able to lay down? The women end up looking just as pathetic as the men that use them.
Great American,
"This makes absolutely no sense. Please explain the logic behind this. If there actually is any..."
It makes perfect sense: http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html
As for the rest of your comment, I'm inclined to not respond at all as I'm guessing there isn't much hope in you truly understanding. You are quite clearly a man, and I'm guessing also a very white man. You are clearly speaking from a position of obvious privilege. But here's a quick response:
A job at McDonald's pays an average of $200 to $240 a week. If a woman has two children, she will have to pay upwards of $160 a week for child care from 9 to 5. Then she has to buy gas. Then, to get a second job as you say, she has to find child care for the evening. Child care for the evening barely exists unless you have a relative or friend willing to babysit every night for you. This means the children would have to be left home alone, an impossibility if the children are young. And what if she lives in a rural area and doesn't and can't afford a vehicle? What then? What should she do? How is she supposed to get to work everyday? And strip clubs are also out of the question unless you actually live in an area in which strip clubs exist...and again, there's that pesky problem of finding child care during evening hours.
Oh, and they aren't just handing out welfare like candy as you say, they've actually become quite strict about welfare in many areas...and even if they can get welfare, it's still often not enough to make ends meet.
A job at McDonald's pays an average of $200 to $240 a week. If a woman has two children, she will have to pay upwards of $160 a week for child care from 9 to 5. Then she has to buy gas. Then, to get a second job as you say, she has to find child care for the evening. Child care for the evening barely exists unless you have a relative or friend willing to babysit every night for you. This means the children would have to be left home alone, an impossibility if the children are young. And what if she lives in a rural area and doesn't and can't afford a vehicle? What then? What should she do? How is she supposed to get to work everyday? And strip clubs are also out of the question unless you actually live in an area in which strip clubs exist...and again, there's that pesky problem of finding child care during evening hours.
All this says to me is:
Perhaps women shouldn't be having kids unless they're in a stable relationship where they won't end up as a single mother.
Also, if your income is SO low that you're supporting two kids on McDonald's, perhaps you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
Anon, I think your judgments about single mothers is unfair.
You can be in a stable relationship, have kids, and still end up a single mother. You are being unduly harsh toward a large group of people whose individual circumstances you do not know.
But back on topic: This thread is not meant to be about single mothers. It's supposed to be about Johns and prostitution/sex work.
"But back on topic: This thread is not meant to be about single mothers. It's supposed to be about Johns and prostitution/sex work."
Sorry, Amelia, I wasn't trying to turn it into a discussion about single mothers, per se. I was only attempting to give an explanation for why some women end up with prostitution as an only option....which I thought was basically on topic.
Your comment was fine, Faith. It's just that Anon's comment responding to it seemed to be veering off topic.
Please continue to discuss, though!
Anon, I think your judgments about single mothers is unfair.
You can be in a stable relationship, have kids, and still end up a single mother. You are being unduly harsh toward a large group of people whose individual circumstances you do not know.
But back on topic: This thread is not meant to be about single mothers. It's supposed to be about Johns and prostitution/sex work.
I don't think I'm being unfair. If you're so uneducated that McDonald's is the only way you can support your offspring, you shouldn't have had any.
Also, it was generally on topic, as the discussion had gone towards ways that women might be supporting their ill-advised children, such as prostitution.
It was not on topic because all you said was that poor women/women who are unsure about their relationship shouldn't have children. That has little to do with johns/sex work because you didn't mention it.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Post a Comment