It's this sudden insistence on pretending sex is just like chewing bubble gum
Asguard said:
Tiassa
once again i have to wonder, is there any job you would concider to be worse than working in the sex industry?
maybe being a test study for medical resurch?
scraping up car acident victoms?
disposing of medical waste?
collecting cans out of public bins for a living?
anything at all?
It's not a matter of being the worst job out there. In the first place, there are differences between working as a stripper, a porn star, a brothel tag, and a street walker. To the other, well ... okay, check
This American Life, "#62 — Something for Nothing", which includes a discussion of medical test research subjects. It's an interesting segment that originally ran over a decade ago.
That part aside, there seems to be disagreement about how people regard sexual intercourse. Additionally, we don't seem to be agreeing on the idea of ordinary and extraordinary conditions. Both of these are important in considering how to force a porn star to fulfill the contract.
For instance, you and I can agree that Americans—to take a population at random—have some fucked up ideas about sex. We are, as a culture, neurotically—at least—prudish. However, that does not mean that there is nothing of value—psychologically or even evolutionarily—in the outlook insofar as the counterproposal would oblige us to throw all of that out.
So let's start with something simple. Is there a difference, in
your opinion, according to
your experience, between ...
• ... running a mile and having sex?
• ... having your back massaged and having sex?
• ... cleaning the dishes and having sex?
• ... finishing a large sculpture and having sex?
Any of those things—running, massage, cleaning, finishing—can be gratifying, whether physically or emotionally. Sexual intercourse can be gratifying, both physically and emotionally. But does that mean they're the same thing?
And what about the negatives? Is there a difference, in
your opinion, according to
your experience, between ...
• ... being shoved by a belligerent classmate and being raped?
• ... pulling a muscle in your back and being raped?
• ... cleaning up the vomit in your bathroom after a night of excessive drinking and being raped?
• ... finding your car has been broken into and being raped?
What I'm getting at is that societies in general—including your wonderful land of Oz—tend to view sexual intercourse in a different context than other acts both pleasant and unpleasant. We let kids run around and play soccer or basketball. Would you say that I should let my five year-old daughter fuck? Would you say that I should teach her how, just like teaching her to throw a basketball?
If your answer is no,
why not?
We view sexual intercourse in a different context from other activities. While religious and other social outlooks can be perversely restrictive about what those differences are and mean, does your rejection of those standards go all the way to the root? Would you say that sexual intercourse should not be viewed in any special context whatsoever? In other words, if you don't like the movie you're watching, is the solution to throw the DVD player in the trash?
Personally, I don't have a set and solid answer to how much I would throw out. I do know that there is something wrong with any social standard that compels a rape survivor to apologize to her lover for being raped. And on that one, yes, I
have received one of those apologies before, and the echoes of memory
still horrify me. But, no, I don't have a perfect solution to societal demonization of sex. Trust me, if I ever figure it out, I'll let you know.
Nonetheless, I am not prepared to chuck away the psychological and emotional impact of sexual intercourse as some silly sentiment; I can't prove that the value is purely a product of conditioning—indeed, the conditioning may arise as a product of evolutionary selection in the context of either the species itself or society. The end result, then—the operating condition—is that sexual intercourse is held in a different esteem from labors and endeavors we would consider more mundane.
Mundane.
Ordinary. My problem with comparing sex work with other work is that, presently, sex work
does not fall within the range of
ordinary consideration. I find it fallacious to apply
ordinary criteria to
extraordinary conditions. In doing so, we assess the situation according to fallacious standards.
Medical testing is an interesting proposition. To the other, humans do not have an evolutionary predisposition toward being medical test subjects. We do, however, have a predisposition toward sexuality. (Or, to paraphrase Mark Steel, put a kid in laboratory conditions, so he sees no other human beings, and see what he figures out first, transubstantiation or masturbation.)
It's not a matter of being the worst job out there. Rather, it's a matter of fallaciously applying mundane standards to something which is not regarded in a mundane context.
What are you willing to throw out in order to make sex just another act like playing with a yo-yo or mowing the lawn?
Next question, if you asked a sex worker what do you think THERE answer would be?
Pretty much any sex worker would probably say, if you told them you'd just gotten back from scraping up an accident victim, "I'm glad I don't have your job." But if you ask them how they got to where they are, very few will tell you that they wanted to fuck for money since they were knee-high to a junebug. And just like the homeless wandering Seattle's chilly streets tonight picking soda cans and beer bottles out of the bins—what, is that a regular, paid job Down Under?—more often than not you'll find the route to the sex industry far different from becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or even a city rubbish collector.