How refreshing to read a critic of sex work [“Virtual love, real life,” Guest Opinion, September 10] who does not advocate criminalization as the solution to what he perceives as a problem.
What libertarian can fail to appreciate someone with enough tolerance in his heart to say, “Even though I don’t approve of this, I will not seek to have people fined or thrown in jail for it, and will instead rely on civil dialogue and non-coercive persuasion to make my case?”
Mitch Halberstadt’s unusual critique deserves a response from erotic service providers in defense of our profession. Very well then – we can agree that sex work is work, and should be legal. This leaves the more philosophically interesting question of how society should regard it.
Halberstadt suggests that sex work is a “colonization of intimacy” that involves commodifying what should not be commodified. Is he right? Or does prostitution deserve to be seen as an honorable, legitimate profession? I say it does.
Prostitution is no more a threat to real intimacy than gay marriage is a threat to marriage. In many cases sex work creates a space where intimacy can occur. Seeing a sex worker can be an opportunity to have an intimate conversation with someone in a setting of client-professional confidentiality and share things you don’t feel comfortable sharing with others in your life. Maybe you’re recently single or widowed and feel unready for the demands of a new relationship or trying to meet someone for a tryst, but unwilling to forego intimacy altogether. Maybe you’re in a long-term relationship that’s lost its spark, but have other reasons not to split up, and feel safer with a “no strings attached” outlet. Or maybe you just want to feel sexual again, without any pressure to perform yourself. In such circumstances and many others is it unreasonable to turn to sex workers for intimacy?
Is prostitution to sexuality what fast food is to food, as Halberstadt provocatively jibes? Hardly, when as he points out, one can easily pay hundreds of dollars to enjoy the “meal” in question. A “tantalizing Rentboy” worthy of the trade is more like a dinner served up by a skilled chef at an upscale restaurant. Sure, unless you’re loaded you probably don’t want to go there every time you’re feeling hungry, but it’s nice to enjoy now and then.
And let’s not forget this is the “oldest profession” we are talking about. Any commodification involved cannot be dismissed as the byproduct of a materialist modern society with screwed-up priorities. Sex work predates modern consumerism and its endless capacity to commodify by thousands, if not millions, of years.
As a rentboy (I prefer the term companion, or sacred intimate as better embodying the spirit of my work), it may surprise some to hear me say that a world of free love would be wonderful. I would welcome a society with sex, affection, and intimacy abundant enough for everyone to satisfy his or her desires, even if it put me out of business. While I may be somewhat exceptional in this, my profession is not as inimical to the hippie ideal as it might seem at first blush.
If those of you who find men desirable are honest with yourselves – and of course similar dynamics exist for other vectors of desire, but in keeping with the rentboy topic I’ll stick with men here – many of you will acknowledge that when it comes to spending quality romantic time with someone, you would prefer a partner who looks like Brad Pitt over one who looks like Danny DeVito (no offense to DeVito, who is a talented actor and no doubt possesses other admirable qualities).
Halberstadt writes of growing up and embracing “complex commitments” in a world where we don’t all “share the same romantic vision.” But this language isn’t just “nuanced,” it’s vague and mushy. Let’s get down to brass tacks: Free love cannot work as a social model so long as we remain picky about who we choose to allow ourselves to see as “sexually attractive,” and open to physical intimacy only with those whose looks meet our “standards.”
While a sex worker may require payment, he is usually willing to take virtually all comers. How many others in society are doing as much to step outside the dominant dating paradigm?
In foreswearing rent boys, has Halberstadt turned to the “pudgy 55-year-olds,” or 65-year-olds, of whom he writes, to meet their needs for physical intimacy and sex along with his own? And not just one such individual in a sexually exclusive pair-bond, but many? Only those who are themselves prepared to step up and satisfy the sexual and romantic needs of the horny or lonely for no compensation have a right to complain about the commodification of sex. In this context, commodification helps meet the needs of some of those who fall through the cracks of objectification or lookism – and vice-versa, as many sexy, but financially struggling, rent boys can attest.
Reading Halberstadt’s story of adopting a kitten as a substitute for tantalizing rent boys (“real affection, all night, for 50 cents’ worth of cat food”), I am reminded of an almost certainly apocryphal but nevertheless amusing and illustrative anecdote about Winston Churchill and a certain lady.
Encountering the beauty at a party, Churchill inquired whether she would sleep with him for £1 million sterling. Clearly flattered by the generous offer, after some blushing coyness, she indicated that she would.
“Then will you sleep with me for £5?” he asked.
“Certainly not!” she snapped at him angrily. “What kind of woman do you take me for?”
“Madame,” replied Churchill stoically, “we’ve already established that. Now we are merely negotiating the price.”
Whether one obtains affection for 50 cents’ worth of cat food, or a $5,000 wedding ring, it doesn’t change the fact that a material inducement is being offered in exchange for emotional and/or physical companionship. To imagine otherwise is to delude ourselves. (Though anyone who knows cats must surely be laughing at the idea of guaranteeing oneself “real affection, all night” for any amount of cat food!)
None of this means real love and honest affection can’t exist. But it’s a myth that these things can only be present when there are no material considerations involved. We should stop pretending that relationships outside the world of sex work are necessarily purer or less affected than those contracted for by the hour, or that they aren’t similarly impacted by issues of class and disparities of wealth, power, and physical desire.
Starchild is a libertarian activist and erotic service provider in San Francisco.
This is beautiful and resonates with me very much. The paradigm is transforming and experiences that are beyond the usual rhetoric not only from sex work opponents but from Sex workers themselves- is refreshing. There are many voices speaking on the subject of erotic services though I truly appreciate the spirit of your vision. Sex can heal, inspire, soothe, bring peace, and without the requirement of ‘strings attached’ erotic services are therapeutic modalities.
ok so rather then telling you what I am against… let me state what I am for…..
I had a request this evening from an old friend for transportation after he has surgery.
I am for those that help others and I am for those that ask for help from others.
Those that help others, I am for.
As an erotic service provider, I do receive a certain amount of less-than-friendly responses to my advertising from time to time. Some of it is just juvenile hate mail, while other writers seem like people who are more simply misinformed than mean-spirited. In light of the positive reaction to my B.A.R. piece, perhaps some of you may be interested in my response to a message of the latter sort that I received last year in response to an ad I’d posted on Craigslist seeking “generous” partners:
“I understand that everyone needs to make money, but can’t you find another way rather than from sex? You want generous people and generous equals money doesn’t it? You appear to be pretty good looking and in good shape, however, do you have to prey on those that are so hard up that they will pay to have some human contact? Are you a nice person? Do you give a damn about others or is it all about you? Prostitution has been around for ever since some people have nothing else to give other than their bodies. Wouldn’t you like to be known for more than that? No doubt my message to you will fall on deaf ears, but that is okay. I am tired of seeing posts on CL that just want to take advantage of the lonely. Good luck.”
My reply (signed with my “companion name”, Chris) is below. I never heard anything further back from the writer after sending it (of course it is entirely possible s/he never received it, but I like to think s/he did). Nevertheless, writing it was helpful to me in clarifying some of my own thoughts on the topic, and some of my sex worker colleagues with whom I shared the piece liked it. This was also in some respects the progenitor of the more recent Bay Area Reporter article that is the subject of this thread — I’m sure you’ll notice some common themes!
Hi,
I’m not quite sure what kind of response you may have been expecting from me, or what you’ve been getting if you’ve contacted other providers on Craigslist with the same or a similar message. But I rather doubt the response I’m going to give you here is quite the one you were expecting. It took me a little while to think about it and decide precisely what I wanted to say to you, which is why you did not get this right away.
* * *
First of all, thank you for writing. I applaud you for thinking about ethical issues, and for trying to phrase your inquiry in a respectful way. I’m not saying that sarcastically; I really mean it. It may sound like a stupidly obvious thing to say that people in the world just need to be nicer to each other, but on some level I believe that is true.
Clearly from one perspective society is failing at meeting everyone’s needs. Not just their sexual needs, but their romantic needs, needs for human companionship, housing needs, food needs, health care needs, educational needs, spiritual needs, etc. If this were not the case, then no one would be paying to belong to singles groups, activity groups, paying for housing, paying for food, paying for health care, paying for education, paying to go on spiritual retreats.
But of course looked at it another way, all these services and others are available, for a price, and that is society’s way of providing them. The fact is that in order for anything to be available, someone has to provide it. Those people also have needs, and each of them, unless independently wealthy or willing to live as an itinerant, has to earn a living. Of course society could instead demand that each of us provide free or low cost services to each other, so that all our needs are met. This has more or less been tried under communism — it didn’t work very well. So there seems to be a general social consensus that we’ll let people charge each other money in exchange for giving each other things that we want, at mutually agreed upon prices.
This free exchange is certainly restricted to varying degrees in different places and instances, but very rarely is it outlawed entirely. Why should the prostitute, out of all the other professions that meet human needs viewed as legitimate, be singled out and told, “What you provide is different than what everybody else provides, so in your case, you must either provide this service for free or not provide it at all”? You yourself said, “Some people have nothing else to give other than their bodies.” Would you then take away their only viable means of earning a good living?
Perhaps you just want them to charge less. Perhaps you think it is unfair that some people sell their services for $100 an hour or more when other people earn only $10 an hour? I can understand that feeling, but if that’s how you feel, prostitution is the wrong place to direct your energy. You should be looking first at the really high earners like top entertainers, CEOs, lawyers, doctors, athletes, investors, etc. Maybe it’s unfair in some cosmic sense that society is willing to pay some people so much and others so little, but you’ll have to take that up with society. Or maybe just ask yourself — do you voluntarily pay more to people on the low end of the scale?
Letting people choose how much to charge may result in inequities, but it seems fairer to me than any arbitrary system of telling people they must charge only so much, or give their services away for nothing (see previous note about communism). When the number of people desiring something, or the degree to which they desire it, goes up relative to the supply of that good or service, its price goes up. This incentivizes more people to start providing the good or service, come up with new alternatives to provide in its stead, etc., which makes the price go down. It’s a self-regulating ecosystem.
All the people who are “so hard up” for human contact, as you put it — are you out there fulfilling as many of their sexual and romantic and companionship needs as you can, gratis, in your spare time? Do you think society is prepared to do this? To meet, for instance, the needs of all those typically vilified as “dirty old men”? How much empathy does society have for their sexual needs, do you think? Enough to meet those needs without me? Please forgive my skepticism.
I’ve had clients over 80 years old, weighing over 300 lbs., etc. Would you like to enjoy some quality intimate time with them for free, so they can get their needs met? As a professional companion (my current term of choice for my profession — I also use “sacred intimate” and “erotic service provider”), I can enjoy being with them, because being sexually desired turns me on, and the manifestation of that desire in the form of payment, as well as my taking pride in providing a quality professional service (that is to say, a good time), enables me to reflect that energy back to them in a passionate and loving way. But in my experience those without my gift or adaptation or whatever you wish to call it of being able to exchange energies in this way and enjoy it — that is to say, most people — are not so accommodating.
Of course I’m not saying all my clients are older or conventionally unattractive. Some of them are in very good shape, some are younger than me, some have conventional “good looks”. People hire someone like myself for a wide variety of reasons:
• They may want a stronger guarantee of a no-strings-attached interaction
• They may have a fantasy about being with someone like me (either looks-wise, or profession-wise or both)
• They may value their time more than the money and simply not want to go to the trouble of trying to meet someone
• They may feel that I will be more likely to be discreet than someone they might meet on a non-commercial basis (probably true)
• They may want an interaction where they can more freely ask for what they want without having to worry about pleasing someone else
• They may have seen my photos or ad, genuinely be interested in me specifically, and be willing to be generous if that’s required to be intimate with me
• They may be in a relationship where they have an arrangement that it’s okay to see a pro but less okay or not okay to have an affair
• They may be turned on by the “humiliation” to themselves (in their eyes) of paying for it (I know that one may sound weird to you, but trust me)
• They may want an interaction where they can “call the shots” as the employer (the one doing the hiring)
• They may want the image, or self-image, of being someone able to enjoy the finer things in life
• They may have hired me before and enjoyed the experience
• They may simply be wanting a good full-body massage
Some of these reasons I can relate to more than others. But in all cases I respect my clients’ right to choose, and to hire willing providers to provide what they want. If it were not for people like me, a very strongly felt human need would be going underserved. I am proud to be occupying a special niche in society dedicated to filling those needs. Please think about that, and reflect on whether I really “just want to take advantage of the lonely” as you put it.
I welcome hearing any further responses you may have to these thoughts, and thanks again for writing and for thinking about ethical issues. The world has many problems greatly deserving of the concerns and energies of empathetic people like yourself. Good luck to you too.
Namaste,
Chris
P.S. – Short reading/viewing list for further research, if you’re interested:
1) The book “The Persian Boy” by Mary Renault (historical portrayal of a very loving and service-oriented courtesan)
2) The book “Healing Our World” by Mary Ruwart (similar name, different Mary – not about my profession specifically, but about the application of the Non-Aggression Principle)
3) The TV show “Firefly”, in particular how the character of Inara is portrayed (classy and beautiful yet sensitive and spiritual — whence I have borrowed the term “companion”)
none of by business…. typing like I have a cold… well bad spelin is won of my beter features.
I am simply in the its none of by business what two other people do.
I actually am even against the “get a room camp” well are we against breast feeding in public? if that’s ok then what else isn’t?
So have at it. Have fun, I have my own issues to work on.
Thank you all for your kind words! The warm response here by my pro-freedom colleagues to a piece of writing that ventures into territory outside the strict scope of libertarian advocacy means a lot to me.
Note to “Root’s Teeth” (November 6, 2015 at 3:47 am) – I’m actually in many respects an earnest and serious person, perhaps sometimes too much so for my own good! I think I just have a habit of usually smiling for photos. 🙂
My article, by the way, probably makes a bit more sense if you first read the piece in response to which it was written, which can be found at http://ebar.com/openforum/opforum.php?sec=guest_op&id=530 . (I had hoped my response would run in the following issue of the Bay Area Reporter, but between my initially sending it to the wrong address, and then getting bumped a couple weeks in favor of more time-sensitive material, it didn’t end up running until over a month later.)
There is one slight change I wish I’d made in the quote a couple of you liked, “Free love cannot work as a social model so long as we remain picky about who we choose to allow ourselves to see as “sexually attractive,” and open to physical intimacy only with those whose looks meet our “standards.”
I think I would have done better to have concluded that statement as follows: “…open to physical intimacy only with those whose looks, financial resources, social status, or other considerations meet our ‘standards’.”
That so much physical intimacy is withheld on the basis of looks seems bad enough in itself. But the shortcomings — dare I say moral bankruptcy? — of this habit seem even more glaring in the face of evidence that people routinely manage to overcome their “I just don’t find him/her attractive” compunctions when it comes to prospective lovers who are wealthy or famous or both.
Chuck, I empathize with your frustration (November 5, 2015 at 8:47 pm), and hope that you do find someone (or multiple someones) with whom to find happiness. Some are prone to dismiss such longings as trivial #FirstWorldProblems compared to needs like housing, (institutional) education, and (institutional) health care that can be satisfied with money. To them I would like to say, “As a libertarian, I don’t believe in putting economic values ahead of all other values. Perhaps your political philosophy is different?”
jp, it certainly doesn’t make me “mad,” but lots of jobs involve use of the body. Paying someone to touch one’s own body…fewer of those. Massage therapists come to mind. Hairdressers to some extent. Touching private parts to cause orgasms…I think that’s only sex workers.
Why that’s taboo is hard for me to grok…some sorta weird guilt trip would be my guess.
I’ve always used sports as an analogy to prostitution, which almost always makes people mad, although it’s not my intent. Athletes use their bodies to make a living. It really seems to be the same thing to me as a prostitute uses hers/his body to make a living..
Obviously, I’m not a sports enthusiast,and I’ve never understood the hero worship that accompanies certain athletes. YMMV.
Marc,
==We also need to be unafraid to bring it up. ===
Well you know my view on the myriad things we are scared to bring up.
==Public sentiment for prohibitions of most kinds are fading, and pretty rapidly.====
Five years ago I think this was true. At least in this subject, the tide is shifting towards more prohibition with the influence of the newest wave of intersectional feminist thought. Individual liberty and life choices of women (just speaking women here just because that is usually what people think of in sex work, rightly or wrongly) are no longer even considered a good thing but a marxist collectivism of what is good for women writ large, and this has been determined by them, not to be. I believe Libertarianism is going to have a big pushback here and the charge of misogyny leveled against dissent. Libertarian decisions have been denounced as “hyper-individualism.” This is the next wave.
=== If Libertarians, of all people, are too scared to talk about ending them, it will take longer for them to die.===
If Libertarians don’t take control of this issue, the new progressivism will redefine it in such a way that it will be “hate” to advocate for freedom in this area.
I appreciated this quote:
What libertarian can fail to appreciate someone with enough tolerance in his heart to say, “Even though I don’t approve of this, I will not seek to have people fined or thrown in jail for it, and will instead rely on civil dialogue and non-coercive persuasion to make my case?”
That is where I fall. I do not approve of sex work; I am an evangelical Christian. But I advocate fully for freedom and rely on dialog and peaceful persuasion to speak to people who disagree with dignity and respect. My personal views and morals are pretty hard conservative. I do not wish to impose those on people through political means. Nor have the same done to me. Other people’s lives and bodies do not require or need my approval. And I do not feel some need to approve of every choice of other people to give them respect as a human being and complete person. And I respect Starchild immensely as he knows. I am very appreciative of the kind and persuasive way he wrote in this piece.
This is an excellent piece. Libertarians should write on the subject a lot more often.
We also need to be unafraid to bring it up. Public sentiment for prohibitions of most kinds are fading, and pretty rapidly. If Libertarians, of all people, are too scared to talk about ending them, it will take longer for them to die.
I thought this quote was excellent:
You’re absolutely right, Starchild. Prudes have no problem denying (both with compulsion and with persuasion) even a little physical comfort to those who otherwise would never see any intimacy with another human at all. Ergo, prudes should be the first ones to volunteer to provide that intimacy.
Is this photo a New Look for Starchild? He has a Serious Look. A look of Gravitas.
This is the first photo I’ve ever seen of Starchild looking serious. All previous photos of him that I’ve seen depict him as a smiling, happy-go-lucky sort.
It’s a shame that sex work is the target of such frequent criticism, but as long as that’s the case, it’s nice that we have people like Starchild to provide such an articulate and logical defense of it!
I agree with the previous comments. This is an excellent piece. Absolutely excellent.
I’m so lonely…
Starchild wrote (article):
Exactly! I fall in the perpetually lonely and horny camp. I still hold out hope that someday I’ll meet someone who reciprocates my feelings (despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary in the form of rejection), but if I ever give up that dream it would be nice to be able to trade all this useless money I have for a bit of physical satisfaction. Those who seek to ban sex work are condemning many to a lifetime of misery.
Nicely done! There are other issues in the controversy over sex and vice, but you have made some good points in a very civil and persuasive manner. Why is sex work nonetheless disrespected in so many cultures, traditional and modern? It is difficult to discuss the question freely, without offending people.
Great article! Very well-written, Starchild!
Lol re taking all comers!
This is very well written, and is going to be “food for thought” for many readers. Good job, Starchild!