Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?

[Skeptic]

Pretty Woman is the screen version of a prostitute's wet dream, the same way religion is the opium of the people.

Well, no, not really.

Actually, Pretty Woman is a modern remake of Cinderella: the kitchen main, actually a princess with a heart of gold (like Julia Robert's character), has only a limited time (the three days he "hired" her for) to make prince charming fall in love with her and take her away from a life of drudgery. Which she does, and he does. And they live happily ever after. The end.

Surely Cinderella--even without the good fairy--was even less realistic about the life of middle ages kitchen maids than Pretty Woman is about the lives of modern prostitutes. But so what?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm just amazed that in the Internet Era, people actually have to pay for one-time sex with strangers. I mean, with chat rooms and matchmaking sites, it's so easy to hook up...

Er, not that I would know personally. I heard about it. While I was saying the rosary in church.

 

[Matabiri]

I would suggest you read the following before you answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Callgirl

Callgirl - A memoir of the three years the author spent as a call girl while also working as a college lecturer. A story of strength and survival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And the view from the other side: Punternet.

(Warning - not worksafe - though no images!)

 

[billydkid]

a fact

This is similar to the current story about the junior high speaker who is in trouble for telling 8th graders that strippers can make a lot of money (depending on their bust size). Of course, a lot of parents are howling about it, but his defense is, "It's true."

Of course, it is true, but apparently it's not appropriate to tell 8th graders that it is a viable career option. You can tell them that it is ok to scrub toilets for minimum wage if they want to, but suggesting that exotic dancing might be a way to make a lot of money? No way.

I don't have the full link, but I read it on www.usatoday.com

It is a fact that a really good looking person and a really good looking woman particularly need never go hungry. I have always contended that there is nothing better to be than to be good looking. I would love to be in a position where, by virtue of my appearance alone, people would pay me money merely to gander at me in the nude and to be in my company. Alas, I am resigned to being a schlub and to having to actually produce value of some sort in order to obtain my daily bread.

Have you ever seen someone who is so good looking you almost can not stand to look at them? Many years ago I used to drive a delivery truck for a film editing company in Manhattan. One day I was waiting to cross a street with a group of people and happened to notice a young woman standing next to me. I have to say she was so astonishingly beautiful - just absolutely the most amazing looking woman I had ever seen ever - that she became stuck in my mind and for the longest time I could barely think of anything else. I would imagine that her existence was fundamentally defined by her incredible, almost transcendent beauty. I can see where looking like that could be an issue which causes some discomfort for some individuals. Also, I have always wondered, aside from the effect of being continually treated with deference, I have always wondered what connection there might be between one's appearance and one's internal self. Is there any connection between one's character and one's beauty or lack of it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: a fact

Have you ever seen someone who is so good looking you almost can not stand to look at them? Many years ago I used to drive a delivery truck for a film editing company in Manhattan. One day I was waiting to cross a street with a group of people and happened to notice a young woman standing next to me. I have to say she was so astonishingly beautiful - just absolutely the most amazing looking woman I had ever seen ever - that she became stuck in my mind and for the longest time I could barely think of anything else. I would imagine that her existence was fundamentally defined by her incredible, almost transcendent beauty. I can see where looking like that could be an issue which causes some discomfort for some individuals. Also, I have always wondered, aside from the effect of being continually treated with deference, I have always wondered what connection there might be between one's appearance and one's internal self. Is there any connection between one's character and one's beauty or lack of it.

It's even funnier when you're gay: you can hate someone out of jealousy for their gorgeous looks, but still want to sleep with them.

Nietzsche speculated that the lower class of society would produce smarter people than the upper class, because the aristocracy had less need for brains. I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)

This means that age, sickness, and accident are going to be awfully traumatic for them. Mwah hah hah!

 

[dann]

Surely Cinderella--even without the good fairy--was even less realistic about the life of middle ages kitchen maids than Pretty Woman is about the lives of modern prostitutes. But so what?

So this:

It's interesting that someone mentions the movie Pretty Woman. The NYT did a feature article for its Sunday magazine on the global slave trade and sex industry. Many women in Eastern Europe seeking/forced to become mail-order-brides DO apparently believe that it's not so bad, and they explicitly compare themselves to Julia Roberts in the movie.

I would have liked Cinderella better if she had got up off the floor and kicked some stepsister butt! Waiting for the Prince to save her is a pretty stupid idea, but it serves a purpose which you have to agree with in order to fully enjoy the story ...

 

[El Greco]

I'm just amazed that in the Internet Era, people actually have to pay for one-time sex with strangers. I mean, with chat rooms and matchmaking sites, it's so easy to hook up...

Well yes, but it's not the same. First of all, with chatrooms and forums there is no WYSIWYG. Then, there are those who want to do it like NOW, I mean NOW, ok, in half an hour at the most. And then, there are those rich businessmen who are not attractive or witty, yet they yearn for a top model which the bourgeoise can't have, and which they can bring in a business dinner the next day and have a minimum level of certainty that she is not going to embarrass them.

 

[dann]

Re: Re: a fact

Nietzsche speculated that the lower class of society would produce smarter people than the upper class, because the aristocracy had less need for brains. I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)

He had a variant of this (in Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, I think) when he distinguished between different types of scientists: Generals and preachers tended to think that they just had to be loud or insistent enough in order to be believed, whereas Jewish scientists or philosophers were so used to not being believed that they tended to present much more elaborate arguments.

This means that age, sickness, and accident are going to be awfully traumatic for them. Mwah hah hah!

And you don't find it traumatic that it is traumatic to them that they'll end up looking like the rest of us?!

 

[El Greco]

Re: Re: a fact

I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)

Actually no, because the people with brains make lots of money and marry the beautiful ones and so their offsprings get genes from both pools.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: a fact

Actually no, because the people with brains make lots of money and marry the beautiful ones and so their offsprings get genes from both pools.

Ah, genetics: the Russian roulette of life. Will Baby have Mommy's looks and Daddy's brains? Or the other way around?

I don't hold much hope for the brain power of future Simpson-Lachey offspring, but at least they stand a good chance of being attractive.


eta: Also, since a large portion of beauty is actually how healthy one is, you could argue that being better fed and having good healthcare would give rise to more beauty among the rich. Plus, they can afford to have unattractive aspects fixed.

 

[Ranb]

From an earlier post, "Under Batista, the US indirectly organised Cuba
as its brothel and gambling house. Today, its punishment of Cuba is helping
to recreate the conditions under which Cuban women and girls must become the
playthings of economically advantaged, white, male Europeans and North
Americans."

I do not know who wrote the article at "ageofconsent.com", but why is American still the bogey man here? Cuba can trade with any country it has relations with. Just because the USA restricts most trade with Cuba, it does not mean Cuba is poor because of the USA. Castro can lighten up a bit. He can meet American demands if he reallly wants to trade with us.

Ranb

 

[Skeptic]

A few comments...

I am sorry, but I don't see any signs of a tongue-in-cheek attitude in that movie.

I don't know about "tongue in cheek", but the movie certainly does not make the audience think that being a prostitute is a way to riches and fun. I can think of at least three different ways which the exact opposite messege, in fact, is being delivered:

1). THE CHARACTERS EXPLICITLY DENY HER PRSOTITUTION-TO-RICHES CASE IS TYPICAL:

For instance, Robert's character asks her friend (another prostitute) if she actually know anybody who "made it" by being a prostitue. The friend replies, "Cindi-f***en-rella!", that is, admitting that only happens in a fairy tale.

Near the end of the movie, Gere's character leaves her--after he makes sure that she has enough money to go back to school and not having to be a hooker anymore. She is happy, but says sadly to her friend: "I want the fairy tale".

2). THE ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GERE AND ROBERT'S CHARACTERS IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT REALLY A PROSTITUTE, BUT MERELY A "CAPTURED INNOCENT":

This goes together with the fairy-tale idea: Cinderella is raised from the ashes of the kitchen not because kitchen maids regularly date princes, but because she isn't REALLY a kitchen maid, but, rather, noble-born.

Same thing in the movie. The relationship between Gere's and Robert's character only works because he obviously does NOT have sex with her, like he would with a regular prostitute. Why? Because he senses the "princess" (innocent, virginal, "good" woman) under her "prostitute" exterior.

To add to this, the movie makes it clear that Robert's character is "new in the biz", naive and innocent; that she and her friend are, in fact, unsuccesful prostitutes who do not have many clients at all; and that she refuses her friend's suggestion of getting a pimp, which is something a "real" prostitute (or kitchen maid) would surely do, but not a "good" woman like Robert's character.

3). HOW "REAL" PROSTITUTES ARE TREATED IS EXPLICITLY SHOWN IN THE MOVIE.

How is a movie with an ATTEMPTED RAPE scene of Roberts' character--by the boorish lawyer (player very well, by the way, by Jason Alexander) could possibly be seen as a recommendation of prostitution?

Of course the white knight (Gere) comes in in the critical moment and saves her, but it's obvious that he saves her for the same reason he falls for her in the first place: that she is not a REAL prostitute.



All this, this, of course, in addition to the fact that the movie is (to repeat) openly fiction and obviously a remake of Cinderella, so you would have to be a total idiot to rely on it for guidance on real-life prostitution even if it DID glorify fairy-tale-land prostitution--which it doesn't.

To give you another example, there are actually a few loons out there who were so taken by "Star Wars" that they seem to actually believe Luke Skywalker & co. are (were?) actual people, and that it IS possible to build light-sabers if they try hard enough.

This despite the fact that THAT movie, too, is a modern remake of Snow White with the sexes reversed (with poor Alec Guinness as Obi-Van Kenobi, the fairy godmother), and that the movie even starts, obviously deliberately, with a written legend out of a fairy tale: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...".

In both cases, so what? The fact that somebody can be so stupid as to rely on such fiction as a guide to the world is hardly the movie's fault. "Pretty Women" didn't promote prostitution any more than "Star Wars" promoted building light sabers in your garage, as at least one idiot has a web page claiming that is what he's trying to do.



Could you please be specific and point out examples of the movie Pretty Woman trying to let its viewers know that it is only putting on an act for entertainment.

Er, the part that it is FICTION? That it was not advertised as a documentary? That it is not billed as "based on a true story", as most Hollywood movies which have even the most tenuous connection to real events claim to be? That its commercials, reviews, and teasers almost invariably referred to it as "A Cinderella story?"

How much more "out of your way" can you go to make clear a movie is NOT really real-life than to openly and repeatedly say (correctly) that it's a retelling of a fairy-tale--in fact, to make the fairy-tale point the "hook" that is supposed to get you to watch the movie in the first place?

 

[Skeptic]

There seems to be something deeply morally wrong about the idea that someone "has no choice" to becomes a prostitue or a thief--not in order to avoid starvation or some other extremity of that nature, but in order to avoid "working at K-mart" or doing other menial jobs.

The conclusion is that being a whore or a pimp is better than working at K-mart. This is deeply insulting to the millions who DO prefer to work at K-mart (or the equivalent) over being whores and thieves. This analysis totally ignores such things as honesty, self-respect, chastity, and a zillion other reasons to prefer honest work to whoring and pimping--even if the honest work is low-pay dead-end one.

Of course this analysis isn't new: it was used by whores and thieves since times immemorial. It wasn't any more convincing then that it is now. The ancient Greeks already saw the obvious falseness behind this argument; as Epictetus said, "The honest man is always called a sucker--by the crook."

What's odd, however, is that there now seems to be a class of people--like the poster on fark.com who claimed he rather see his daughter become a "happy exotic dancer" than any profession that makes less money--who seem to take these self-serving "argument" seriously, for the first time in history.

They are usually Yuppie upper-middle-class "champions of the workers" (or their college-bound children) who, in reality, consider working at McDonald's, or K-Mart, or any menial or unprofessional job, as a fate worse than death. Naturally this makes them sympathetic to the plight of the poor, poor whores and criminals who escaped this fate in the only way that was open to them, a life of crime.

It shows something about their REAL attitude towards working people that, when they look at the checkout girl at K-mart, they might well be thinking: "Oh, the humanity! I hope my daughter becomes a whore instead of doing THIS! At least she could afford Gucci bags!"

 

[Skeptic]

Please, leave out the adjectives! It's a little too easy to compare a happy exotic dancer or hooker with an unhappy waitress etc.

Absolutely correct, of course.

By the way, it seems that the guy on fark.com seems to prefer his daughter be a stripped to just about ANY other job that exists... which I would say is a rather odd attitude.

I also didn't see anybody comparing soldiers and prostitutes. You are making up a strawman!

Indeed.

 

[pgwenthold]

There seems to be something deeply morally wrong about the idea that someone "has no choice" to becomes a prostitue or a thief--

Why do you consistently lump prostitutes with thieves in your post? In what way, other than "they do something illegal," is what they do similar?

 

[Skeptic]

Why do you consistently lump prostitutes with thieves in your post? In what way, other than "they do something illegal," is what they do similar?

As the great jazz musician Armstrong said in a different context, "if you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know."

 

[SRW]

OK, I have read the excerpt from the first chapter of the book you recommended. (I am not going to buy and read the whole book, sorry!) Your request was:

As far as I can tell from the excerpt, the book tells a very different story:

Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

You appear to be confusing my views with Castro, he is the one who said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Castro appears to be contributing to prostitution and the increase in prostitution tourism by his own tolerance. He remarked that Cuban women are prostitutes not because they needed to be but rather because they liked to make love, and that they are the most educated and the healthiest prostitutes on the market. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean," Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Again from the article I posted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy. (Jeszs Zzqiga,"Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Given the above this statement is ambiguous, you assume that :

poor economy = poverty

However given Castro's statement above it could also mean:

poor economy = encourage prostitution to bring in tourism.

The only supporting evidence you have for your idea, is an article I posted which is open to interpretation.

So you read one chapter of a book and you are able to comment on it's contents. If you were to read the entire book you would see that women have other reasons to turn to prostitution besides poverty. To name a few;

Greed, revenge, drugs, and stupidity.

 

[SRW]

And the view from the other side: Punternet.

(Warning - not worksafe - though no images!)

I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?

 

[Skeptic]

I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?

Apparently, "punter" in the British slang equivalent of the American "john".

 

[Nikk]

I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?

It's a practical guide to availability, costs and terms and conditions of service of prostitutes in the UK. An assessment of the ahem skills of the service providers is given by the punters themselves as well as website links.

Quite a useful little work, it certainly has been added to my list of favourites.

It's written by an American by the way who clearly has found a satisfactory way of coping with the British weather.