On Sunday mornings in spring, a young spinster aunt’s thoughts always turn to prostitution. I understand that many news addicts are all a-twitter over the “DC Madam” prostitution scandal currently being pimped everywhere from Fox news to, I guess, I Blame the Patriarchy. And I can certainly see why. For crissake, some top- (or was it just “high-“?) ranking government official you’ve never heard of had to step down! It just doesn’t get any better than that. I shudder to think of the state of our national hilarity if prostituted women didn’t so routinely deliver the A-material.
That’s right; just about everything pertaining to this whole putrid story is sorely chapping the Twisty hide, and I can be silent no longer. A partial list of my objections:
— Everyone gets all winky-winky when government dudes get busy with “high-priced call girls.” The jokey tone emanates from standard mob policies such as “Gotcha!”, wherein a nation takes great pleasure in exposing a prominent personage for getting caught doing what everybody knows everybody does all the time but nobody will admit to because it’s fucking disgusting. Another bogus narrative feeding the public jocularity over the scandal is that the women are “professionals,” who, having used feminine wiles and cunning business sense to separate feckless party-boys from large sums of cash, both enjoy their “work” and are laughing all the way to the bank.
But a “NASA official” or a “military officer” who pays to rape a woman is still a fucking sociopathic john; a “madam” who excises a cut of the take is still a fucking sociopathic pimp; and a “high-priced call girl” is still a prostituted woman whose “choice” in the matter is largely constrained by circumstance, whose sexual “freedom” is entirely illusory, and whose “enjoyment” of her “work” is a fairy tale.
— “Who will be outed next?” is the language [here] used to distance truth from theater. Quoth ScienceBlogger Ed Brayton “I’m having as much fun following this DC Madam situation as anyone, and I can’t wait for more names to come out […].”
Men, see, are “outed” as “customers” for comic relief, rather than investigated and prosecuted and castrated with rusty saws for paying to rape prostituted women.
— “Outing” is national bloodsport, but only when the john in question is of national importance. Of the “10,000 names” Palfrey is said to have sold to ABC News, that guy nobody ever heard of is supposedly the only one of sufficient political rank to warrant even a public shaming. Whether or not ABC is merely protecting other important dudes is beside the point; the contingency that even a fraction of those 10,000 johns will see the inside of a courtroom is remote.
— “These were not cheap women. These were very nice women who just needed to make a few extra dollars.” This is the position of pinched pimp Deborah Jeane Palfrey as she attempts to save her own hide by (a) using oppressor-approved language that distinguishes between common slut-class garbage and the prized virgin class, and (b) portraying “her girls” as happyfun weekend escort hobbyists who, bless’em, couldn’t have been paid to be raped by johns, because of their respectable inner virginity.
— Fox News, according to News Hounds, is flashing this across their screen: “‘DC Madam’ Lesson: Legalize & Tax Prostitution!” In other words, designate the slut class as legally rapeable. Note to novice blamers: legalization and decriminalization are two different things. The latter, which I support, would remove the insult currently added to injury by ceasing to hold prostituted women criminally responsible for being raped in exchange for money. The former would merely make it easier and more profitable for men to exploit women. Legalization’s added appeal for politicians: their pervy pornsickness would cease to be grounds for legal action or impeachment.
— The “But We’re All Whores In One Way Or Another” position is a variant on what-about-the-men. It often used to diminish the enormity of women’s oppression by arguing that men do jobs they don’t like, too. This dude, who has cleverly spotted in the concept of prostitution a metaphor for politics, has a fun take on the Universality of Whoredom as the Human Condition:
“The only difference between what Palfrey did and what politicians in Washington and around the country do on a regular basis is that Palfrey was selling sex, while the politicians are selling their nations [sic] future. When you think about it, Palfrey really wasn’t harming anyone compared to what the real prostitutes are doing.”
Sadly, through his inability to distinguish between pimp and prostitute, our author’s metaphor is a bit muddled, but we can still make out his point: that the institution wherein sociopathic men pay to rape women isn’t so bad, because politicians are corrupt. Never mind about prostitution! Palfrey didn’t harm “anyone” — who counts a few hookers? — because Washington is taking this country to hell in a handbasket!
Don’t see the connection? That’s because there isn’t one! The guy is a fucking a knob!