what if sex is no longer a viable metaphor

So, Amazonfail fallout continues a day later. Really, the best part is the discussion that the debacle has sparked.

Still, answers coming out of Amazon itself are conflicted and I have no idea what to think about what's really going on over there. There does seem to be an effort underway to remedy this situation (see update here), which is the important thing. But it's been an amazing phenomenon, regardless.

Debauchette has posted some more interesting thoughts here. In particular, she says this:

Sure, we have erotic texts that are intended to arouse the reader, and that genre of literature usually gets its own isolated aisle. But sexuality is often used as a means to explore deeper themes, or to expand on philosophical discourse, or to access internal experiences, psychology, emotion, spirituality. Sometimes sexuality is political, legal, historical, or grounded in current events, and can take the form of fiction, memoir, history, essay, poetry. Identifying something sexual as “adult” is clumsy and arbitrary, like some clunky algorhythmic Miller’s test.

Specifically, she's discussing the disappearance of Catherine Breillat's book, Pornocracy, that was the companion piece to her film Anatomy of Hell. I've found both book and film to be weird and full of philosophical problems (e.g., they posit a victimhood inherent to the female experience and a model of gay manhood as "pure" and immune to the "corruption" that is female. Such things make me bristle for several reasons.) But Pornocracy is an excellent example to point out that sexuality can function in a text as a vehicle to discuss any number of other things, just as debauchette says. And that's why Amazon's new practice of shuffling texts that deal in sexual subject matter to a virtual ghetto is so deeply unnerving. If we can no longer find books that talk about sex, we'll be losing a deplorably great percentage of centuries worth of recorded human thought -- thought regarding a hell of a lot of stuff that's only tangentially sexual in nature.

Anyway, all these other bloggers linked above and below have said it all better than I. With any luck, all 57, 310 books will have their popularity rankings properly restored in short order and Amazon will devise a smarter system for preventing Harry Potter searchers from stumbling upon this damnably pernicious book with it's filthy, wanton jacket.

N.B. To be fair, I ordered my personal copy of Pornocracy off Amazon a while ago-- and I had to wait several months for it. The current printing was released in July of last year. Before that, there was some older translation of it that Amazon just didn't stock. So, the barring of this particular book may have had just a little something to do with the fact that they've only sold a handful of copies (to pervs like me) in the first damn place.

fucking art

I've started watching the IFC series Indie Sex on DVD. The first installment is about censorship and covers many of the same issues discussed in Kirby Dick's hilarious and disturbing documentary about the MPAA, The Film Has Not Yet Been Rated (the one I wrote about here) . I must note, however, that Indie Sex is, perhaps, a little kinder to the Jack Valenti and his band of suburban Los Angeleno hausfrau harpies than Dick is. A few big deal directors and actors confess that they're willing to sacrifice their artistic freedoms for "the protection of the children" (as though kids aren't all playing grab-ass every time we turn our backs anyway)-- and they insist that the MPAA serves a purpose and isn't expressly evil. But nonetheless, the show is worth watching.

The first episode opens with a quotation from Picasso: "Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art."

I had not heard this quotation before, and yet, I think it addresses a very relevant crux. On my last post, my dutiful Republican heckler said, "A bound-Asian chick hanging with her ta-tas exposed ... that's art?!" ... to which I thought, well... yeah!

I don't think Picasso was using the word "chaste" with the strictly sexual connotation it implies when used vernacularly, but rather to point out that art that risks nothing isn't really doing the job that art is supposed to do-- that being, challenging the public consciousness-- a decidedly unchaste act. And as a result of the inherently risk-taking nature of art, and the social anxiety surrounding all that relates to human bodily pleasure, art and fucking tend to make pretty compelling ... uh... forgive me... bedfellows. Right?

My heckler also mentioned Monet and Manet (in a tired, lazy-ass Seinfeld reference, I must point out) and called them artistes important, especially in comparison to photographer Nobuyoshi Araki. Now, I have an Araki poster on my wall at home (It's a close-up of a mouth, turned sideways. However, it's so abstracted and decontextualized that my mother asked me if it was somebody's asshole (giggle)) and would probably sooner gag myself to the point of daily puking (even being as vomit-phobic as I am) before I stuck some pleasant impressionistic water lilies on my wall. But that's simply a matter of taste. It's not because I deny that artists like Monet and Manet were breaking myriad rules (and thereby making, yes, IMPORTANT contributions to their field) by the standards of their day. Monet was laughed out of galleries for his mushy, blurry flowers and glowing hourly renditions of Notre Dame. The Manet painting below, with its naked woman staring obliquely (defiantly?) at the viewer, was rejected from the Paris Salon as much for its rough and sketchy rendering as it was for its immodest depiction of the female form.


Art is, by definition, rule-breaking. If my posting a picture of a Japanese girl strung up by her tits breaks one of your rules, Joe, well then... good! It's doing its job.

I'd also like to offer up a second quotation from Frederico Fellini, also by way of the Indie Sex show: "Censorship is advertising paid by the government."

It is one of the great ironies of human nature that the more we try to police our appetites, the curiouser and curiouser we get about the excessive varieties of methods through which we can sate those appetites. As much as I'd like to say that censorship is a conservative impulse in the proactive parlance of our government today, I know that's not actually true. Misguided "feminists" seek to ban pornography. Radio and television personalities are culturally hushed on a regular basis for their "hate speech" (sentiments with which I most often find uproarious, but for which I would NEVER seek legislation that might deny these folks their rights to voice their offensive and bullshitty opinions in the first place). But nonetheless, when it comes to regulating sexual imagery in art, in film, in text, it's usually a Republican (Scalia, anyone?) behind the initiative. And that'll keep me voting for the other guys every time.

Fortunately, in spite of conservative, fearful-of-sex attitudes, Fellini's quip tends to hold true. Government-fueled outrage is an excellent vehicle by which the masses are carried into arthouse theaters. And that's a fantastic boon for underfunded art-smut (my favorite kind of art-- and my favorite kind of smut).

On that note, allow me to direct my fair reader(s) to FGT (F/thyGorgeousTh/ings), a soon-to-be site full of prurient things with an eye to the aesthetic. The two women (my oft-quoted debauchette and another sex-worker-blogger, Kasia) behind the site alternately call its contents "postmodern porn" (a designation that strikes me as a little dated... wasn't postmodernism replaced with... what? the post-ironic age? in the mid-90s? Or, at least, most certainly, when everyone lost their senses of humor when NYC was attacked in 2001?) or "art porn". Regardless of what they call it, I find it notable that the erotic and the artistically sublime are ascending to such blended, interspersed prominence, in these, our internet fora.

With sloppy, ugly porn so available, where's the creative risk in making fucking pretty again, I might ask? As this website develops, we shall see, I have no doubt.

a question of values

(via debauchette's tumblr)

If you think art is good and masturbation is bad, you will most likely deny that there is truth in this tagger's analogy.

If you think art is bad and masturbation is bad, you will most likely agree that there is truth in the analogy.

If you think art is bad but masturbation is good, you will most likely deny that there is truth in the analogy.

If you think art is good and masturbation is good, you may or may not agree that there is truth in the analogy, depending on whether or not you have experienced or witnessed artful masturbation. But you would be duly challenged to argue that the creation (and, often, the consumption) of art is NOT masturbatory.

If you think both art and masturbation are good and concur with the tagger's correlative, you might wonder why someone felt the need to state something so obvious.

Broken record

I know I keep harping on this high-end prostitution thing, but it's totally under my skin. Please bear with me while I continue to try to sort out my thinking. Yesterday, I read yet another article-- this one, ostensibly, about the sort of economy that supports an asking price of $5500 for sex. I read it, hoping that it would be an objective account of how the flesh-for-cash thing really works, as an industry. But the article isn't that at all. It's really just another subjective puddle of moralizing, dressed up in economic theory. For the most part, the assertions that underpin the article are wholly debatable, and therefore, not particularly relevant to the topic it's trying to address. What a shame.

Allison Schrager, the author of the piece, begins describing how she's been called on the carpet before for her preconceived notions of prostitution. She says, "while most people consider it an extremely undesirable job, on the high end 'it can be quite lucrative and requires few skills (though a fair helping of unequally distributed natural endowments).'
'Inferior skills?', commented someone under the name 'spairme'. 'Obviously, you have not visited one...To be able to command premium pricing an [sic] any market, a service must be superior.'" And even though someone is clearly trying to call attention to her bias, she's already making assumptions. Who says "most people" think whoring is "an extremely undesirable job?" I mean, I don't guess anyone grows up dreaming of giving $45 fellatio from the passenger seat of an Oldsmobile, but I can think of worse things that being paid on an hourly rate that exceeds my monthly net income for looking pretty, keeping up my scintillating conversational skills, working out and getting fucked. I mean, set aside all moral squeamishness that you might feel about renting out your body to someone you don't love-- and quite possibly, don't even like very much-- for just a minute. Seriously. Put all that aside. Think about what a plummy deal that really is.

Again I turn to debauchette, who has a much more educated perspective on this than my own. Here's something really smart she recently said in a comment thread:
"This is where the press consistently gets it wrong: they suggest that all sex work is oppressive and dehumanizing, when it isn’t. Dehumanizing sex work is dehumanizing, just as any work that treats human beings as automata is going to be dehumanizing. Or they suggest it’s empowering, which it can be, but only empowering sex work is empowering. There’s tremendous range. And within that range, it’s easy to feel valued only for your sexuality, as if you have nothing else to offer the world. But then, that’s not limited to sex work alone."
It seems really odd to me that the "range" to which debauchette refers isn't just a given-- it seems so obvious! I balk at Schrager's denial of that range-- or, I guess, her ignorance of it. Though I'm chiding HER for making assumptions here, I, myself, am going to hope that Schrager's assumption has bloomed forth more out of that exact ignorance of the real women participating in this industry, rather than from plain old judgmentalism. But what do I know?

So, next, Schrager breaks down the demand side of this economic equation, citing the idea that everyone wants access to the deluxe edition, the elite brand, the super-duper fancy. Hence, the more a woman charges, the more she is able to charge. It's more or less a marketing argument-- if a woman is able to establish herself as a premium brand, she's automatically worth more on the free market. I can't really quibble with Schrager about how that works. I assume it's essentially an accurate assessment.

But then she launches into a really weird analysis of the supply side. She starts out saying these women can charge a lot because it's illegal and stigmatized. One commenter mentions, however, that women are able to charge just as much in places where prostitution is legal, though-- so there goes that argument! And the stigma? Well, I would think that, if you're in the industry, it becomes your community. And there's only a stigma against it OUTSIDE of the industry... so, I would imagine that these women are able to shelter themselves from the glare of The Moral Majority fairly easily within their daily goings on. So, I don't think that's really what jacks the cost up either.

But then she goes on to discuss prostitution as though it's utterly antipodal to marriage. And that's just laughably poor logic in this here early 21st Century. She starts out quoting this economic paper called "A Theory of Prostitution." Here's the quotation: "[A] woman cannot be both a prostitute and a wife. Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone marriage market earnings." Now, the first problem I see with this quotation is that I don't quite follow WHY prostitution and marriage are mutually exclusive. It is because both Schrager and the authors of this paper assume that the default setting for every emotionally committed relationship is proscribed sexual monogamy? True enough, for many marriages, the monogamy is a prerequisite for any aisle-strolling activities-- and, of course, I've often wondered, in this very blog, how often people pause well before ring purchases and cake selection to ask each other whether thoughtlessly blundering into monogamy is really the best thing for either of them-- but marriage and sexual monogamy are not synonymous. Neither are commitment and monogamy. I've said that before, too, haven't I? God, this stuff's taking up so much room in my head that I feel I repeat myself in virtually every post these days. Forgive me.

So, as I was saying, why can't a woman be both a prostitute and a wife? Regardless, Schrager takes the assumption that she can't as gospel and runs the whole rest of her argument accordingly.

Here, I suppose, I must admit that I also bristle at near-seismic levels at that "marriage can be an important source of income for women" business. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's true. A lot of girls never put much effort into making any real money because they'd rather marry, have babies and let their husbands pay most of the bills. I don't have anything at all against women who choose that for themselves. I personally think it's impractical-- what happens if the marriage doesn't last or something becomes of the husband's job? It wasn't an atypical occurrence for women in generations prior to mine to find themselves widowed at 55 and, having been out of the workforce for 35 years, completely unable to support themselves. Asking a man to provide for my financial stability would foster a sort of dependence with which I'll never be comfortable. Beyond that, I don't know too many guys of my generation who don't make the assumption that the girls they marry will do their share to keep the household afloat. Perhaps more, uh, "old-fashioned" guys exist-- but they're busy floundering in the shallow end of my personal dating pool-- due, in no small part, to my utter lack of interest in them. So, basically, the idea that marriage is a source of income makes my chest get all tight with panic. I could never see marriage as an economic transaction and I get real effin' skittish when I entertain the idea that I might ever have to ask a man for money. *shudder*

Ultimately, Schrager's underlying question is why would a woman who is smart enough to be a sophisticated companion to some schmancy men (i.e., could support herself based on her intellectual capacity) and who is exceptionally beautiful (i.e., could snag a husband just by bending over to pick lint off the carpet) choose to fuck for money? There is judgment implicit in that question, no? That judgment is kinda why I think the question (and thus, the article as a whole) is irrelevant. The reasons are, by their very nature, specific to each individual sex worker. And these women are each responsible for their own choices, particularly on the high end of the spectrum. So, again, I ask, why cannot we not respect these women's personal agency, and respect their decisions about their livlihoods, enough to knock the stone-throwing event off the schedule of public discourse reindeer games?

Ah, but doesn't Schrager have a theory as to why these girls do it even anyway? I'm not saying it's a GOOD theory, but it's a theory. First, she says, "Ultimately, the decision to become a high-end prostitute is often not only an economic one, but is determined by a woman's attitude toward sex." And I was finally on board when she made that statement. I mean, it does seem logical that a brilliant and beautiful woman who was open to prostitution would have some unconventional attitudes about sex-- ostensibly, sex-positive and open and adventurous attitudes (but, there I go assuming again!). But then Schrager craps all over her own little glimmer of enlightenment. Here's the rest of that paragraph: "For many women no amount of money would ever entice them into prostitution. (Because, I presume, prostitution is evil, dirty, degrading, and dehumanizing and can be seen in no other light?) You cannot deconstruct the economics of selling sex without acknowledging that, sadly, many women who enter the trade, even at the high end, have at some point in their lives been victims of abuse. (Yes. Of course. The only way to explain a why a woman would like sex so much that she'd pursue a career in it is if she's got some psychological pathology. How could I have forgotten that? (I do not mean to imply that I'm not aware that a number of whores really are damaged, but I'm intending to imply here that I think Schrager's statement is just oozing with unctuous superiority and is therefore unfair to the women she's discussing.)) Economic reasoning has little sway over how a woman values her body. (Right. Because a woman who values her body would never rent it out. Because market value and moral value are two hopelessly divorced concepts... aren't they?)"

Now, having absolutely no actual experience with prostitution, it's likely that I've been talking out my ass for the entirety of this series of posts. Luckily for me, some smart people who DO know about which they speak left comments on this article. Here's what some guy named 5BuckYoBet says: "My wife and I are both prostitutes. We work separately and neither of us brings home less than $3K CDN from a 4 hour engagement. Weekend engagements earn $10K. There are 3 reasons we are able to command the price we do. 1) We are educated and well read. Pick a topic and we will engage you in an interesting, entertaining discussion. We know the world and people. We see that the world is a very screwed up place populated by very frustrated people who experience little real joy and often have nobody to talk to. We just talk to them. No cliche, no pretentiousness, just honesty. For that they like us. Like us a lot. Once the heart is warm the libido is open to ultimate satisfaction. If you can't make the client feel warm and fuzzy you're doomed to street walking and $100 quickies. 2) We are the best f*cks most people will ever have. We are that because we took the time to study the arts of arousal, stimulation, maintenance of the high and multiple orgasm. People are not born with that talent and 99.99% never learn it. Yet we all yearn for more than our partners or a $100 McLay can give. Hint: study Arabic arts and traditions, don't waste too much time on the Oriental. 3) We do anything the client wants except eat feces and receive severe pain. Usually, we end up doing what we want and the client simply goes along with it and asks for more of the same. We were not always prostitutes and neither of us has ever been abused. If we had been abused I don't think we could be the professionals we are. We decided to go into the business after we realised that we were the best either of us had ever experienced and that others might be willing to pay dearly to experience what we studied hard to learn."
Well, Mr. 5BuckYoBet, with that tight little paragraph, you pretty much rendered this whole post redundant. I got nothing left to say!

Ha! Yeah, we'll see how long THAT lasts! Now, where'd I put my copy of The Perfumed Garden?