Prostitutes II

You Know What This World Needs? More Women in Prostitution.

So suggests Dr. Catherine Hakim, in what is described as a carefully-researched account.

That the religiously dogmatic and the merely male chauvinist should have both demonised – and, paradoxically, diminished – the impact of female sexuality from time out of mind, is, following Hakim, only to be expected. In Anglo Saxon societies, such as our own, the net result is, she avers, that we have less sex overall than they do in steamier, less puritanical climes, while our sexual relations are mediated by a tiresome push-me, pull-you interaction: men wanting sex, women refusing it. According to Hakim, Christian monogamy is, quite simply, a "political strategy" devised by the patriarchy in order to ensure that even the least attractive/wealthy/powerful men gain at least one sexual partner.

But while this part of Honey Money may be relatively non-contentious for feminists, Hakim does not spare them her condemnation. The sexual revolution of the 1960s – effective contraception, the loosening of monogamous ties, the devaluation of female virginity – far from enabling women to empower themselves, actually exposed them to still more male exploitation. The post-60s male assumption became that women not only wanted sex as much as them – but that they were obliged to provide it, and for free. Free from the obligation to support children, free from the requirement to pay in any other way.

Hakim's view is that the myth of "equality of desire" is endorsed by feminists, and that this leads to what she terms the "medicalisation of low desire", whereby therapists and counsellors try to convince women that their lack of sex-drive is a function of psychopathology rather than hormones.

The full argument, better summarized in the full article cited above, appears to boil down to a few principles:

1) Evolution has conditioned women to be extraordinarily attractive to men, at the price of losing that boon in only a few short years;

2) Society has treated women badly by assuming that women, themselves, want sex (at least equally to men, which Dr. Hakim says is strongly contrary to evidence); it ought to recognize that they are meant to be sexually desirable objects, and to support their trading that desirability for position and wealth.

3) A world in which we did this would allow women to compete more fairly with men, because it would allow them to trade what nature has endowed as their chief asset, during that short time when they have it in full flower.

I am obviously not well disposed to this argument; this seems to me to be a world that is better for women if and only if it it best for women, in general, to learn to be treated like prostitutes. My objection is stipulated by Dr. Hakim's model, though; naturally I would object.

Nevertheless, I do object. I have had the honor to know, and be moved by, excellent women. I do not think they would have been improved by being exposed to an order in the world that encouraged them, while young and impressionable, to pursue prostitution; I think it would have been a slur and a slander to them to learn to be treated that way.

But I must give fair room for the dissent, which holds that this is what women really want.

And who do we Gchat with, when it counts? Friends, past boyfriends, future boyfriends, other people’s boyfriends. But rarely our actual boyfriend, who’s next to us in bed, looking for something to watch on Hulu. (Unless he’s out of town, in which case we chat with him, and are reminded why we fell for him in the first place.) Gchat is for friendship, and affairs. It’s for allowing into the home everyone who isn’t supposed to be there, who’s supposed to be at home in their own bedroom. It offers a temporary escape from the prison of the family—a reversal of what Engels called “the great historical defeat of women”—and patriarchy, which depends on monogamy and its enforcement.

The great historical defeat of women? I wonder.