Whores as the Other

Whores have often been described by pro-sex industry feminists as sacred.  (See: Cunt, Sacred Whore, etc.)  If the job returns to its (highly debatable) roots, where whores were essentially priestesses, their status will increase, as they will be considered sacred and holy.  Which sounds wonderful, but ignores an essential and classic element of women’s oppression.

Women are Other; men are normal.  Women’s sexuality is heavenly and sacred; men’s is earthly and carnal.  By elevating the female sexuality and biology as something sacred, they are promoting a totally unoriginal paradigm-one that has existed for all time (it’s called benevolent sexism).  We have a “natural” nurturing/mothering instinct, and we’re “naturally” more emotional and empathetic.  Essentially, what this does, is make us “more” than human, putting us on a pedestal-and thus sets us up to be knocked down for the slightest failure in Womanhood.  (see Carol Queen’s discussion of “sex-negative” whores.)

By framing whores as nurturing and kind (or at least ideally so), it simply moves the male-supremacist traits required of Mothers and “good girls” onto the whores as well.

Our sexuality is considered different as well.  By making us all-forgiving and all-tolerating and nurturing, we become different from normal people, who make mistakes and bear grudges, thus making people incapable of empathy or understanding towards us.  Who hasn’t heard a man complain, “Women are confusing,” “I just don’t understand them,” “Women are crazy,” “From a different planet”?

The idea of whores as sacred is nothing new, except that it takes the desired traits from one female archetype (the virgin/mother) and adds them to another.  Demanding women to be all-accepting and nurturing is nothing new-it has been mandated by men since patriarchy began, but typically limitless tolerance has only been expected of wives and mothers.  No one cared, and many still don’t, if the prostitute “wanted” to do it or not.   And if their wife does not “understand,” indulge, or fulfill their desire, they are given sympathy and are provided another class of woman to meet their wants-whores, because any sexual desire, however sick, a man has, he is considered to have a “right” to satisfaction.  For a man who wants to consider himself decent and not force his desires on his wife, a whore is a perfect outlet-even if she didn’t want it, and says so, he doesn’t have to talk to her ever again.  Those who support johns, because people aren’t “understanding” of sexuality, support women as men’s scapegoats.

As the site linked above discusses, after you take the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory provided:

Women in the most sexist countries endorse benevolent sexism to an even greater degree than do men. Faced with hostile reactions if they reject conventional gender roles, these women often embrace benevolent sexism and the protection it promises.

When we are no longer human, we can be hurt, and we must tolerate it.  We must forgive.  When we are mythical, we feel no pain, worse, we enjoy it-and thus they hurt us.  Most religions present some variety of suffering as sacred-Christ suffered and died for our sins, no?  Perchance that is why whores were considered sacred?

I really don’t think being considered sacred for our sexual openness would benefit women at all-it would be the same as today, where women are punished if they’re “frigid” and “prudish.”   It might offer “protection” to some, but not to any woman who doesn’t want to fuck men, and only to certain women who do.  If it is that they are attempting to make sexuality scared, they are doing it in a disgusting way, by operating on the assumption that “sex” and “sexuality” equals woman.  It’s easy to see why, since we are raised to BE the sex class.  Being a symbol does necessitate that our humanity, again, remains invisible.

And to end, quotin’ some Dworkin that came to mind when I read about the “sacred Whore”:

Citing genes, genitals, DNA, pattern-releasing smells, biograms, hormones, or whatever is in vogue, male supremacists make their case which is, in essence, that we are biologically too good, too bad, or too different to do anything other than reproduce and serve men sexually and domestically.

For further reading on the topic, I suggest reading Dworkin’s speech Biological Superiority: The World’s Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea, the section on the three “types” of sexism in Right Wing Women, as well as Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (especially the first few chapters and the comparison of male authors’ sexism).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s