What's The Worse Job? Paid Sex Worker or Janitor?

Author Annalee Newitz of Alternet.org has a great column this week in which she points out that Spitzer Did Nothing Wrong by hiring an escort for sex. And it is hard to see what all the fuss is about when there are so many more pressing concerns in the world (war, homelessness, child abuse, domestic violence). You should read her column in full, but the key point she makes and with which I agree, is that this is a case of simple economics and our capitalist system . . .That and a sad case of ever rising puritanical sensibilities in this country.

Newitz notes that: "The reasons given are always the same: sex work is abusive to women (male prostitutes don't exist?), and being paid for sex is inherently degrading.
"Let's look inside one of those heavy economics books that I just beat you with and examine these assumptions for a minute, OK? Every possible kind of human act has been commodified and turned into a job under capitalism. That means people are legally paid to clean up one another's poop, paid to wash one another's naked bodies, paid to fry food all day, paid to work in toxic mines, paid to clean toilets, paid to wash and dress dead naked bodies, and paid to clean the brains off walls in crime scenes. My point is, you can earn money doing every possible degrading or disgusting thing on earth.
"And yet, most people don't think it's immoral to wipe somebody else's bum or to fry food all day, even though both jobs could truthfully be described as inherently degrading. They say, "Gee that's a tough job." And then they pay the people who do those jobs minimum wage.
The sex worker Spitzer visited, on the other hand, was paid handsomely for her tough job. The New York Times, in its mission to invade this woman's privacy (though in what one must suppose is a nonexploitative way), reported that she was a midrange worker at her agency who pulled in between $1000-$2000 per job. She wasn't working for minimum wage; she wasn't forced to inhale toxic fumes that would destroy her chances of having a nonmutant baby. She was being paid a middle-class salary to have sex. Sure, it might be an icky job, in the same way cleaning up barf in a hospital can be icky. But was she being economically exploited? Probably a hell of a lot less than the janitor in the hospital mopping up vomit and cleaning up after you.
"Sure, there are hookers who are exploited and who have miserable lives. There are people who are exploited and miserable in a lot of jobs. But the misery is circumstantial: not all hookers are exploited, just as not all hospital workers are exploited. It's basic labor economics, people.
"Audacia Ray, former sex worker and editor of the sex worker magazine $pread, has pointed out that the public doesn't even seem to understand what exploitation really means. The woman who did sex work for Spitzer has had her picture and personal history splattered all over the media in an incredibly insulting way. Nobody seems to realize she's being degraded far more now than she ever was when Spitzer was her client. And she's not getting any retirement savings out of it, either."

If you ask me, the real sin here is that more of our politicians ought to be having better (even if they have to pay for it) sex. If they were at least getting laid regularly maybe we all could be making love not war!

Online Love Life a Threat to Your Job?

My favorite s'expert, Regina Lynn of Wired.com's Sex Drive, discussed in "Teachers Should Blog, Tweet and Flirt Online Like the Rest of Us" a growing concern about limiting the online fantasy lives of teachers. She asks:

What would you do if your employer told you not to use MySpace, Match.com and Second Life because those sites are "too dangerous" and "inappropriate" for you?

If you're a teacher in Ohio, you'd better think twice before you answer, because it's not a hypothetical question. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the state's teacher's unions recommend that teachers not post profiles on social networking or online dating sites because it could lead to the appearance of improper relationships with students.

This hits close to home for me as both an educator and an American concerned with infringement of civil liberties. Note here the phrase: "appearance of improper relationships"--this skirts close to being accused and condemned for a sin you haven't committed yet. Now in Second Life I don't tend to advertise where I live or what and where I teach, and thankfully I don't expect to run into underage students there, but even the thought of censure for my online SL life is disconcerting. I have no intention of having "improper relationships," just a healthy and fulfilling fantasy sex life with other consenting virtual adults. Fortunately Lynn agrees and she goes on to say:

Social networking, online dating and even uploading a pornographic video of oneself to an adults-only online performance space has nothing to do with one's students and everything to do with one's personal life and sexuality. Holding teachers up to a "higher standard"--symbols of an "ideal purity" that the rest of us are relieved we don't have to attain--is not only impossible, it works against our goal of helping young people mature into responsible adults.

She further notes that knowing how such virtual social environments work is likely to be beneficial to educators who struggle to reach the current Internet generation.

All adults who work with youth should be aware of how young people communicate, fall in love and stay connected; I encourage teachers to try social networking services, to have a blog, to text message with their own families and friends. Experienced teachers will not only gain a better sense of the world their students live in--indeed, a world their students are creating--they will have a greater understanding of the young teachers entering the profession. . . . But teachers who understand appropriate relationships with students are not going to "friend" teens on MySpace, text message youth about their sex lives or hook up with minors in role-playing games.

I agree. As someone who has used blogging as a classroom activity and even discussed appropriate Internet etiquette with students, I can see only good in a teacher being hip to the latest in online social spaces. Back in April, Lynn wrote an article dealing with similar issues, about online activity and RL workplace perceptions, "Sex and Nudity Aren't Good Reasons to Fire Someone", in which she asks:

What if we start with the idea that sex is good, bodies are beautiful and exhibitionism is a wonderfully exuberant way to celebrate life, love and the pursuit of pleasure?

What if we take it a step further and admit that technology has opened the doors--and the windows, and the portcullises, and the skylights and the ventilation systems--to a surfeit of sexual expression and display?

Is it really asking too much to suggest that employers stop worrying about how we perform in adult spaces and concentrate on how we perform our jobs instead?

And therein lies the crux of the issue. If your online activities impact your job negatively, then maybe you need to rethink your approach to the games you play. Or even the time you spend playing online. Lynn is righteously annoyed by the puritanical attitude that sees a virtual sex life as abnormal:

I am so sick of the priggishness. Tired of people making assumptions about a person based on their perceptions of the other's sexuality -- especially when they base those assumptions on the single dimension of online expression. Flabbergasted at the assumption that if you participate in adult activity online, you must lack judgment, integrity or reliability.

Getting naked on the internet is an international pastime, not the whim of a handful of sex addicts. Flashing your booty or treating yourself to an orgasm is hardly a sign that you are incapable of doing your job well, nor does it grant permission for others to dismiss your professional competence or authority.

We assume that everyone has RL relationships. No one is faulted for having sexual partners in RL, so why should virtual partners be any different? The key is, as with most things, using your common sense. You don't tell your boss or your customers (or your students if you are a teacher) about what you do in bed with your RL lovers, so why wouldn't you be just as discreet about your SL relationships? Just like in RL, where if you need to talk about your love life you cultivate a friend or confidante in whom you can confide, you can also find someone you can talk to about your online activities. Again, be discreet. Bear in mind that though there are always going to be people who will look for flaws in your behavior, there are also those who will understand (despite the media attention to illegal or dangerous internet activities involving sex) that this is just your own outlet for fantasy or healthy sexual recreation.

Balancing a home life, a work life, and a healthy online sex life is not easy, and it is important not to get so caught up in the virtual game that it spills into and consumes your real life. Or at least you need to be aware of and be prepared to deal with the flack that can cause. But the rewards of a virtual sex life's impact on your real sex life is also there. In the end it is who we love, and that we love, not how we love that really matters.

Song for a Crazy Week: "Run To You" by Bryan Adams

When it gets too much,
I need to feel your touch...

I'm gonna run to you.