Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
Penelope Trunk wrote a thought provoking post yesterday titled When women get power at work, do they use it like men? In it she described meeting an attractive 25-year-old male who she sleeps with and eventually dates. They are in related fields and, since she is well positioned as a career advice guru, she ponders the ethical implications of helping the guy find a job. Also, there is a bit of an age gap (according to her wiki she is 42 ), so she thinks that may be an issue.
It’s a great post, one that intersects work, love, and life, and it’s well worth reading. I love the post because a) it’s pretty hot, and b) it’s complicated and doesn’t fit into any traditional relationship type. There’s even a smattering of pickup in there for you PUA types.
Here’s my take. Sex is used every hour of every day to exchange value and get things done. Trunk correctly points out that men will take sex/love in exchange for career advancement opportunities, and that she herself has done this early in her career. This is literally the cliche “sleeping your way to the top.” Personally, I have no problem with it because it’s the way the world works and sex is a commodity, like it or not.
Quick story: I once met this cute personal trainer chick. She had recently graduated from college and was just getting started with her business, which was offering her training services on a freelance basis. I enticed her into a date by offering to consult with her on blogging and Internet marketing, two specialties of mine. She bit. We did the date, we did each other, I set her up with a nice blog. She uses the blog to bring in more business. I had a great time. We’re not seeing each other. I think she got a pretty good deal.
Besides sex, consider how we leverage our social circles and personal networks to create opportunities. We use our friends and families to find us jobs. We use LinkedIn to get recommendations from friends of friends for gigs. We use overpriced degrees to get us interviews even though our actual skill is no different from the fellow with a public school degree. Getting a job is often based on networks and reputation rather than actual merit.
If I’m dating someone, I’m going to help them find and take advantage of opportunities. If I owned a business, I would give my lover a job. I think it’s naive to consider this wrong or unethical. It’s part of the game, and I prefer to play the game well rather than change it.
The main issue is if you manipulate someone (either via sex or otherwise) into getting you something, and then screw that person over once you’ve gotten it. That I disagree with strongly (be sure that karma will bite you in the ass) Fortunately, this wasn’t the case with Penelope and her boyfriend.
I do think that two adults can barter sex for opportunity and make it strictly a business transaction. Read this article where a student exchanges sex for a two week trek through the Amazon rainforest. You might call this prostitution, but I see it as good business. I have zero problem with any consenting adult who transacts sex for opportunity. For me, sex isn’t a sacred thing that can’t be traded for.
Lastly, I think it’s interesting that Penelope points out that men know how to help their lovers find those opportunities in a graceful way, but that her natural reaction is to NOT help him find a job. Here’s her quote:
“I don’t say anything. I don’t want to help him get a job. I want this to not be about all the stuff I could do for him. But all the older men I dated when I was his age were people who helped me with my career; they [did] it gracefully, and I was so thankful.”
She’s right, men do know how to do this. I’ve helped past girlfriends get jobs through my network and it’s a very rewarding feeling when it works out. We fix things, we build stuff, we get jobs for friends, family, and lovers. It’s instinctive and it’s part of being a man. Women, I think, want their men to defend themselves and succeed on their own.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
Comments
03.10.09
Lance,
(If that is your real name, I mean, how ironic!)
I think you're really on to something! Perhaps you could take your expertise in blogging and internet marketing, two specialties of yours, and develop a web site where hip young professionals can arrange to exchange, like, sex and stuff, for career advancement help, and vice versa. After all, as you say, "sex is used every hour of every day to exchange value and get things done", and you could help facilitate that and provide a needed service to the community at the same time. A reasonable fee for your time would not be out of the question. Would that make you an e-pimp? NO! they're gonna do it anyway, you'd just be helping.
While you're at it, you should author an e-book on the subject. The world's always ready for breakthrough advice on new areas, and with your writing skills and obvious grasp of ethical nuance, you'd be a natural! Several possible chapter title are dancing through my head right now, but I'll keep them unspoken so you can have full creative credit.
Go for it, Lance!
(...tee hee ...sorry)
03.11.09
I believe this kind of behaviour is called croynism, and is a very popular in countries such as North Korea and Zimbabwe, or in medieval Europe.
03.11.09
Actually, Rob, I think you'll find that "cronyism" and nepotism are popular just about everywhere, even in countries that rank low on the corruption index. As for Lance's post, I like it. A thought-provoking and well-written post about something that happens every day. I think, at the end of the day, it's really a question of values. Lance is right, people often get hired for many other reasons other than their actual skills & qualifications. In fact, in career advice sessions we are told to improve our resumes, cover letters, interview techniques and networking skills to "sell ourselves" because apparently that's how employment works. Whether or not sex should be part of the equation really comes down to your personal morals & values. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with it myself (never been presented with the opportunity, heh) but if Lance and others are then good on them... does this qualify as entrepreneurship or simply opportunism? Who cares? If Lance or anyone else can use a position they've attained through sex to improve the world then it seems like the end justifies that particular means.
03.11.09
This kind of attitude inevitably creates a workplace where having sex becomes a requirement to get ahead. If my boss is open to having sex with his subordinates, and whoever sleeps with him has a better chance to get ahead, what kind of work environment does it create for me? It seems that so many good steps were made toward eliminating sexism at workplace, toward eliminating the exact attitude you are describing in your post, but when I read such Gen Y articles, I wonder where our workplace ethics will be when Gen Y'ers finally sleep their way to the top?
Nothing's wrong with sleeping your way to the top? If sleeping your way to the top becomes a norm, then pretty frequently unqualified personnel will acquire managerial positions, and that's just bad business.
This whole "use your sexuality to get ahead" message I've been spotting on this website is very alarming. You can't really equate getting education, networking, building your reputation to get a good job to sleeping with someone to get that job. Sex is more powerful and it creates an uneven playing field.
03.11.09
I think that Ulyana has hit the nail on the head here.
Sometimes it's not that something is OK if used the right way. It's what happens when it is used the wrong way that makes the whole thing wrong. (Wow, that is a really convoluted sentence, but I don't know how to make it better).
An example: Dictatorships. A benevolent and wise dictator is much better than a democracy. The ruler can do what is best for his people, with out having to put it to a vote. It is a very efficient way to run a country.
Until the wise and benevolent dictator is replaced by a stupid and sadist ruler.
The same goes with using sex to get ahead. It seems fine as long as everyone involved is OK with it, no one feels forced to do anything they don't want to do, and no one is manipulated.
But then it starts to become accepted. You can't get ahead without sleeping with someone, even if you're qualified. People start to judge you on how sexy you are, not on your qualifications. And you might find that even sex with someone you love just isn't that fun because you've used sex so often as part of a business deal that it's just not special anymore.
I think it's better to look down upon trading sex for favors. You can do it if you want. You can use euphemisms or fool yourself into thinking it's a 'relationship'. Just don't expect it to become an accepted way of life. It deserves to be a second-best (or third or fourth) way of doing things.
03.11.09
I disagree with exchanging sex for anything on a moral level and this type of behavior could get complicated. You could get into sexual harassment lawsuits and it just seems more trouble than it's worth.
Helping your friends or family (and even ex-lovers) is very different than exchanging sex for career advancements.
Also you may regret this statement one day when you fall in love and your future wife reads this:
"For me, sex isn’t a sacred thing that can’t be traded for."
03.11.09
Dare to dream!!Just what I would want...while giving an important presentation my boss is looking at my breasts the entire time and thinking about what we were doing last night. Is there a way to objectify yourself anymore???
Besides, if we are going to use sex as a leverage point, where does that begin and end and what kind of consequence would that have for other people that work hard and choose not to engage in such behavior? . What would that say about the value of intimate human interaction.
03.11.09
My first thought when I saw the title was "this is going to be dumb." When I read it, I realized it wasn't as dumb as I'd expected. Still...
I guess the question to ask yourself, Lance, is how you'd like presidents to nominate people to cabinet positions. Should a Secretary of Defense have relevant experience or willingness to put out?
I think Scott and Ulyana are right, and maybe this kind of cronyism can work in some situations. But as a rule we simply can't make this kind of thing the norm. If you hire someone based on how much you like him/her, it's not just bad business - it leads to an environment where integrity comes in second (if that). What's to keep judges from pardoning someone because it's so-and-so's buddy's second cousin?
Though I should point out another area where Lance and Alexander are right, and ncsuz is probably misunderstanding the idea: we always trade sex for something. In fact, we trade any physical action for something we want - the question is whether the particular action of sex merits a promotion/job, and I'd argue that it does not. Or in any case, I'd argue that someone like Lance does not display the right character qualities or judgment to be in a position to hire people. Simple as that.
03.11.09
As I have been told (and told others) numerous times: "Never S#!T where you eat!".
So that is pretty easy to get in a 9 to 5 context - do not date the jr person or we will see you in court or TMZ, or somewhere public being disgraced... there are rules and laws (I didn't make them, but I have to enforce them). What you do outside of your own work place is open to what is best for you...certainly there is a grey area, but if your morale temperature gauge allows it then no one is stopping you...
Personally it's an intriguing idea. wish I had the stomach for it ( I don't, but I am an old fart anyway)...
just be carefull...an occassional taste is fun, a steady diet is fattening and leads to bad things...
M
03.11.09
Sounds a lot like the William Agee-Mary Cunningham stuff at Bendix in the early 80s.
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_velasquez_busethics_6/0,11084,2528032-,00.ut...
Talk about ugly!
03.11.09
Lance,
I made a deal with a personal trainer, too, but all I got was some free training. Damn.
I love your blog.
03.11.09
All, thanks for the smart comments.
@Scott Messinger: I like your take and I'd agree using sex as a method to score gigs should be a secondary or tertiary option (probably even last resort). Despite my post, I'm a big believer in workplace equality and MERIT. I'm just not blind to what's really going on and I'm human enough to do it myself.
I stand my statement that if I'm dating someone, I wouldn't hesitate to use my network to score that person a job/gig/opportunity. I would always give my friends, family, and lovers an advantage over a stranger. Why? Because I care about them. Just like Penelope's older male boyfriends cared about her and opened the right doors. I don't see what's wrong with that.
03.11.09
@Carla: Thanks!! I'm stopping by your blog right now and checking it out...
03.11.09
I think Lance's point was mainly to say that it is okay to help out people you have been seeing or are currently seeing in their careers. But yes, I agree that it could get out of hand in the workplace. The workplace should be kept as professional as possible.
03.11.09
It probably won't make me popular on this site to disagree with a proposed use for sex :)
But here's the thing: Saying "I am aware of X" ("I'm just not blind to what's going on") is not a valid justification for X.
Similarly, saying "It's human nature to do X; don't blame me" ("I'm human enough to do it myself") is not a justification for X either.
I'm fully aware that sexual discrimination and racism exist, for example, and that they're both very human things to do. But does that justify discrimination? No. The problem with giving jobs to people you love/people who sleep with you is that it breeds corruption and poor judgment (for starters). I'd suggest using your network to show them doors, but leave it up to the normal merit-based process to determine whether it works out.
03.11.09
@Lance: You say "I stand my statement that if I'm dating someone, I wouldn't hesitate to use my network to score that person a job/gig/opportunity"
Sorry, but that statement doesn't jive with the title of the post "What's wrong with sleeping your way to the top?".
Ya can't have it both ways! Are you advocating the dispassionate trading of sex for opportunity? Or are you just saying that relationships are part of netowrking and some relationships involve sex (and would involve sex even if there was no quid-pro-quo)?
03.11.09
If this is the overlying philosophy of the coming generation or their immediate predecessors there goes all hope of progress. The more things change the more they remain the same.
03.11.09
I have several reactions to this:
1) I don't think that Lance is saying that we use sex dispassionately to create opportunities for ourselves in the absence of actual talent or merit. I DO think he's saying that sexuality is one of the many tools that we have at our disposal in life, and that we should feel free to use it as such, whether or not actual sex is involved.
2) I don't think that he's saying that using sexuality to get ahead means having sex with supervisors or underlings. My boyfriend, for example, is a highly paid professional in an extremely conservative field. The fact that he is in a long-term relationship with the person he intends to marry is one of the things that his higher-ups appreciate about him and, in fact, he may not have been hired if he hadn't been in a LTR. This, to me, falls EXACTLY into the category of what Lance is talking about, despite the fact that my boyfriend is not sleeping around but instead is participating in a monogamous relationship with someone who isn't even in his office.
3) Many (not all) wives trade sex for companionship, financial stability, and the opportunity to be stay-at-home moms. Lance didn't bring this up and it's probably not a lifestyle that a lot of people on this site are interested in, but millions (5.6 million as of the 2006 US Census) of women are stay-at-home moms. Every single one of those 5.6 million women traded sex for the opportunity to live that lifestyle, IMO. How is that different?
03.11.09
Haha, I don't think there are a lot of stay-at-home mom's reading this, but I'd love to see their reaction to Honey's saying that they are (or even some of them) trading sex for the opportunity to live "that" lifestyle. This would be a great post title "Stay-at-Home Moms: New Type of Prostitution." LOL
Perhaps Lance was trying to say something completely different. Then the choice of the title of the post was just very wrong... and same goes for the supporting arguments. But then, who would wanna read, discuss, and comment to a post stating obvious and boring things. Sex drives traffic.
03.11.09
@Honey: yes part of his post is simply about relationships, and networking, and the sex in incidental. But then he mentions the article about a "student exchanges sex for a two week trek through the Amazon rainforest" (unfortunately, the link is broken, so I can't read the article) and comments "You might call this prostitution, but I see it as good business. I have zero problem with any consenting adult who transacts sex for opportunity. For me, sex isn’t a sacred thing that can’t be traded for"
Sounds like pretty dispassionate trading to me
@Ulyana: LOL , yes I am completely aware that we are probably being manipulated to drive traffic. And dammit, I guess I am following along just like a lemming :-)
03.11.09
@ Scott, just because a transaction is taking place and sex isn't being considered sacred hardly translates to "dispassionate." I dated Lance for a year and while he is many things, dispassionate is NOT one of them.
I mean, if you do not enjoy sex and are dispassionate about it generally, then I suppose that's possible. But most people enjoy sex, so what's wrong with doing something I already enjoy to create additional professional or personal opportunities? If I got a free two-week trek through the Amazon, I'd probably be pretty darn enthusiastic in bed!
I still think his larger point is that sex is complex and contextual - and that there are MANY such instances where the context may lead to sex outside of exclusive, committed, monogamous relationships.
03.11.09
Honey, what you are describing is prostitution. And if it's not, how is this NOT prostitution? I'm not trying to be cheeky (things can be read wrong in written communication), I am honestly interested in your opinion.
Are you saying certain forms of prostituion are okay?
03.11.09
@Honey: I wasn't using the word "dispassionate" to describe the act itself. I was using it to describe the actual transaction.
You should have sex with someone because you love them, like them, or are attracted to them. And if you get something more from that, it should be given because the other person likes/loves you, not because you slept with them.
Trading sex for something implies that you would sleep with someone you didn't like/love or weren't attracted to.... just to get that other thing (a trip, help with your blog, a job).
Now...This next question might be borderline, but I just gotta say it....
I wonder, does Lance help all the ladies in his network, or just the ones that sleep with him?
03.11.09
@ Ulyana - I think the difference between what Lance describes and prostitution is that prostitution is generally done
1. by women/men with no education or job skills,
2. purely for money or drugs (with no opportunity to escape or advance),
3. in circumstances that are morally demeaning and physically dangerous.
Lance is describing situations where everyone is safe and experiences both respect and value (in the form of opportunity). Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with prostitution if those involved were treated with respect and if measures were taken to ensure their safety. What is it about prostitution that people don't like - the sex outside of marriage (which most of us do) or the fact that the prostitute is generally taken advantage of (which is unfortunate)?
@ Scott, I guess I am still a little confused. Who advocated sleeping with people you find reprehensible or unattractive? Aren't you attracted to the "total package" of someone - of which their social standing and potential benefit in your life is inextricably intertwined? Competence and power are attractive qualities, as much or more so than looks, especially for women.
If the reason you're attracted to someone is because of the opportunities they can provide (and the other person is a willing, informed partner who doesn't feel manipulated or taken advantage of) then is the attraction somehow less real? Are you telling me Donald Trump's wives found him ATTRACTIVE? Are you telling me they married him because THEIR LOVE WAS REAL?
And to answer your last question...Lance's personal motto is to give value wherever he goes, to whoever he encounters. I think he would absolutely help someone he wasn't sleeping with, if he liked them, found them competent, or believed that they needed help he could provide. Now, he'd probably try to sleep with them, too, but that's just how he rolls...
03.11.09
Well, the definition of prostition is exchange of sex for goods or money. In this case, goods is opportunity. And it doesn't really matter who those engaging in prostitution are and what they do, prostitution is prostitution. And it just, unfortunately, is not limited to the three criterea you indicate.
So, what's wrong with sleeping your way to the top? In my opinion, everything. Fundamentally. In your opinion, as long as it is a mutually beneficial reletationship - it's okay. To that, I'd say, it might be beneficial to the two people involved... but not to the workplace in its entirety. It creates inequality and hurts others. Agree to disagree, I guess. Good discussion.
03.11.09
@ Ulyana - I agree, great discussion! I guess you are referring to the legal definition of prostitution whereas I was trying to define it in a way that encapusulated most prostitutes' lived experience. Is "opportunity" really a legal "good"? If so, THAT'S really interesting.
I guess I am just confused by your definition because you preclude certain types of networking simply because sex is involved. I just don't see how an ex boyfriend getting me a job because I used to sleep with him is different from getting a job because I bonded with my interviewer over the fact that we both own 8 pomeranians, or we have the same favorite author, or we were in the same sorority.
It seems to me that by your definition, any type of networking that's not directly related to job skills is unethical. What's okay and what's not?
03.11.09
Newsflash:
Sleeping with people so that they give you a job? Not ok.
03.11.09
The difference is: for your ex boyfriend to make an accurate and fair decision, he'd have to sleep with me. That would be an even playing field.
Hiring decisions based on pomeranians, favorite authors, and sororities should not happen either... Bonding should be based on what you can do for my company and what I can do for your professional development. These things do happen. But they are not as powerfull as sex.
I can probably use my good interviewing skills or my knowledge/attitude toward a job to steal that hiring opportunity from someone who's bonded with my interviewer on a subject of cute pomeranians. But if that other person slept with my interviewer, how else can I compete with that except by taking my clothes off?
03.11.09
@Holly: Lots of places in Lance's post you could make the argument he is talking more about relationships, and the opportunities are given more out of the emotional attachment rather than just a trade for sex.
But then he comes out as says it: "two adults can barter sex for opportunity and make it strictly a business transaction."
That's what I'm arguing about. That's what I think is creepy, mentally unhealthy, and ... just wrong.
Take this to its logical conclusion, and you could imagine someone sleeping with a person they find unattractive or they simply didn't like. Would that be OK?
I'm taking this debate to the extreme, because it helps to illustrate the point. At which point is it OK to 'use' sex to get what you want? Should you actually have some feeling for the other person? How much feeling? How do you negotiate the 'trade'? How do you make sure that the other person is on the same wavelength and doesn't expect more emotional attachment from you? And what's you body worth? How often do you put out to get what you want?
To me it just seems less complicated to agree that you shouldn't 'use' sex to get things. It's taking the low road. Sure, have your one-night stands; physical fun is OK. Just don't expect anything else just for the sex.
Finally, I don't know if Donald Trump's wives married him because they loved him or not. But if they didn't, it certainly lowers my opinion of them. And if Donald used his power just to catch some beautiful trophy wives, it doesn't make me think much higher of him either.
03.11.09
I don't think that I would have sex to advance my career - certainly I haven't done that so far. And I think it's fine to take a stand and say that you won't, either. But the ethics of the thing are a personal decision, and if it's a choice you decide to make then you don't really have a right to complain that other people aren't playing by your standards.
Once you've made your own decision, it's all kind of moot anyway. Especially in these horrible economic times when the job is glutted with people with identical skill sets and interviewing skills, you have to do something to set yourself apart. And whether that's sex/sexuality, pomeranians, or a sorority, the fact is that people are setting themselves apart in any way they can to ensure their future.
And I still think that housewives are TOTALLY trading sex for never having to work outside the home. I think it's ABSOLUTELY prostitution, at least by the definition given by others here.
03.11.09
sorry...the job MARKET is glutted...
03.11.09
Definitely, this is all a personal decision.
In your initial post, you were referring to stay-at-home moms. And I think when a mom, or a dad, stay at home to raise kids if they can afford to, it is really about spending time with your children, rather than an agreement of "hey, I'll have sex with you, just don't make me work." And even in case with stay at home wives... I'm having a problem seeing it as prostitution. But that's a topic for another discussion ;)
03.11.09
Ulyana and Scott, I really enjoyed this exchange! Check out my follow-up post:
http://honeyandlance.com/are-stay-at-home-moms-really-just-prostitutes
I hope we get to talk again!
03.11.09
"Now I know Jenna isn't really qualified to become the next foreign minister, but at least she'll always support me.
Besides, she's got enourmous tits."
03.11.09
Dude, I go offline for the afternoon and this thing blows up! Sweet!
@Scott @Honey: My post was initially a reaction to Penelope's post where she described her ethical quandary with helping a lover get a job. I think it's wrong if you don't help that lover out, but I don't judge her poorly for doing it.
On the other points, Honey said it better than me, I do think that sexuality is a tool to help you get a job in regular workplaces. That's why the law firms hire hot secretaries and Hooters hires hot chicks. It's good for business.
If we're talking traditional workplaces, like ones with managers and underlings, it totally depends on the circumstances if a manager sleeps with an underling and helps to advance that persons career. Maybe they're gonna get married? Nothing wrong there, happens all the time. Obviously, stay away from abuses of power and don't screw people over. I did mention that in my post.
For the bartering sex for services thing, as in the example with the female student in the Amazon, I have absolutely no problem with her transaction, dispassionate or no. She made an adult decision and made a trade that both people embraced. Honestly, I admire her for having the gonads to go there. For me, sex is super cool, but it's not a bright shining thing that I reserve for "the one." That's silly, high school stuff. Sex is just sex. If you can trade it for something that you find valuable, I say go for it.
I'm surprised no one tackled my last point, which was that women shy away from helping their lovers professionally and men will gladly open the doors.
03.11.09
@Honey: I would help someone I wasn't sleeping with, sure, and you bet I'd try to sleep with them if they were a hottie. You got me there.
03.11.09
What defines the acceptable limit? Can a manager refuse a promotion if an underling refuses to sleep with him/her? Can you promote someone on the basis of their sexual availability?
The problem is that unless this is regulated, there WILL be abuses of power.
03.11.09
@Rob: With any boss or manager, there are opportunities for abuses of power, sex or no sex. Just use good sense and resort to your HR department if you suspect shenanigans.
03.11.09
Honey sez: "And I still think that housewives are TOTALLY trading sex for never having to work outside the home." and "That’s right: I said stay-at-home moms are prostitutes. Boo-ya!"
On her web site (honeyandlance.com) Honey is described as "an expert on online dating and long term relationships" who "spent her undergraduate years in LTRs with total douchebags and spent 3 years trying to recover by being really picky." Then, apparently, she met "the right guy" with whom she has been in an "LTR" for 2 whole years. This, presumably, is what qualifies her as an "expert" whose opinions carry greater weight than those of average people and, say, simple-minded folk who think the only LTR worthy of the label is marriage and have a 10, 15, 20 or more year track record to back it up. But what could they possibly know? One measly LTR? Pff!
Myself? I'm forced to reveal that I'm part of that second group, those who are, by default, normally outside of discussions of this kind because they aren't drawn into perpetually debating the constantly shifting parameters of correct sexual behavior.
All that was to say this. You have no qualifications whatsoever for the blanket assertion that my wife, by virtue of her being a stay-a-home mom, is a prostitute. I've tried following the convoluted logic on that subject in your blog, and frankly it made my head spin.
And your definition of prostitution is unnecessarily complicated. A prostitute trades sex for money. After the transaction is complete, it's over. You want to go again, you pay again. Marriage is the total opposite. It's a life-long commitment (LTR woo hoo!) to one another, forsaking all others. The fact that many do not treat it as such does nothing to disqualify the rest who do.
Granted, most of you sound as though you live far more sexually exciting lives than I do (or ever did, for that matter), but, you know, I'm not complaining. BTW, in case you're wondering (or not): Easy? No. Worth it? Yes.
03.12.09
@Ed
OK I'd like to come to Honey's defense here for being bold and getting chopped down mercilessly. I don't think anyone is more or less "qualified" to talk relationship nor do I think "qualifications" would matter or do matter. The whole point of hearing fresh opinions and new things is to hear from people that do not come from the same set of experiences as you do. Happily married for ages? Great. You have your opinion. People with different relationship experience, no matter what you may think of it. Is entirely unfair to disqualify Honey's experience simply because you think being in a long marriage somehow makes you more qualified because she hasn't chosen that route. It does not. Honey's views on marriage are perfectly legitimate.
Also I think you've made a mistake in engaging the analogy on such a detailed level. It is irrelevant that a prostitute has sex for money and after the transaction is complete, it is over. So a marriage lasts longer. Does this qualify a marriage to instead be some form of permanent sexual slavery or perhaps causes the husband to be some form of sponsor in return for sex? You would probably disagree, and that's fine, but trying to cut down the argument because marriages last a long time and prostitution doesn't is a bit silly.
Now, for the record, I don't outright agree with Honey's point and am not willing to equate stay-at-home wives to prostitutes however I admire Honey for coming out with a unique and interesting perspective on marriage, a social institution that deserves as much criticism and questioning as any other, and I'd recommend you cool your jets a little and actually address her point which has nothing to do with her qualifications or the random nuts-and-bolts of her analogy.
She is saying that housewives (and I suppose househusbands) trade sex for the financial comfort and stability of their position. If you disagree with this with decent reasoning like... you know... love, romance, equality, etc... then go ahead and bring them up. That would contribute something positive and interesting to the discussion.
You mentioned that marriage is a long-term commitment. Is it? Perhaps to you it is but to many it isn't. What about the divorce rate? What about things like pre-nuptial agreements that arguably add a level of materiality to marriages? Perhaps your marriage isn't like that but many are and surely you can't speak for the entire institution of marriage.
03.12.09
Thanks, Alex! Apparently there aren't as many Jonathan Swift fans on this site as I expected :-)
I don't think that stay at home moms as a group are prostitutes, nor do I think that they are sexual slaves - though the argument is CERTAINLY there to be made about the institution and, additionally, is absolutely true in some cases and for some people.
What I am interested in is what Alex says - why do we condemn one institution, venerate the other, and interrogate/investigate/analyze neither? What makes the person who chose the traditional path exempt from critique? In what world does that make sense?
My own practice is to really think about and pick apart everything as much as I can, and then make the life choices that work for me. Maybe it's the PhD in rhetoric...
03.12.09
@Honey, your point might stand if you could document that stay-at-home moms had sex with their husbands more often than wives who have careers outside of the home. Can you?
As for the original issue, I think there's a difference between helping someone find a job--giving them access to your network and helping them with their resume and portfolio--and giving them a job because you're sleeping with them.
A matter of degree, you say? Sure. What isn't? But the degree does make a difference, just like it does in so many other areas of life.
03.12.09
@KateNonymous, I'm not sure how often you have sex has anything to do with it. Stay at home moms are choosing their sexual partner based on his ability to provide their chosen lifestyle. Wives with careers outside the home choose their sexual partner based on different criteria, to fit their chosen lifestyle. It's apples and oranges and has nothing to do with frequency.
Oh, I completely agree that the degree makes the difference! I wasn't saying that it didn't, and I haven't done any of the things that are mentioned above. I'm just interested in nailing down where the "degree" starts and stops for different people. It's all hypothetical, but EXTREMELY interesting!
03.12.09
@Honey, Well, if they're not having sex any more often, then they're not exchanging sex for the lifestyle. I'm also not seeing the distinction between your first and second sentences here. If women are choosing their partners based on a predicted lifestyle, what's the difference?
Plus, the way you frame it suggests that being a stay-at-home mom is a choice that is made early and never changes, and that just isn't always the case.
Some people start out wanting careers and then decide that they will stay home permanently. Some people start out wanting to stay home and then decide that they'd prefer (or need to) go back to work. Some people stay home for a year or two and then go back to work. There simply are too many variables in motivation and decision-making for your theory to hold up, IMO.
03.12.09
Alez says: "OK I'd like to come to Honey's defense here for being bold and getting chopped down mercilessly. I don't think anyone is more or less "qualified" to talk relationship nor do I think "qualifications" would matter or do matter."
Please don't try to dismiss my post by portraying it as a personal attack on Honey. She claims the title of expert, makes a ludicrously broad and, for many, a frankly insulting statement about an entire group of people. I present a counterpoint while also questioning what qualifies Honey to be an "expert" in such matters. The claim of expertise carries with it the implication that their opinions automatically trump those of lesser folk. Examining an "expert's" qualifications is only natural in such situations. Look, Honey is certainly free to claim expertise, and you are welcome to accept her claims. I am entitled to a little skepticism.
You used the term "chopped down mercilessly". Did I chop her down any more mercilessly than she chopped down stay-at-home moms? I don't think so, but you think otherwise. Your opinion, my opinion, tahmaytoe, tomahtow, padaydo, podatto, yada yada, whatever.
I just noticed that Honey has said, "I don't think that stay at home moms as a group are prostitutes", which is the opposite of when she said that they were, so this makes most of what I said in response to her first statement moot, so I will say no more on the subject. whew.
"My own practice is to really think about and pick apart everything as much as I can, and then make the life choices that work for me. Maybe it's the PhD in rhetoric..."
I'm a little reluctant to say this because it will no doubt be interpreted as a "merciless chop" by Alex (which it isn't), but I have to anyway. I know many PhDs, and I see no correlation whatsoever between advanced academic degrees and wise life choices. None at all. I also know lots of people with degrees from Harvard. Guess what? Same thing. If only it were otherwise...
03.12.09
@ KateNonymous, so if I exchange sex for money ONCE am I a prostitute? I am trying to draw a distinction based on someone's choice in sexual partners, not how often someone has sex. Perhaps others don't see that as a distinction, but they seem quite separate to me.
And while I agree completely that there are an infinite variety of circumstances and decisions made by people, I was talking specifically about stay at home moms who have always known that is what they want to do and for whom a man's ability to provide that is a make-or-break issue. It's not really a theory I have - in fact it's not something I ever even THOUGHT about until yesterday. I just thought the responses to Lance's posts were interesting and played devil's advocate a little bit to draw people out more. I'm glad I did - I learned a lot!
@ Ed, you've made me realize a few things: 1) my header/bio on my home blog is at least a year and a half out of date! 2) I never should have let Lance write it for me! 3) Believe me, I know a HELLA lotta PhDs who make horrible life choices. I can only say how getting a PhD changed the way I make life choices and the way I look at the world.
Opinions change all the time based on the information at your disposal, and I'm the first to admit that I've really taken everyone's comments seriously and revised my stance somewhat, even in the last 24 hours. You can think that makes me flaky if you want but I think it's great when I'm presented with opinions different from mine and I have the opportunity to gain a fuller worldview and change my mind :-) In fact, it's why I got a PhD in the first place, and I continually seek out more opportunities to learn and grow.
03.12.09
Just wanted to say, I really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks!
03.12.09
Me too, Scott! I haven't been this jazzed in a long time :-)
03.12.09
"so if I exchange sex for money ONCE am I a prostitute?"
Not necessarily forever. But right at that moment? Yes.
Here's the thing: people say things. Sometimes they do them, and sometimes they don't. So even someone who says "I am going to be a stay-at-home mom forever" cannot really be sure that their plan will hold.
And why put the all of the pejorative terminology on stay-at-home moms? If you're going to stick to the argument, commit to it. Their husbands are johns. If their husbands encourage (or "encourage") them to stay home, what does that make the husbands?
You still haven't shown how staying at home involves sex as an item of barter--or if it does, how that differs from two-income couples. If someone marries to double their household income, what's the difference?
This is not the first time I've seen this argument. I have never seen anyone make it hold up, and I think it's an inherently anti-female argument because it places all of the onus on the woman and judges her choices--without judging anyone else's.
03.12.09
And of course, there's the question of stay-at-home dads.
03.12.09
@ KateNonymous, so it just seems to me that by your argument, if you decide to be a stay-at-home mom for financial stability, then yes, you're a prostitute - until you go back to work. And the husbands - johns, no. Pimps? Sure.
And I think that in traditional prostitute-type situations, the prostitute is a victim (of circumstances, of drug abuse, of an abusive man), so I don't really consider it a pejorative term. Or perhaps it is pejorative, but not towards the woman, but towards the social system and/or person responsible for her inability to better her life.
And maybe that's why everyone got so rankled by my comment - they were thinking that I was negatively judging the women involved. I wasn't. In calling stay at home moms prostitutes, I am saying that our current social/economic system often inhibits/prohibits women's ability to make other choices. In calling stay at home moms prostitutes, I am making a call for a change in our social/economic system to give these women more freedom, if they so desire. And for women who make that choice deliberately because they don't want to work - well in that case, what's wrong with being a prostitute, anyway?
The only problem I have with traditional prostitution is the danger and loss of self-esteem and opportunity aspect. If a woman chooses a sexual partner on the basis of his ability to provide her financial stability and the opportunity to raise children, and she's not putting herself in any sort of physical/emotional danger, then heck! Be a prostitute. It's fine by me. I don't get why that's a bad thing.
And I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by sex as an item of barter. Prostitutes choose their sexual partners based their ability to subsidize their lifestyle. Stay at home moms also choose their sexual partners based on their ability to subsidize their lifestyle. The fact that one type of relationship is (probably) short-term and (probably) involves multiple partners while the other is (hopefully) long term and (hopefully) involves a single partner seems sort of irrelevant to me.
03.12.09
How are they not johns? They are purchasing the activity, after all. As for not understanding how it would be an item of barter, it's because there is likely to be a less overt exchange of cash.
For sex to be the mechanism of exchange, you'd have to demonstrate that sex actually was used as barter. If the couple has sex Y times per month when both are working, and then one member stays home, they would have to have sex Y + 1 times per month to even consider that sex factored into the decision.
Also, it's pejorative because we're using societal terms that are pejorative.
And there are equally valid starting points that don't involve sex, and might actually be easier to demonstrate. Such as: stay-at-home moms are babysitters, or stay-at-home moms are cleaning services.
But those wouldn't have had the shock value. I think that was your main goal, since there were valid alternatives, and I think that's a cheap shot.
03.12.09
I was thinking about this while walking to get my lunch (you are my new favorite person!) and I think there are 3 possible uses of the term prostitute floating around here.
Definition: A prostitute is a person (of any gender) who engages in sexual activity for the purpose of compensation. Uses:
1) Derogatory term, used for the purposes of moral judgment and to create a feeling of superiority in the person using the term. (I am opposed to this definition.)
2) Activist term, used to highlight the plight of the victim and inspire social and economic changed aimed at the alleviation of that plight. (I like this definition.)
3) Descriptive term, used purely to categorize people who engage in that type of exchange. (As a descriptive term, I don't feel one way or the other about this definition, though it is sometimes useful.)
In the original article (which is long, long behind us now) Lance was advocating use #3. I have interchangeably (loosely, ha!) been using #2 and #3, which I think has caused confusion in people who prefer #1, which I do not. So yes, I agree that we need more terms - not just to avoid sensationalization, but also to be sure that people know exactly what we are talking about.
Regarding the husbands, that is a bit of a tough call because they are both *paying for* and *profiting by* "the exchange," as you call it. And while "traditional" prostitutes ask for compensation for a specific sexual exchange, stay at home moms are asking for compensation for the husband's right to know that he is her only sexual partner, regardless of how many times they have sex (or don't). It is a proprietary thing, not an instances-of-occurrence thing, which is a) why I was tempted to call them pimps, and b) why I just don't think that your "number of times" argument holds any water at all.
As far as shock value, that's how important issues in our society get addressed. It's why Rosa Parks is famous, it's why some families of war victims want the caskets to be shown on national tv, it's why Michael Moore makes movies like Bowling for Columnbine, Sicko, and Fareinheit 9/11. Is it sensationalist? Yes. Does it rally people around a cause? Also yes. Does the end justify the means? Hard to say, but sometimes, almost certainly yes.
03.12.09
"stay at home moms are asking for compensation for the husband's right to know that he is her only sexual partner, regardless of how many times they have sex (or don't). It is a proprietary thing, not an instances-of-occurrence thing, which is a) why I was tempted to call them pimps, and b) why I just don't think that your "number of times" argument holds any water at all."
Again, there is no reason that this cannot be said equally of women who have jobs outside the home.
03.12.09
Furthermore, there's no reason it can't be said of married couples in general. Or couples who live together but aren't married. Or couples who date exclusively. We can take this to more extremes, but it just makes the "stay-at-home moms are prostitutes" argument more and more ephemeral.
03.12.09
I think I am starting to see what you are saying! I agree that stay at home moms often don't have sex with their husbands more often than working moms (or working wives who are not moms). However, I would argue that they're being naive about the nature of their exchange, and that it is just these women who are, unfortunately, often divorced for "alienation of affection" and who then are completely screwed because now they 1) don't have a husband/financial security, and 2) don't have any job skills.
In other words, they become victims of the system because they don't play along with it.
And if they don't have sex all that frequently but the husband IS happy and DOES stay in the relationship, then that doesn't mean that the woman isn't exchanging sex for financial stability/opportunity. It just means the value of each individual encounter goes up!
03.12.09
Honey said: "Opinions change all the time based on the information at your disposal, and I'm the first to admit that I've really taken everyone's comments seriously and revised my stance somewhat, even in the last 24 hours. You can think that makes me flaky if you want but I think it's great when I'm presented with opinions different from mine and I have the opportunity to gain a fuller worldview and change my mind :-)"
Not flaky at all.
03.18.09
But how do you prove that someone is abusing their power? It's not like you can prove someone denied you a promotion just because you refused to sleep with them.
I can imagine the manager now - "Oh, she was denied a promotion because I didn't feel she was suitable to the role. Yes I did ask her for some nookie once, but that is unrelated."
07.17.09
This is a very interesting discussion, but I am amazed that no one has picked up on the (to me) rather obvious flaw in Honey's argument.
1) A stay-at-home mom is NOT exchanging sex for a "lifestyle", she is providing the child-care and rearing that would otherwise need to be payed for by working outside the home.
2) The "sex-for something" exchange (whether that something is fidelity, increased financial leverage, or some other 'good'), if it can be said to occur, occurs when BOTH partners agree to the 'exclusive' relationship (variations and violations abound and are duly noted)
3) As an exemplar - when a divorce occurs, child suppport is paid to provide for the children (the original exchange remains) and when alimony is paid it is paid in recognition that the stay-at-home has LOST earning potential by staying at home. The (usually) husband doesn't get awarded sex as his compensation in the split.....
Lastly, let me applaud everyone for the most civil discourse (where was there any "chopping down"?) on a contentious issue I have ever observed (online or otherwise).
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
