Comments on: Belle de Jour Is the New Pretty Woman

By: Lobster

Lobster — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:55:33 +0000

Mae, the commodification of women is an interesting argument, but I think misses the crucial point that this is a chicken and egg situation, and that while prostitution probably does help reinforce commodification to some extent, I’d say it’s far more an effect of it rather than a cause. I would say without a doubt that my life has been affected by the extent to which women are seen as commodities in our culture. However, I cannot think of a single occasion when sex work has been in any way involved or even referred to that has affected me like this. Apart from the time when social security told me that my parter has to give me money to live on, even though we choose to remain financially independent of each other, because he shares my bed. Apparently that’s not prostitution, it’s marriage (no, we’re not married), and it’s not something we get a choice about.

By: GW

GW — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:09:00 +0000

Mae writes: “it will just validate this concept that any women can potentially be a prostitute”. Is that in the same way that feminists say that every man is capable of being a rapist? Seems like a non-point to me.

By: mae

mae — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:36:07 +0000

Sorry, meant to add that Magnanti seems to only be addressing the lamest of her critics, almost in some effort to make all of the opposition look knee-jerk irrational. That’s not at all courageous in my opinion. If Magnanti is going to keep profiting from her past in the form of her brand of books and such, she should at least acknowledge and respond intelligently to those critics. Otherwise she’s not in this to start any meaningful discussion about prostitution, she’s just in it for profit.

By: mae

mae — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:58:37 +0000

there actually is some insightful criticism about BdJ out there beyond the diatribes and “OMG sex trafficking!” angles. For example, the consequences or prostitution that non-prostitute women have to deal with. Let’s face it, prostitution depends heavily on popular images in Western and other cultures where women’s bodies are either sold or used to sell stuff. The image of women as commodities is not and cannot kept neatly within the confines of prostitution. You will witness that any time you go through an area known for prostitution, and “civilian” women are haggled with to sell It, even when they’ve been clear they aren’t for sale. Or women are told “If you ever get desperate enough, you can always go into prostitution.” Or even just the wear on the psyche of seeing miscellaneous women up for sale in sex ads and even on billboards for strip clubs, and the lecherous looks and hollering they get when they pass by strip clubs. Legalizing it won’t make a difference, it will just validate this concept that any women can potentially be a prostitute. It really has nothing to do with the rabid feminism that BdJ has spent her time attacking. I wish she would address the dehumanizing aspects of prostitution and how it helps perpetuate dehumanization of women in general.

By: pinky

pinky — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:22:04 +0000

Well said.

It’s a shame the rest of the media can’t be as objective as you, but that’s the media for you.

By: Julie

Julie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:58:38 +0000

Great article. I can’t help wondering why poor Joseph Kessel, author of the original 1929 novel Belle de Jour, and Luis Bunel, director of the well-known 1967 adaptation of that book, aren’t given any credit for paving the way to Dr. Magnanti’s go at blogging, or hooking, in the first place. It really bums me out that the new franchise has eclipsed their value.