REVIEWS

Paying for It

What does good sex consist of, exactly, for a straight man? I’ll admit, in the spirit of full disclosure, that this might not the most apt question to be puzzling out in my current state as a bloated, fatigued, 39-weeks-along pregnant woman, but let’s give it a try anyway: Does enjoyable sex have to do with the achievement of an enhanced level of mutually felt love and intimacy? Is it about the uninhibited playing out of fantasies? The ego boost? Or, is it simply about what Alex the droog once crudely called “the old in-out in-out” — that pleasing physical gratification felt as one’s penis is manipulated to orgasm not by oneself, but by another’s hand, mouth, or vagina?

According to Chester Brown’s comic-strip memoir, Paying For It, it would seem that the latter definition holds truest, at least at the beginning of the narrative. In 1996, the book tells us, Brown was faced with a quandary. His longtime girlfriend had fallen in love with someone else and broken up with him, but this was not really the problem. The issue, instead, was Brown’s desire to have sex with a woman without ever becoming emotionally involved with one again: the jealousy and anguish that he believed traditional monogamy entails were too much of a deterrent. Brown had loving relationships in his life: his intimacy with his ex-girlfriend Sook-Yin, though now platonic, continued; he carried on close friendships with his fellow cartoonists Seth and Joe Matt. What he was missing, pure and simple, was sexual fulfillment. And so he decided to buy some.

Refusing to pay with the coin of love, which he saw as sex’s steep and fickle ransom (as he literally calculates in one chillingly frank early passage, seeing a prostitute every three weeks would cost him less than it did to be Sook-Yin’s boyfriend — “and we didn’t have sex anywhere near seventeen times in the last year”), Brown turned to that reliable equalizer, cash; and from the get go, this seemed to work out very well. Not only did his first time sex with a prostitute feel “amazingly good,” but as he walked out of the brothel, he was also “exhilarated and transformed.” “It was so honest and upfront,” he thinks. “A burden that I had been carrying since adolescence had disappeared (and) has never returned.”

It’s hard not to feel at least a little bit pleased for Brown at this and other relative high points in this emotionally muted narrative. Those familiar with his persona from his past work, especially the great memoirs The Playboy (1992) and I Never Liked You (1994), know him as a sympathetic, sensitive character, the product of a repressed, Christianity-inflected adolescence, whose mentally ill mother died when he was still a teenager. And in contradistinction to what many of us might think of as the behavior of a “typical” John, Brown’s obliging politeness remains on display here. When the legs of one of the prostitutes tire out in a certain position, he is quick to accommodate her; when he is told he is thrusting too deeply and painfully, he agrees to stop right away (though admittedly, while inwardly grumbling: “it’s only six inches!”); if they seem willing, he is interested in conversing with the prostitutes he sees about their lives and routines. He is, in short, quite an exemplary customer.

Calling someone a respectful John might sound like faint praise indeed (not unlike that bit from Carrie Fisher’s Postcards from the Edge, where a badly behaved, not very smart drug addict insists that “I was always very cordial to everybody. Certainly, my dealers liked me”). Nonetheless, I think it does aptly reflect the book’s argument for the decriminalization of prostitution, which Brown sums up at one point as the following:

Your body is your property… you should have the right to do whatever you want with your body… as long as you respect the property rights of others… If you respect the property rights of others and treat them with courtesy, you’re living a moral life.

In other words, paying for sex, as long as you observe the appropriately courteous marketplace behavior, should be considered no different from either a conventional sexual relationship (as Brown writes, “prostitution is just a form of dating”) or from a conventional economic one. Indeed, most of the arguments against the decriminalization of prostitution that Brown rebuts in the (sometimes exhausting and lengthy) appendices at the end of Paying For It have to do with the question of free will, either obliquely or directly; and the classic libertarian argument that he is a proponent of comes up again and again: viz., since your body is your own property, you’re free to do what you want with it, just as long as you’re not harming another’s.

Brown’s sexual/economic utopia sounds a lot like what Marx mockingly called the “very Eden of the innate rights of man.” Within the sphere of commodity exchange, Marx writes in Capital, everyone — whether employer or laborer — is equal and free to form a market relationship by virtue of his or her essential property rights. The problem, however, begins once one realizes both the possible prehistory and the potential future of this freely contracted relationship. How is it that the wallet ended up in the John’s pocket and not in the prostitute’s? And what are the ramifications of this (often gendered, class-based, ethnicity-based) division of resources?

The issue, then — at least for me — is not whether paying for sex should be decriminalized. Brown makes a pretty good argument for this course of action, and it seems plausible that while some women might despise sex work, others may pursue it as a fairly easy moneymaking opportunity, and should not be censured or punished for practicing it. What is more troubling, however, is the pretense that free will is a transparent, unproblematic accompaniment of capitalism; that money is an innocent vehicle that consistently enables choice rather than oftentimes restricting it.

This, I think, is just as true of sex as it is, for example, of health care. As I waddled along recently, trailing in the footsteps of a chipper guide on a maternity ward tour here in New York, I was repeatedly told that I’m not a patient, but rather a client, or more to the point, a shopper. I have a “choice,” the tour guide explained, and I should “exercise” it. If I wanted to procure, say, a private postpartum room for the flat fee of 850 dollars a night, I had the “choice” to do so. If this for whatever reason didn’t suit, I had the “choice” to “shop” for a shared room, or for other options elsewhere, at other hospitals. What no one spoke of, however, is that arriving at the place where one can even begin to make a choice is not part of a self evident, inevitable process; that it has everything to do with a very specific history of class relations which may very well preclude one from becoming the shopper one is so lustily encouraged to be.

Unlike myself, Brown obviously doesn’t seem to think it depressing that we’re living in a world in which everything – because it is objectified into property – can be bought and sold. In fact, he accepts it at face value. Towards the end of the narrative, he embarks on a long-term, paid relationship with “Denise,” one of the prostitutes he sees. Even though it’s a monogamous arrangement, he admits that it’s not one that many would consider mutual. While he loves her, she only likes him, and probably wouldn’t have sex with him if he weren’t paying her for it. From Brown’s perspective, though, the relationship with “Denise” is mutual, since, as he writes, “sex is always about trade: ‘I want to give you physical pleasure because I want physical pleasure in return’, or, ‘I’ll have sex with you because I want affection’, or, ‘you can fuck me for 200 dollars’.”

Which brings us back to the “good sex” question we began with. Brown’s previous work was often structured around the interaction with inanimate objects. In The Playboy, what formed the narrative was the obsessive return to a porn magazine, and to the places where one buys it, hides it, jerks off to it, and so on. In I Never Liked You, there was a somewhat less obvious but still central repetition of panels over the course of the narrative, in which the passing of time was conveyed through Brown’s munching on an after-school snack — the box cyclically taken out of the cupboard and the crackers eaten one by one. It is somehow disturbing to see Paying For It anchored by a similar strategy, in which the narrative is continually marked by Brown’s interactions with prostitutes, always proceeding through a depiction of the initial contact, the sexual act, and the paying for said act. There is a commendable honesty here, to be sure: a kind of downbeat, detached naturalism. But there is something dispiriting about it too. As we read along, we might begin to ask ourselves: is having sex with a woman just like having an itch pleasantly scratched, not unlike a gussied-up version of masturbating? Or, for that matter, eating a cracker? Is this, as they say, really all there is?

FILED UNDER:

22 Responses to Paying for It

  1. UlandK says:

    I agree re: defining what we desire from sex, but it's difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which all parties, everywhere would have to have achieved "equality" before exchanges can be fair. The nature of exchange is that party "a" has what party "b" wants, etc.,. Who negotiates the terms? Who is to insure that they are followed?

  2. Ray Davis says:

    "Equality" and "fair exchange" are never mentioned by the post's author, UlandK — you brought those bugaboos with you. The question raised and at hand is whether human interaction involves anything outside ka-chinging moments of negotiated transaction.

    • acidtoyman says:

      She didn't use the word "equality", but she bring class into it, and uses phrases like "How is it that the wallet ended up in the John’s pocket and not in the prostitute’s?", which implies inequality.

    • UlandK says:

      They're directly implied.She makes a social justice case for equality, which might, she hopes, result in fair exchanges.

  3. Brynocki says:

    Are the drawings any good?

    • NGazin says:

      I would describe them as sophisticated and very simple. The art style seems to dehumanize all the characters. They are always at a distance and never show emotion. The drawings convey a cold and unfeeling world of automatons who want to fuck stuff or get paid to be that stuff that gets fucked.

      • Brynocki says:

        Thanks, thats the first paragraph in this discussion that brings up anything about the way this book of narrative drawings looks. I thought maybe Chester Brown had suddenly written a novel judging from the review and comments. Just found that funny.

      • NGazin says:

        Oftentimes people who come at comics who are primarily interested in literature will not even consider whether the drawings are good or bad. That's not necessarily what happened here. The subject of the book naturally makes you want to weigh on the subject of paying people to eff you.

    • acidtoyman says:

      I think about half the book has appeared online by now in all the reviews. Why don't you go find out?

  4. DanielJMata says:

    For a comic review on a comics site, what a terrible nonreview.

  5. NGazin says:

    Good, good review.

  6. patford says:

    As seen here, and with "Love From the Shadows" many of the people commenting can't comment directly on the book, because they haven't seen it. The people reviewing the book have advance copies.
    As a result most of the comments concern the reviews, and the long interview, which I assume most people have read.

  7. Brynocki says:

    Makes me curious about the possibility of a "medical prostitution" legal category.

    As for the above comment(s), I'm just curious what it says about a cartoonist if a long review doesn't even mention one aspect of the line or panel relationship. Everyone knows Chester has a "perfect" style, but it's still a Comic book. Does perfect style step out of the way for smooth reading experience, or is it the sign of an edgeless work? I enjoyed Fry's piece and I'm a big big Chester B fan, but the pros and cons of a settled style is very interesting to me. And comics discussed without a drawing discussion is….strange? maybe? AcidToyman up there seems to have seen half the book already.

    I didn't read the interview, i'll go there next.

    • patford says:

      I read the interview right away, read Fiore's review, but only for entertainment value. In general I don't read many reviews unless I'm looking for information. I'll read a review to find out what the production values of a reprint book are, or a review of a book by an author I've never heard of before.

  8. Ultimangel says:

    I read the book today. It's a semi-interesting Libertarian view of prostitution but nothing about it indicates that it had to be done in a comic book format. Chester Brown seems more interested in expressing his sociological views than making good art.

    • darrylayo says:

      Of course it had to be done in a comic book format. It’s a comic book. What other format would have been suitable?

      • Ultimangel says:

        If he had just written an essay explaining his views I feel I wouldn’t have had a much different reaction to it. I’m currently reading the notes in the back of the book where he fleshes out his ideas a bit better and I’m finding it more interesting than the actual comic.

  9. Rolando says:

    “Is having sex with a woman just like having an itch pleasantly scratched, not unlike a gussied-up version of masturbating? Or, for that matter, eating a cracker? Is this, as they say, really all there is?”

    I haven’t read the book, so I’m just talking from a perspective of the argument itself.

    But what I think a pro-prostitution (probably the libertarian stance-taker) would say is that, whether it is or not, since the activity of prostitution does not harm anybody’s property (unless it’s not a voluntary relationship as in sex trafficking) then the answer to the question is simply irrelevant. That is, “yeah, sex may be this huge emotional deal for many people, but for me, it isn’t; it’s actually much simpler. And I have a huge set of sellers who are willing to satisfy my need.”

    I personally think that the mistake begins with the assertion that “my body belongs to me.” It sets up a dichotomy between “me” and “body” that I think doesn’t exist; our identities are much more tied up to our bodies. Something like “I am my body” is much closer to the truth. And as sex is one of the most intense experiences one can have with one’s body (if not, then why is it such a huge obsession? or why, for example, is rape considered such a heinous crime?), then, yes, I think it’s much more than masturbating. As you point out in your review, since our capitalistic mindset has made everything into commodities, then our bodies have become commodities, too, such that the notion that bodies can be sold is not all that morally repellent.

    I don’t think there’s a strong argument for making prostitution illegal; the fact of its potential immorality does not have anything to do with its legality. And in terms of morality, I see it more as an unhealthy act than as an immoral act–at least that’s how I try to phrase it. If sex is such an intense experience, a self-definining one, what of the mind of the woman who’s had hundreds of men in her bed? And what of the man who sees sex that way? Isn’t there something perverse, or even tragic, about that?

    That’s the book I’d like to read, the one that faces that tragedy in the face.

    Thanks for your review. It was insightful and made me want to read the book.

  10. Bobby.N says:

    I found the book PAYING FOR IT (as R.Crumb described it in the introduction) quite cogent. Chester Brown did a wonderful job presenting his personal reasoning behind his predilection for prostitution. It’s all too easy to dismiss Brown’s views as ‘sad’ or ‘sordid’, but that is all too easy a cop out. One has to remember that he’s giving us a chronology of what lead him to his current views. I’m sure that each of us (coupled with our own past failings, tragedies and betrayals) has also been changed (even hardened) by our past experiences.

    I don’t agree with previous posts that the art is sub-par or lacking. Brown’s cartooning is derived from older newspaper comic strips, and is part of the indie segment of the comics medium (ie. Non-superhero in style). I like it very much.

    One of the best GN’s I’ve read this year.

    -Bobby.N

  11. DiamondDulius says:

    I enjoyed the book very much, and I think Brown’s cartooning is top notch… however, I do think that prostitution should be regulated if made legal. On one hand, Brown makes argument after argument that sex should be treated as commodity, yet when taxation is brought up he back peddles and says the government has no place in the bedroom and sex is too sacred to tax, going so far as to suggest a prostitute’s income should be considered “a gift”. In setting himself up as a sort of champion for prostitutes, he attempts to have it both ways. Fact is, the potential john is taking somewhat of a risk in going to a prostitute in relation to STDs. That alone is reason enough for regulation, as the consumer should be protected as much as possible. Brown expresses indignation when Seth suggests prostitutes should be required to be tested. I can certainly understand his aversion to the government, but his Libertarian devotion to the free marked is naive, to be polite.

    However, the book definitely got me to thinking, as it seems to have a lot of other people as well. You really can’t ask for more in a graphic novel… or comic book… or whatever…

  12. Dominick Grace says:

    I’m surprised there hasn’t been more discussion of how funny this book is. I laughed out loud several times while reading it. I guess the whole argument for decriminalizing prostitution thing couldn’t help but dominate discussion, but to me, this is a hilariously ironic work–or perhaps an ironically hilarious one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>