By Deepa Majumdar
To those we call the “sex worker.”
Patricia Mukhim’s article, “Sex workers figure in Assembly debates….but,” (ST, Mar 12, 2021), reminded me of my old concern and empathy for the so-called “sex worker.” I believe deeply that History has visited upon mankind something as dangerous as the sexual revolution, as punishment for the great sins we have committed against the “sex worker.” Although the pain caused by the so-called sexual revolution can in no measure compare with the pain of having to provide sex in exchange for money, we have en masse experienced a slight hint of the “sex worker’s” agony. By leveling all of humanity to almost her level and by stripping all of us of respectability, many now have at least a slight idea and direct experience of her pain and humiliation. To understand her plight, we must first understand the premises that encircle the “sex worker” in puritanical (rather than chaste) forms of “respectable” society.
First, we must distinguish entirely between true chastity and puritanical caricatures of this virtue. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle flanks each moral virtue by two vices, one a qualitative excess and the other a qualitative deficit. Thus courage is a moral virtue flanked by the vices of rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficit). Applying Aristotle, we would have to conclude that while true chastity is a moral virtue, lust is its deficit vice, and puritanism its excess vice. Yes, puritanism is a vice. India has a formidable history of masculine (and sometimes feminine as well) puritanical violence against women. The acrid stench of Sati lingering in the annals of Indian history, should remind us daily of the dangers of such puritanism. Modern feminism, despite its shortcomings, has done a good job of debunking the unbelievable masculine hypocrisy and lust underlying such puritanical notions of the female body.
What else can it be but rank hypocrisy to veil little girls in societies that permit and encourage polygamy for men? No little girl should have to feel unclean because adult men have impure eyes. What else can it be but rank hypocrisy to define a woman’s virginity in physiological terms, with no accountability for philandering men? What else can it be but rank hypocrisy, to punish women survivors of rape in societies where male rapists go scot free? Indeed, the Indian Supreme Court recently displayed this hypocritical masculinity, when Chief Justice Bobde asked a man accused of raping a minor, if he would “marry” his victim. Although Bobde says his remark was complete misreported, his credibility is weak because India has a long history of forcing abused women to marry their abusers. All this speaks of how primitive and literal-minded, their notion of marriage is. Instead of seeing marriage as a moral institution resting on the bedrock of mutual respect and responsibility (moral and otherwise) for one another, the puritanical mind envisions marriage in terms of a perverted notion of sexual purity. This is particularly relevant for the “sex worker.” For many, she can never reach the threshold of respectability represented by even such degraded notions of marriage.
Even Aristotle’s philosophical schema cannot do justice to the gulf that separates true chastity from puritanism. Where chastity means sublimating body consciousness by drowning it in divine consciousness, puritanical caricatures of this glorious virtue, apply more to women, in the form of a degraded politics of the hymen. This implies a lethal body-over-mind, rather than mind-over-body approach. I call this puritanical definition of literal physical virginity, “carnal chastity” – because it forgets altogether that true chastity depends on the mind – not the body. Thus it is perfectly possible for married men and women, with children, to become chaste, by disciplining the mind and sublimating lust. Equally, it is quite possible for those who are virginal to have a lustful mind of which they are not yet aware. The innocence in true chastity therefore is far greater than that in mere virginity. Where the former is earned, through conscious moral effort, the latter is not.
Second, we must recognize that “sex work” is entirely demand-driven. If men did not solicit and purchase sex, there would be no supply. I am dumbfounded why any man would so lack in self-respect, humanity, and a parental perspective, that he would torment an unknown woman’s body with his sexual demands. The very existence of “sex work” and the “sex worker” depends on a sick form of masculinity, which has never received adequate revulsion in Indian society. One bad side-effect of India’s otherwise glorious history of ascetic traditions, is a saffron sexism that sees men as monks and women as natural temptresses. A true monk would transcend male and female, seeing the Divine in both. In a civilization where rapists escape punishment with impunity, this is particularly disturbing. Moreover, in a civilization with a history of puritanical violence against women, where hypocritical men suspect all women of natural lasciviousness, thus replaying the tragedy of Sita, to have to be a “sex worker”is unbelievable agony. I cannot think of a greater human rights tragedy than that of the “sex worker,” in puritanical societies, ruled by religious fanatics. Even without going so far as the “sex worker,” beautiful women are punished in puritanical societies as natural temptresses for men. Many experience needless guilt. Thus, feminists have long urged men to take responsibility for their own passions, instead of blaming women.
I am dumbfounded as well by the sheer asymmetry of male and female, biologically and historically. Biologically, women bear the entire burden, pain, and risk to life of bringing children into the world. India eulogizes mothers. But apart from some outstanding monks, I have rarely known Indian men to truly understand what a woman undergoes when giving birth. If they did, they would insist on fewer children. Moreover, they would cook for, nurse, and serve their wives when they are pregnant. This glory of motherhood becomes degraded when mothers are coerced, neglected, despised, or abandoned. There should be a separate day set aside as Single Mother’s Day. By raising a whole generation, while enduring rebukes from a judgmental society, the single mother has proved her mettle. I shudder at the cosmic punishment that awaits men who abandon women when they are pregnant.But above all, I shudder at the cosmic punishment that awaits men who abandon someone as helpless as the “sex worker” when she is pregnant.
True motherhood is a cosmic force that civilizes mankind. Recently I read of freed Yazidi women, once forced into sexual slavery by ISIS men, returning to reclaim babies born of their torment – but now forced into exile by their own elders, who have accepted them, but not their children. So great is the power of motherhood that these women prefer exile over abandoning their children. So the asymmetry between male and female continues into parenting responsibilities, with women far more committed than men.
But the greatest asymmetry between male and female lies in the gulf between the historical Incarnations of God, who have been mostly male, and the hapless “sex worker” “dancing girl,” or “courtesan,” who have all been female. To add insult to injury, Incarnations have been known to uplift and redeem such “fallen” women. To the Buddha’s Amrapali, we have Christ’s Mary Magdalene. I admire the Buddha because when the courtesan Amrapali came to him, he commented, not on her body, or her place in society, but on the concentration of mind he saw in her eyes.
I understand that perhaps only the Incarnation has the power to heal the “sex worker” of her agony. I also understand the risk of moral decline in her lifestyle. But I have wondered why even Incarnations see her as “fallen.” While some women may indeed be tainted by “sex work,” others may remain mentally chaste and unsullied by the horrific sexual abuse they endure. It saddens me that even Incarnations of God (as reported by subjective men), have noted the “fallen” condition of the “sex worker” – not the unspeakable agony she suffers. Instead of redeeming her, why did they not redeem the men who exploited her? Of the two, surely the male clients were the greater sinners?
At long last, I now understand the logic of History. Given the horrific abuse that fallen men perpetrate on women, it makes perfect sense that divine Incarnations have been mainly masculine. For,men stand in need of redemption and for historical examples of ideal masculinity. Moreover, the freedom of women depends on the redemption of fallen men.
The “sex worker” is not a worker because providing sex to strangers in exchange for money is not work, but exploitation. Unlike other forms of work that produce and sell commodities, sex is not a commodity. Moreover, any work, even if sold, comes with the potential for a spirit of service. But only a sadist would expect a spirit of service from the “sex worker,” whose label, therefore, remains a politically correct sexist euphemism.