New York Times Calls Prostitutes "Whores"

I was surprised to read the tagline for today's New York Times review of "Secret Diary of a Call Girl," which premieres on Showtime tonight. On the main Arts page, the blurb link to the review reads: "'Secret Diary' indulges the common male fantasy that whores truly enjoy prostitution." Generally, although not all the time, "whores" is used as a pejorative. Considering how careful (see: "From Huckapoo to 16 Pubed") the Times typically is about not offending anyone with its word choices, particularly when it comes to sex, this was a bit surprising. The line is a pull quote from Alessandra Stanley's review of the show, which isn't that much different from Edward Wyatt's think piece on the show. In sum total, they say the show glamorizes prostitution. Or, as Stanley states it: "it's X-rated chick lit."

"It’s a series that aspires to be a candid, incisive look at the oldest profession, but mostly it stares at it lasciviously, with all the seamier bits — sexually transmitted diseases, repulsive clients, police records, drug habits — airbrushed out. And in between comical depictions of Belle entertaining her clients and fulfilling even their silliest fantasies (in Britain they mostly seem to involve horses, bondage or both), there are many filmy, smoldering shots of Belle bathing, applying lipstick or even just writhing alone on her bed, bored and a little bit lonely."

So much for guilty pleasures. Or, for that matter, pleasure without guilt.

Related: Choire Sicha interviews Billie Piper.

If The New York Times Was A Man, It Would Never Get Laid

Oh, New York Times. You're so dull, you can make sex work boring. Sometimes, I think the Times is like a fifty-something guy with a bad case of erectile dysfunction, and I'm the girl who has been sent to fellate him. You know what? He's never going to come. Why the rag keeps venturing into sex waters with all their clothes on, angsting about feminism, waxing on dully about the culture and "what it all means," continuing to do the literary version of pushing PAUSE on a porn movie, I'll never really understand. Every time they "go there," they can't help but damn themselves--and us--for doing so.

The latest missive comes from Edmund White--oh, I'm sorry. I mean Edward Wyatt--rambling on about Showtime's up and coming hooker show, "Secret Diary of a Call Girl," which premieres on Monday. For those not in the know, the series is based on the book by Belle de Jour, a London call girl, and the series already aired in England. Wyatt describes it as "lighthearted"--and it pretty much is; you can watch the first episode here--and then starts wringing his hands over whether or not feminists and their icky ilk are going to get all up in arms over it in America.

First, Chris Albrecht--the ex-HBO exec who has stated publicly that his tenure at HBO was filled with personal longing to do a hooker show, a mission that was derailed when he got busted for assaulting his girlfriend at the time (now his soon to be his wife), and who brought the show to Showtime--backs away from defending the show's sexual politics: "I’m pretty sure there isn’t anyone associated with this show who thinks this profession is empowering to women." Then, British actress Billie Piper, who plays Belle, compares the call girl character to Tony Soprano, "a man who goes around killing people." Finally, just in case there's any desire, titillation, or curiosity left in the room, Wyatt dials up a feminist who declares the project does for "prostitution what HBO’s 'Big Love' does for polygamy." Shudder.

Of course, the Times story is pretty much bereft of sex. And that's part of what the show is about, isn't it? Why we do it. Why men pay for it. What it's really like to be a woman who sells it for a living. Not long ago, a friend of mine asserted that every woman secretly wants to be a "Pretty Woman." I agreed. Women want to be them. Men want to be with them. Too bad nobody's willing to admit it.