As a reader, I've always been surprised by the number of prostitutes who appear in books written by men. I'd say that authors of my generation and younger no longer portray this figure, so present in the male imagination, as normally as possible. As if it were the most normal thing in the world to pay money to buy sex. Of course, they always seek something more than sex in the exploited: they seek power and domination, to do what they want without having to explain themselves or respond to the demands of the person they've slept with. In other words, many pay to be able to rid themselves of the humanity that human females have a mania for possessing. If it hasn't been done yet, someone should dedicate a doctoral thesis to studying the figure of the whore in literature. I was going to say in Spanish (and Catalan) literature, but a mental review of famous authors from all continents leaves the sad conclusion of its universal and transcultural reach. Whether it's that García Márquez character who decided to give himself a teenage virgin at ninety years old, or Naguib Mahfuz's father who consumed belly dancers while keeping his wife locked up at home, passing through all those who during Franco's regime wrote only about (saintly) mothers or butterflies, to a character who uses them to satisfy himself. It's not just that they write about prostitutes, it's that they often represent them with a nauseating contempt, a contempt that coincides with what many real men feel when they use this kind of servicesThey are attracted to prostitutes but hate them because they sell themselves, as if they weren't the ones buying them and, therefore, responsible for the degradation of those they consume. They are the ones who should feel ashamed of the immorality and lack of ethics involved in using a woman who doesn't desire them or enjoy the relationship, a woman who has often been raped because she was turned into a whore or part of a situation of extreme need. It's not enough for them to rape them in exchange for money; they are often the ones who contribute to fostering their social stigma. Just look at how, in some newspapers, the victims of the Koldo and company plot are labeled "young ladies of dubious morals." Isn't dubious morals rather the responsibility of those who use their power to dispose of young women as if they were commodities? Shouldn't the stigma fall on those capable of exchanging human beings without any scruples?
Feminist theory says that patriarchy mandated that every man should have (at least) one wife through marriage and that there should be some available to everyone, those that can be accessed by paying a fee. I remember the socialist feminist Ángeles Álvarez speaking about this in a lecture at the Rosario Acuña Feminist School, and as an example she mentioned a banner that some football fans had hung in a stadium that read "Shakira belongs to everyone" when Piqué was the game (and the couple hadn't even separated yet). Perhaps there aren't so many writers anymore who don't know any women other than those they find in brothels, but it's clear that the collective imagination continues to impose two types: those who are "for one" and those who are "not for freedom or for all." And as long as exploitation of equality remains normalized. As long as there are men who think they can buy us and can do so because it's not a crime, we will all continue to be trapped in this stale and obsolete scheme.
