Paying For It

by Chester Brown

Paying for It was easily the most talked-about and controversial graphic novel of 2011, a critical success so innovative and complex that it received two rave reviews in the New York Times, and sold out of its first print run in just six months. Paying for It combines the personal and sexual aspects of Brown’s autobiographical work (I Never Liked You, The Playboy) with the polemical drive of Louis Riel. Brown calmly lays out the facts of how he became not only a willing participant in, but a vocal proponent of one of the world’s most hot-button topics—prostitution. While this may appear overly sensational and just plain implausible to some, Brown’s story stands for itself. Paying for It offers an entirely contemporary exploration of sex work—from the timid john who rides his bike to his escorts, wonders how to tip so as not to offend, and reads Dan Savage for advice, to the modern-day transactions complete with online reviews, seemingly willing participants, and clean apartments devoid of clichéd street corners, drugs, or pimps. Complete with a surprise ending, Paying for It continues to provide endless debate and conversation about sex work.

Genres: Graphic Novels, Comics, Nonfiction, Memoir, Canada, Biography, Graphic Novels Comics

277 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 10, 2011

About the author

Chester Brown is a Canadian cartoonist.
Brown was born in Montreal in 1960 and grew up in the nearby suburb of Chateauguay.
At 19, Brown moved to Toronto, where he found a day job while practicing cartooning in his free time. In 1983, he began to self-publish his work in photocopied mini-comics under the title Yummy Fur. These pamphlets attracted some attention in the industry, and in 1986 the Toronto-based comic book publisher Vortex Comics approached Brown. The first Vortex issue of Yummy Fur sold well, so Brown quit his day job to become a full-time cartoonist.
In the pages of Yummy Fur, Brown serialized the story Ed the Happy Clown, which was published as a graphic novel in 1989 and went on to win several awards.
Brown's following book The Playboy (1992) was the first graphic novel released by the Canadian comic publisher Drawn & Quarterly. It was followed by I Never Liked You (1994) and the collection of shorts tories The Little Man: Short Strips, 1980-1995 (1998). From 1998 to 2003 Brown worked on Louis Riel: A Comic Strip Biography. His latest books are Paying for It (2011) and Mary Wept Over the Feet of Jesus (2016), both tackling at some level the theme of decriminalisation of prostitution.

Reviews

[g · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book left me with a bad taste in my mouth (NPI). Additionally, I have some serious bones to pick (also NPI) with Brown and his bullshit arguments.

1. This isn't a story; it's a sort of cray cray rant/manifesto about how Chester Brown wants prostitution to be legalized...but only the way HE wants it legalized and not any other way.

2. Brown claims that his way is "better for everyone." But is it? Mostly, it's better for Brown. The final (endless, repetitive) appendixes are more of a childish temper tantrum about how unfair it all is than any kind of cohesive position.

3. I feel wary of anyone who has supposedly purely logical, fact-based arguments that, oh, surprise, lead to the exact answer desired by the individual. The agenda here is painfully obvious, which is why I feel dubious of many of Brown's points...even the good ones.

4. And speaking of logic and facts, Brown is consistently flip-flopping about some very basic things. In fact, I would say that these things are so basic that they need to be defined, before any kind of actual argument can proceed. Bedrock-y, foundational things. Is prostitution a business? On some pages, it is--a simple business. So it should be legal, right? Or isn't it a business? On some pages it's not a business, but a relationship--so it should be legal and not regulated or taxed.

At times, Brown suggests that it's a simple money-for-sex transaction. Other times, he is aghast at the idea of the state coming into people's bedrooms. At these times, he also states that maybe it's not a transaction. Maybe he's not paying these women to have sex with him. Maybe it's just a gift. He uses a number of ridiculous metaphors that shift and slide all the fuck over the place to try to prove his points, depending on circumstance, of course.

Here's a metaphor that actually works: if you come over to my house and I make you a hamburger, cool, that's my right and it's your right to eat the hamburger. No government involvement. No money changing hands. If, however, you and a bunch of other people come over to my house and I make everyone hamburgers and I charge everyone 5 bucks a hamburger, well, that changes things. We're using money, printed by the state, and I'm making a profit. Suddenly, I've opened a hamburger shop and last time I checked, we tax and regulate hamburger shops (in fact, some hamburger shops should probably be regulated a bit more, don't you think?)

5. This book is as much about Brown's own weird sexual hangups as it is about the oldest profession. He claims that he doesn't show faces or reveal information beyond industry-related chatter to protect identities, but I think anyone with half a brain can see that that's a cop out. Why not draw the women differently than how they look...or why not draw them exactly the same? This isn't an hd-quality video or even a grainy xtube for that matter; this is a fucking comic book. The only way I can even tell who Seth is is by that ridiculous hat he's always wearing. No random person is going to be recognized out of a Chester Brown graphic novel. Additionally, why not mix and match some of the stories so we get a little more context? Fudge some things if you have to, whatever. It's just that the way it is, these women really come across as one-dimensional objects...and you can't help but wonder if Brown wanted it that way.

6. Brown does not understand emotional nuance, and, in this particular context, it is a serious problem. If you can't understand what makes the previous statement relevant to the work, you also may not understand emotional nuance. Let me give you a piece of advice: don't write books about emotionally-complex subjects, like prostitution. You will just sound like a dick.

7. Speaking of dicks, I did not need to see Chester Brown's dick SO many times.

8. Brown also clearly does not understand power dynamics and the differences between male and female sexual turn-ons (a generalization, but a relevant one, I think). At one point, he imagines a future world where everyone pays for sex, including women. He doesn't even stop to think why in the world women generally don't pay for sex now. Hint: it's because, on the whole, women value emotional connection (see 6) in addition to sex. If anything, women are more likely to (and already do) pay for emotional connection. Brown should watch the Japanese documentary "The Great Happiness Space." It would teach him A LOT about power dynamics, the importance of emotional connection for (most) ladies and how being a sex worker can seriously fuck you up. He should also take in some art and literature made by female sex workers. Michelle Tea. Sex Workers Art Show. Brown is very well-informed, when it suits his agenda. When I read through the notes at the very end of the book, I learned that he also seems to have taken in some sex worker-created art...but for some reason, the tales of emptiness and sadness that I have heard repeated in sex worker's accounts don't find their way into his pages. Don't get me wrong--that's not all sex workers have to say about their work, but it is there. To pretend all sex workers are well adjusted and do not pay an emotional toll to do what they do is an ignorant position.

9. It's fine if you don't want to participate in monogamy, just, please, don't trash everyone who does. To each his own. Monogamy is not for some people and I respect that, but my monogamous relationship works great for me, and I want others to respect that. If you want to be respected for being a John, respect others who don't want to be Johns, because frankly, I'm pretty sure you're outnumbered, buddy. If Brown were gay, he'd have already learned this particular lesson.

Hilariously, Brown and his last prostitute are now in a monogamous relationship...seriously, after all that bullshit.

10. Wow. What a rant. I guess the best thing about this book is that it illicits a reaction.

In closing, Brown comes across as emotionally-deficient, clueless and selfish. Joe Matt is confused. And Seth is the only one of the three with any sense or decorum, despite the silly hats, which are, ok, actually kind of cute.

For the record, I am a feminist in favor of legalizing prostitution. I actually agree with a number of Brown's ideas, just not how he arrives at them.



Addendum:

This is unrelated, but further proof that this man is a selfish, opportunistic and insane hypocrite:

MJ: Paying For It was sponsored by the Canada Council for the Arts. You don't have an issue taking a grant from the government?

CB: Mmmm, no. To me, those are two different things. I'm against government giving money to artists, but I'm not against artists taking money. Just like I don't have a moral problem with people taking healthcare from the government, but I don't think government should give it. When I've had medical problems, I've taken the free healthcare that government gives and don't see it as hypocritical to do so.

[Ademption · Rating 2 out of 5]

29 May 2011: Meat Ravioli $10 not so tasty, overcooked

28 May 2011: Hamburger & Fries $15 chewy, medium, good value

27 May 2011: Lamb dish (Ethiopian) $17 wonderful, messy
...


I could go on, but I don't want to bore you with the spare details of what I had for dinner every night last week. Chester Brown on the other hand would love to do this.

Case in point, Chester Brown's new memoir is little more than an itemized receipt containing the metadata surrounding his sex life over the last decade.

We only get the dates, prices, times, a panel or two of gyrating, and Chester's laconic two-line assessment of the woman and the sex. He wants to protect the identity of the prostitutes by omitting their personal details and changing the names they work under to other innocuous names. That is thoughtful. He also obscures their faces, putting word balloons over them or only drawing the women from behind. They could be anybody, just some T&A, some tail he bought for $120/hr. Also, his drawing style is black and white. So all the women look like caucasian brunettes, which Brown acknowledges is just an effect of his style and not actually true.

By expunging all the details, the book is little more than a list of services that have been consumed. There is very little interaction aside from the transactions as they methodically happen. I don't think there is much more than this. Though Chester feels he has gotten to know the ladies by asking them about their childhoods, boyfriends, families and hobbies (all of which are omitted). Sure, one might get to know a barista and even trade anecdotes, but one still leaves after getting a coffee. Chester is making these transactions more than they are in an effort to normalize them. The problem from a dramatic point of view is that as far as dramatic interactions go, this situation is deadly boring: Two people enter a room, one gets cash, they pound away, Chester gives an Amazon-style review of the performance, checks the web for another hooker, & repeats this activity for 200 pages, only breaking the tedium by using friends as strawmen in one-sided conversations about the ethics of prostitution in which Chester always wins as the most reasonable voice. The drama is too spare and the arguments are stacked in Chester's favor.

And Chester is somewhat creepy. His friends mention that he is robotic. At the beginning of the volume, his former girlfriend, actress and personality Sook-yin Lee, edges him out of their shared house by degrees over several months ("Can I date other people?... Can the guy stay over?... This is my new boyfriend now...Chester, our relationship is kind of finished... Can you move out?") and he accepts it all with zero negative feelings, and rationalizes his overly passive acceptance as that of a Buddhist monk. Chester may, as his friend Seth surmised, "have a narrow emotional range," but his passive acceptance of getting dumped and then curbed by degrees cannot be spun delicately. Chester acted like a doormat. He could have protested. Maybe that would have ignited some passion back into their relationship. Chester tries to head this argument off by stating he has gone beyond romantic love and he knew their relationship was over for months before it ended. Of course, he only reaches such realizations after getting rather callously and slowly dumped. Though being Canadian, Sook-yin apologizes many times at each stage.

And zero negative feelings? Feh, even buddhist monks have bad days. Chester demonstrates pure good will after losing his long-term girlfriend and place with nada angst. This may have been close to the truth, but it does not ring true, and sounds like self-delusion. Like law students who say they LOVE THE LAW, or mathematicians who LOVE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS. The best students have some tact and say, "the law/math is my line. It's what I do best" or "No hard feelings, Sook" instead of being energized by a situation that 99% of the population finds uncomfortable. The subjective truth may exist (i.e. the law, math, and getting dumped are AWESOME and SOOO FUN!), but the speaker of such sentiments either seems like an oddball, a liar, or just stokes malice and envy in others for their talent in law, math, or happily getting dumped. The spoken sentiment points to either a lack of social grace or a backhanded compliment at oneself at the expense of others.

Finally in regards to Sook-Yin, Brown depicts her high cheekbones as rather skeletal. There might be some lingering bitterness there. She does have high cheekbones, but in some panels she's a cross between Pocahontas and Skeletor; however, this could be the effect of his spare drawing style.

After the breakup, Chester rationalizes that he is beyond romantic love, relational games, and interactions. He'd like his sex more transactional. But, by the end of the story, he is in a monogamous relationship with a prostitute that only he pays for, and they approximate a traditional relationship, coming full-circle and seemingly are like any other couple. If you are beyond romantic love, Chester Brown, why is your latest relationship 90% similar to romantic love? He makes the point that unpaid sex and paid sex and romantic love can be very similar, but why the long way around? Why does one force the issue that if the paid and unpaid are morally the same, then they are nearly the same in other senses as well?

Chester sees nothing immoral about paying for sex. But he surfs for pros using internet cafes, since he ostensibly doesn't own a computer. This is problematic. Think whatever you want about prostitution, and your sense of sexual norms, but have respect for a public space, particularly one in which people of all ages use. I hope none of those spaces were libraries. I am not for censorship, but having other people potentially stumble upon Chester selecting a prostitute is not dignified public behavior as it surprises people by making them party to the beginning of a sexual transaction that they have not previously consented to. This is a long-winded way of suggesting Chester Brown buy himself a laptop.

I appreciate that he is attempting to normalize a behavior that has been with mankind a longtime, but I can do without Chester Brown's fallacious rationalizations (The ladies really like me because they open up to me... It's not the money, it's that I'm a nice guy & have money...Prostitution is just paid dating. It is the same as not having to pay for sex...I can surf for hookers and rate them in public spaces since my sexual tastes are so vanilla).

On the other hand, Chester Brown puts his rationalizations down on paper and invites his friends to change or comment on his depictions of them in the book. His warts-and-all memoir is rather refreshing in that he bares everything for an ideal that he seeks, making prostitution a less furtive, safer activity. That he opens up, unabashedly laying everything on the line, is more than most people ever do in memoirs. Aside from the arguments he has with his friends, Chester impartially depicts himself in an effort to vindicate the act of paying for sex, not seeking absolution for himself. The man has balls (which he also carefully depicts). Too bad the exercise is somewhat solipsistic and uninteresting.

EDIT: A further problem, Chester Brown sidesteps addressing the related subject of human trafficking. One of his friends raises the argument, but since data on human trafficking is difficult to come by and stories are anecdotal, Chester imagines all prostitutes have libertarian free-will and freely choose their profession. However, not all prostitutes freely and reasonably chose their profession. Trafficking does occur, and he avoids discussing it.

[Melki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stung by love, and disparaging of what he termed "possessive monogamy," Brown made a decision to ditch romantic relationships, and began patronizing prostitutes instead. This book is his pretty graphic, graphic memoir. And, I'm completely confused as to how I feel about it.

On the plus side, it was an involving, and intriguing look at one man's unusual sex life. (If you're put off by cartoon penises & pubic hair, and frank sexual discussions, it's best you avoid this book.)
Prostitution is not something I spend a lot of time thinking about, so my only opinion is that I hope that sex workers are being well compensated.

I'm not judging Brown on his opting to pay for sex . . . but, I do have some complaints, and since Brown was fine with smearing my lifestyle choice - I've been married for over one third of my life - I'm opting to punch back.

First of all - this is a photo of Chester Brown:



Okay, he's got a kind of intriguing, John Malkovich thing goin' on, but hell, he's no matinee idol, and yet . . . he's pretty damned particular about the women he screws: they must be beautiful, not too old, not too heavy.



Then again, if he's buying a product, he's got the right to insist it be to his satisfaction. But, I'm thinking that if he didn't insist on beauty above all else, he'd find an intelligent, interesting, and funny woman who's willing to have sex for free. Where do men get this idea that no matter what they look like, they deserve goddesses? Maybe I'm taking this too personally, but . . . it's just that as a lonely girl in high school who'd have done almost anything to have a boyfriend, I sat home on Saturday nights because even the nerdy guys were holding out for cheerleaders.

Moving on . . .

I was rather stunned by how infrequently Brown got laid. I may have been stuck in the "evil institution of marriage," as he puts it, for the last 28 years, but, by golly, I'm pretty sure I have more sex in a . . . oh, never mind - I've already said too much.

The fact is that no matter how poorly a relationship may turn out, it feels good to be in love, and it feels even better to know you are loved. Brown basically proves this point himself by ending up in a monogamous relationship with a prostitute, a woman whom he admits he "probably loves" and yet . . . he is still paying for it. He's just pleased that it's not that "possessive" kind of monogamy.

Whatever lights your candle, I guess.

As I said, this book left me feeling all kinds of befuddled. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it, and I'd even recommend it, with reservations. In the end, like Brown admitted after some of his sexual encounters - I was left feeling kind of empty.

[Kris Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm super open minded, I love art comics, I like memoirs, I like bizarre tales, I love Canadian content!

I hated this book.

Moreso, I really dislike Chester Brown now, and I don't want to read anything else by him, which is super unfortunate, because I actually liked "I never liked you"

I know the point was that the women were prostitutes and he has no emotional connection to them, but page after page of blatant objectification and comodification of women was too much to not turn my stomach. Chester Brown looks like Skeletor, I don't care if they are being paid, $200 is not enough for those poor women to have to act like they enjoy him inflicting himself upon them.

There is one part where he tells someone that their idea of John's as rapists and murderers is completely off, and dismisses violence against sex workers. How one sided indeed. You're from Canada, Chester, does the name Robert Pickton not mean anything to you??? You personally don't beat up rape* and murder and haven't encountered it yourself, so it doesn't happen? You don't take in to account that the women you speak to are most likely glazing over their actual experiences to keep you as an oblivious and happy paying customer.

"Paying For It" page 188, panel 3: "That she seems to be in pain is kind of a turn-on for me, but I also feel bad for her."

WELL GOLD STAR FOR YOU, CHET.

Other than the story reading like some sort of bizarre manifesto about how paying for prostitutes trumps love, the art is so repetitive. The whole book is repetitive, but its the same panel over and over and over again. How many times can a man draw his own dick in cartoon form?

[Allison Floyd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having read sex worker lit previously, and having lived in San Francisco for several years (with a sex worker no less!) and thus having been well-steeped in these issues, this was an interesting read for me because it's the first account I've read by a john.

Before I go further I should mention that I am absolutely in agreement with the author's premise that prostitution should be decriminalized and that in reading this I gave consideration to decriminalization versus regulation, which wasn’t something I’d thought about before. He argues—convincingly, I think, but again, in my case he's preaching to the converted—in favor of the former and against the latter. So, this was in various respects an edifying read, and it was interesting to get a perspective from the other side.

That said, my prevailing thought while reading this was: oh, man, what a champ. I'm not going to pretend I wasn't grossed out when he rejected a 28-year-old prostitute for being too old, and another for standing 5'3" and weighing 130 pounds, and still another for being "a monster in a mini-skirt." But this was an interesting exercise too, because when we're talking about sex as a commodity, and taking—as I take—the position that there's nothing wrong with this, then doesn't he, as the consumer, have the right to reserve his money for the commodity he desires? He absolutely does, but it still grossed me out.

In one of the appendices, a friend of his featured throughout the novel comments on what he perceives to be the author's narrow emotional range and also on his tendency to look upon himself as the Voice of Reason; I think this is spot-on and manifests in unappealing ways. Nevertheless! The unendearing aspects of our narrator notwithstanding, this was a fast, entertaining, informative read. The points he raises about romantic love are pretty compelling, too (whether or not you're inclined to agree with him), even though he does get pretty dogmatic there, as do his sex slave appendices in which he displays a tendency toward borderline-shrill rationalizations about various potentially guilt-inducing scenarios he experienced.

I will say this: he generally (except for the irritating Voice of Reason tendency) doesn't go out of his way to paint a picture of himself that comes up roses. This candor is admirable.

In a nutshell: worth a read, and worth putting back down.

[Paul Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

My latest excursion into the ever-intriguing field of graphic novels turns out to be a radical challenge to the way we think about relationships, sex, romance and the whole kit and caboodle. A lot of the graphic novels I've read are autobiographical – Fun House, American Splendor, Clumsy, Maus, Persepolis – and this one is wildly so as it focuses on the author's sex life. But Chester Brown is no penis-wielding Henry Miller (or fetishistic Robert Crumb), he's a shy, bald, retiring type who works as a cartoonist & lives a very quiet life. There are no dramatics here, Chester presents himself and his sex life in the flattest, most banal manner. But liveliness and drama is not what this book is for. It's a structured argument for a complete overhaul of human relationships.

The book covers Chester's life from June 1996 to January 2004. We meet Chester as his girlfriend tells him she's falling in love with someone else and would he mind if she slept with this guy. Mild-mannered Chester of course says that would be okay. He loves Sook-Yin, but he's quite aware they're not "in love". They've been together a few years, but it's not like it used to be. So he's not too surprised. So she gets involved with this other guy, Justin. Then, since it's her apartment, she asks Chester if Justin could move in – she feels bad and doesn't want to ask Chester to move out. She doesn't think her own sex life should make Chester homeless. So Justin moves in and Chester's friends say:

- And you're fine with this? You're not angry or jealous?

- I'm feeling like my normal contented self.

- Just keep repressing those emotions, Chester.

- I'm not repressing. I didn't say I felt good about it. But I don't feel bad about it. Jealousy is not natural, it's learned behaviour.

So they all live together in the apartment. Chester likes to pontificate about life. He tells his friends that romantic relationships are rubbish and he doesn't want to get into any more of them. One friend says that well, at least you get sex as well as miserable times from a relationship.

Chester : Having a girlfriend doesn't mean you have guaranteed access to sex at any and all times. Usually there's a lot of sex at the beginning of the relationship and then it drops off after time. The longer a couple has been together, the less sex they're having.

Chester's friend : Even at the end of our relationship. Trish and I were still having sex all the time.

Chester : Then you guys were the exception. That's not how it usually works. Ask any married guy.

Chester's friend : Even if you're right, most people are having sex SOME of the time – you're not having sex at all.

Chester : Okay, you've got a point.

You noticed - it's hardly sparkling. In fact this book is a sparkle-free zone. There's a notable absence of anything resembling humour. With stilted unlifelike dialogue, plain and flat cartooning, piece by piece, Chester builds up into an extreme argument. He explains how he hates the possessiveness and suspicion which attends most romantic relationships, and the emotional fallout if either is unfaithful, which he sees as almost inevitable. He just can't take all the emotional hassle anymore and he doesn't like the social pressure to look normal by being in a romantic relationship. He reads a Dan Savage sex advice book and learns about the different forms of paying for sex. He wants to give it a try but he's nervous and there's a lot of shilly-shallying but finally he hooks up with his first hooker. He's talking to the hooker afterwards and she says that the johns have to be brave to do this stuff because they leave themselves open to being mugged ("there might be a man hiding in the cupboard or anything") and he tells her that the hookers have to be brave because the johns might turn violent.

He tells his friends: "It felt odd but not clinical. And she wasn't cold. She was very friendly and nice."

Here's one of Chester's trains of thought which might make some people's hair stand on end:

I don't know if I can afford to do this on a regular basis. If I went every two weeks that would be $4160 per year. Every three weeks would be 17 times a year…$160 times 17 is $2720. That's more manageable. I'll bet I annually spent about that much in relation to being Sook-Yin's boyfriend. And we didn't have sex anywhere near 17 times in the last year that she was my girlfriend.

So you can see where this is going! Anyway, after a catalogue of various experiences with various girls, he ends up sticking with one prostitute for years, and this woman ends up quitting the business, except for Chester. So he still pays her, and they don't live together, but they've grown very fond of each other. "Paying for sex isn't an empty experience if you're paying the right person for sex"
is the last line of the cartoon section of the book.

Then come the 50 plus pages of explanatory notes and appendices.

Some further points Chester would like to make :

- when he was born homosexuality was actually illegal and men were put in jail for being gay. He believes that paying for sex will in future be seen as just as normal as we now see gay relationships and people will wonder why it used to be illegal.

- Chester is against possessive monogamy on various grounds, mainly to do with the fact that it's not good for people's mental health

-He gives three scenarios and says there is no moral difference between them (I wonder if you agree? )
a) a woman is thinking "I don't want to have sex with this guy, but I need the money, so I will.
b) a second woman is thinking "I don't want to have sex right now, but he's my boyfriend and I love him, so I will"
c) a third woman is thinking "I no longer feel desire for my husband, but for the sake of our marriage I'll have sex with him"

- Many people think prostitutes are abused violently by johns and/or their pimps. He quotes Sheila Jeffreys' book "The Idea of Prostitution":

Prostitution is sexual abuse because prostitutes are subjected to any number of sexual acts that in any other context, acted against any other woman, would be labelled assaultive or at the very least unwanted and coercive.

Chester says - au contraire. Having researched the matter directly and indirectly, "paid-sex is usually pretty much the same as unpaid-sex" (i.e. there's the equivalent amount of coertion and violence).

But he does concede that many hookers do encounter violence, and says that their plight would be alleviated if prostitution was decriminalised.

- Chester is keen to say that most of the hookers have "chosen" their profession, and most of the johns are nice guys like himself who have a modicum of sensitivity and don't want to make the girls do stuff they don't want to do, and never get violent. It may be so, but we have no way of checking. It can't be denied that prostitution exists in the margins were drugs, big illegal money and violence are constants. It may be that Chester is whitewashing the whole thing and making out his experiences to be more common than they are. Or maybe most prostitution happens between pleasant middle aged guys and sweet young girls who haven't got crack habits.

- If a woman has a drug habit and being a hooker is the only way to pay for it how can you call that a choice, Chester? Well, Chester has got a book called "Addiction is a Choice" by Dr Jeffrey Schaler, so he doesn't see it in those terms. It's okay with Chester if you want to get yourself a massive coke habit. Your thing, your choice.

- One of Chester's friends made the following comment which Chester was happy to incorporate:

The fact is, Chester seems to have a very limited emotional range, compared to most people. There does seem to be something wrong with him.

Well, I liked Chester. But I'm not inviting him round for dinner when my mother in law is here.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brown's Paying for It is a defense of prostitution beautifully and meticulously designed. It is a work of scholarship valued in several academic disciplines as a serious contribution to the study of sex work. 1/3 of the book is handwritten endnotes, reminiscent to me of Alan Moore's From Hell, his fictional theory of the killing of prostitutes in London by "Jack the Ripper," which similarly features dozens of pages of notes. From Hell involved serious work of research, as surely has Paying For It.

Paying for It is also a memoir, a careful documentation of every prostitute Brown paid to have sex with over a several years period of time. It's not a work of pornography, though it does regularly depict cartoon pictures of himself having sex with these women. So there's maybe for many the ick factor, in spite of Brown's entirely serious approach to the subject. And it's obviously controversial, in the stance it takes. I read it in 2014, and liked it very much, though I stopped short of writing a review at that time, thinking even defending it on any level would get me in trouble with Goodreads friends. But I found it fascinating. I don't mostly agree with Brown, finally, but a very very fine artist and scholar did this work. Brown's basic view about the contrast between prostitution to marriage is that he finds the former more honest and respectful of women. You see how he takes a minority view here on the subject, of course, but he is not the only person who has taken that view in the history of feminism. He's also skeptical of the uses of "romance," which seems to him largely a waste of time for most people.

One of the most interesting aspects of Brown's story happens later (somewhat spoiler alert), when we see Brown's struggle about sexuality and intimacy sort of falls apart, as he grows closer and closer to one particular woman whose "services" he pays for, and she in turn also grows closer to him. That's maybe all I'll say about that here. But it's not a complete reversal of his view, just a complication. It just becomes a somewhat deeper meditation on the relationship between sexuality and intimacy.

Another interesting thing that happens in the process of research, for Brown, is that he becomes an advocate for the dignity and respect of sex workers, especially those who seem to have chosen this profession as a means of viable income. A comic book artist, an autobiographical comics guy, one who happens to have sex with prostitutes as millions do daily the world over, becomes politicized in the process, and informed as he learns about the issues involved, and finally, an advocate. He now is part of the process of advocating for the legalization of prostitution.

I write this on the occasion of buying from Brown last night his second defense of prostitution, Mary Wept Over the Feet of Jesus, at CAKE, an alternative comics gathering here in Chicago, where I stood in line with (as it turns out) several women all buying Paying for it or Mary, his newest book, all talking with him admiringly, it seemed to me. I heard each of these women talk with Brown, speaking supportively of his work on the subject. "I just think of it as another job," one woman said. "I think it should be legalized," another woman said. "It's just another form of oppression, to throw these girls in jail." I agree with that, especially since all the johns typically go free, but in general I think the media/film has done a disservice to victims of sex trafficking in the process of somewhat romanticizing prostitution as a "profession." That narrative seems to be changing on a daily basis, now, though, as sex trafficking is now a regular topic in the news. I didn't really talk to Brown but I thought, leaving him: I wish I could interview the dude.

At the show I also picked up Brown's friend Joe Matt's spoof of Paying for It, entitled Paid for It and supposedly authored by "Chesty" Matt, which uses actual panels from Paying for It but substitutes commentary/dialogue from the perspective of a fictional Brown who has decided to himself become a prostitute. It's both very funny and also insightful and I recommend it. I guess because few of you will ever read that book I will risk a spoiler: Matt's punchline joke here is that Brown falls in love with one of his customers and accepts a proposal to marriage, enthusiastically. This is a joke, but in the light of what I wrote about above re: Brown's becoming intimate with one of his prostitutes, it's not such a stretch,maybe. Reminds me of Shaw's Pygmalion. Love conquers all, after all, you old curmudgeon, Brown!

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

By the end of the comic part, I was going to give this 3 stars... although I don't agree with many of his arguments when discussing the issues with his friends, I think he tried very hard to make most of the women he sees seem like nice people who are in a job that suits them, and make himself look small and grateful of the profession.

Then came the appendix... Chester acts like an authority on a lot of things that he is not an authority on. He is sexist, with on old-fashioned understanding of feminism. The section on addiction, (stating that it doesn't really exist) is rubbish and scientifically untrue. Also, he writes that, although prostitution should be completely legal (I'm fine with that, if people want to do whatever with their own bodies they can) that there should be no taxes on it, the money should be a gift! So it's a business, like any other, but it is somehow "sacred" and tax free because it is sex. Hmmmm....

I could probably pick through the appendix a little more, but I'll stop there.

[Krystal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was actually way more fascinating than I expected.

This makes a big deal about being an autobiographical account of a man who regularly visits prostitutes, and it is. What I didn't expect was how considerate it was, how thoughtful an account this was of a man and the women he meets through this particular activity.

There's nothing sexy about this book. Sure, there are plenty of depictions of sex, but this is very much about the impact of the interactions, and the conversations that happen either side.

It highlights issues of shame, embarrassment, and the treatment of prostitutes as less than women. I enjoyed the way it challenged my ideas of the profession, and some pre-conceived notions about people who use prostitutes.

Chester Brown is an advocate for the women behind the profession, and the last third of my edition included copious notes on the legality of prostitution in Canada among other useful information. Comic-less pages that I found equally valuable.

Honestly, I flicked through it initially out of curiosity but it ended up captivating me and I found it to be a fantastic read. It's compassionate and will really challenge societal views.

[Sam Quixote · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been a fan of Chester Brown's for many years now and have always enjoyed what he's put out, whether it's childhood memoir (I Never Liked You, The Playboy) or historical narrative (Louis Riel), he always produces work that's both highly readable and unlike any other graphic novel out there. He is a true original.

So when I looked him up thinking that it's been a few years since Louis Riel, I was pleasantly surprised that he had another book completed, Paying For It, but even more surprised that he'd gone back to memoir and that it turns out it's about his personal history with prostitutes.

And that's part of why this book is so interesting - it makes you learn something about yourself even if, like me, you're a grown up and think you have a fixed world view. A comics artist I respect not only going with hookers but also proud of it? And then I thought why is that a bad thing? It's probably because part of our culture often shames those people who are famous and having affairs but oftentimes those people are married already - Chester Brown isn't.

As I read the book I realised there is another side to prostitution. It's not all street walkers and junkies, there's a civilised way of hiring a prostitute. Chester Brown shows this as well as the humanity of all the prostitutes he's been with, challenging the reader's (certainly mine) view that all prostitutes have sad lives and that people who hire them are sad themselves. Brown certainly isn't a damaged person with issues and self-hatred and neither are the prostitutes in the book. And why is it anybody's business besides theirs? If a man wants to pay a woman to have sex with him, who is anyone to say that it's wrong?

The book makes the case for legalised prostitution as well as another side to this complex and intriguing person that is Chester Brown. The artwork is wonderful as always and the book, despite having an agenda, is always entertaining and never overburdens the reader with the impression that the author is standing on a soapbox, droning on. But if you want to read more on the subject Brown has included a number of appendices at the back of the book that develops a number of arguments presented in the graphic novel.

Once again I've picked up a Chester Brown book and once again I set it down, completed, a better person having read it. If this is your first time experiencing this artist then my only question is - what took you so long? My next words would be - good choice. "Paying for It" is a fantastic and vital book which hopefully influences peoples' opinions in a positive way all the while never forgetting why people pick up books to start with - for a good read.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chester Brown's paean to the joys of prostitution (hiring them, not being one; I suspect if he wrote from the latter point of view this would have been a very different book) is sort of an odd experience. The narrative was engrossing, believe it or not, and Chester is a more appealing character than he really should be, considering that he seems emotionally detached from everything and everyone in the world. But Brown's philosophy feels ill thought-out even though he goes on and on and ON about it; while he purports to weigh the pros and cons at great (and I do mean great) length, he never seems to wind up saying much. He works hard to dress up his maunderings on prostitution and turn them into a Platonic disquisition on the nature of love and the morality of the sex trade, but they really don't add up to anything more than "I think prostitution is a really good idea because I enjoy hiring prostitutes because it's a lot better than romance or monogamy." Well, ok, if you say so, brah!

Brown also elides over a lot of stuff that made me do a triple take. For example, in one sequence, he's having sex with a prostitute who keeps saying "Ow! Ow! Ow!" and who, according to Brown, appears to be in pain. She tells him that he isn't hurting her, but it's obvious that he is. He thinks to himself, "It's kind of a turn-on to me that she's in pain, but still, I think I'll cut this session short" or words to that effect. This experience gives him no pause whatsoever, even though it suggests that she might be unwilling or exploited, or both. Other than noting that her pain is turning him on, though (blecch), he doesn't appear to give it a second thought, other than to note that she probably isn't involved in human trafficking because, um, well, it's not clear why. Maybe because her accent is Canadian?

And whether he means to or not, Brown dehumanizes the prostitutes he portrays, as he never shows their faces or any of their physical features. The reader sees them mostly from behind, and he draws them all the same: thin with long dark hair. Brown claims that he used this technique to protect the women's privacy. Yeah, right -- because Brown's artistic technique has such verisimilitude. Give me a break. Brown's photo is in the back of the book, and I would never in a million years have recognized him if I had only seen his own drawings of himself; he draws himself as a generic dude with an oval head and glasses. So he couldn't have drawn the women in a similarly generic way? Anyone who's read Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" is going to see Brown's explanation for the rationalization really is.

Brown also spends the better part of the story deriding romantic love and monogamy, dismissing them as, among other things, "possessive love." Fine -- that's not necessarily an indefensible position. But by the end of the book, he's involved in -- you guessed it -- a monogamous relationship with one of the women he hired. He indulges in another paragraphs-long expostulation to explain this fact away -- something about how he's not a jealous person so it's different when he does it -- but his handwaving doesn't do much to obviate the fact that he's basically just revealed that the entire book is more or less an exercise in hypocrisy.

And finally, anyone who says he has "respect and affection" for Dave Sim has just lost me entirely.

So, three stars because I was riveted in the way I'd be riveted by a cobra about to strike, but I'll admit I kind of hate myself for it.

[Ariel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like all of Chester's work, this book is beautiful cartooning. Every panel is a pleasure to look at. I must say, though, I find it sad that the boy from "I Never Liked You" turned into the man in "Paying For It."

Why do I find it sad, Chester would ask, when he himself is quite happy in the book. I'm not sure happy is the right word... the book has an emotionless, flat, analytical quality throughout. Apart from his very first experience with a prostitute I wouldn't say Chester ever seems to experience "joy." He experiences physical pleasure sensations in his body.

In general, I agree with most of Chester's views on prostitution - that it should be decriminalized, that paid sex and unpaid sex have a lot more in common than many people think, that people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, etc. However, the thing that I find weird in this book, that Chester never addresses, is why someone would want to have sex with a person that doesn't want to have sex with them (for reasons other than money). Chester repeatedly mentions that most of the prostitutes he's with don't seem to enjoy the experience. "Romantic love" aside, isn't one of the best parts of sex that someone wants you as much as you want them? For all the prostitution trumpeting and self-psychoanalyzing he does, I would have liked some look into why Chester doesn't desire being desired, or if he does, what it's like to take that out of the equation.

In the notes section, Seth calls Chester a "robot" and says that he has a "limited emotional range" so maybe sex without physical or emotional reciprocity is just fine for Chester, but a deeper analysis of that psychology would have been interesting.

[Erica · Rating 3 out of 5]

This Canadian dude wrote and illustrated about his journey with love and sex, how he gave up on and then eschewed "romantic love" and turned to prostitutes for sex while receiving normal love and acceptance from friends and family. He eventually comes back around to considering the possible link between love and sex after having been a "john" for several years.

It's an interesting perspective, that of a prostitute's client. I could relate to some of his thoughts - romance grosses me out and I suspect the whole "together forever" thing is a hoax or maybe just antiquated. I agree with him when he says you can't expect to get so much fulfillment from just one person and you can get the same kind of validation but without the possessive nature from your friends and maybe your family. There were some points that I'd argue - his idea that prostitution is like paid dating, that it's a form of person-to-person relationship. I see it as a business not unlike personal chefs, house-cleaners, massage therapists, even doctors and food servers. The business is based on personal contact as a service. It sounds like this is an issue he discusses with his friends and some of them also see prostitution as a business which is why their opinions on the subject differ from his. Like his friends, I don't have any personal experience with prostitution. This guy does, but I felt that actually makes him more biased because he can only look at the situation from the point of view of an end-user, as the customer. It sounds like he's given more thought to the service provided than to the industry, as a whole. Which is fine, it's not like there's a right or wrong way to look at this, but it did grate a little.

I was fascinated by the story. There's some empowerment going on but there's also some mansplaining (in as much as only HE understands love and everyone else is being fooled. No, he doesn't say that outright but it sure does come across that way, at least in this reader's mind, when he talks about the subject) This feels like honest account but also you gotta wonder if this guy is something of a Spock because he's so logical and unemotional. He's also potentially blindsided by his arrogance in that he seems to have taken the information his servicers gave him at face value because of course they open up to him and tell him their life stories, all trusting and stuff. He's that one special guy, the escort-whisperer. There's no way any of them have created a backstory to tell customers who ask, right?

The illustrations are fine. They're primarily centered on him and if you're not a fan of the gaunt, balding guy who is naked for half the book, then the art isn't going to appeal. Also, the lesson here, despite the disclaimer, is that all prostitutes are the same and interchangeable. But the pictures got the point across, for the most part, and cartoon sex is always entertaining.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book started off by being pleasantly subversive – just within the first 10 or so pages, there were questions of love, relationships, monogamy, polygamy, and prostitution. Chester’s girlfriend informs him that she is in love with someone else. To me, that means something right away: we are done. Chester then asks a question entirely foreign to my mind: “What do you want to do?” Hmm…. Okay, fair. Go on. They go on to decide that he is okay with his (still) girlfriend to pursue a relationship with someone else, start dating him, and subsequently have him move in. All while he is there. He reports that he is happy with this arrangement, and you know what? I actually believe him. But then he starts to have a sense of dread and loneliness creep up on him, which he satisfies by hiring escorts. He takes to the streets of Toronto in the late 90s and early 00s. He starts a new adventure on the sex front, deciding that he will be… Paying for It.

I read some of the initial parts of this book at a corner that he names in the book. I was waiting for a friend and decided to dig in. I looked up, took in the atmosphere, imagined Chester biking down the street 23 years ago, looking for sex. Bit of an odd feeling, with none of the romance of reading Salinger in Manhattan or Dickens in London. For more specific corners, he used first letters and a dash, but it was very easy to identify the locations (unless he was making it up, which he could have).

Let’s talk about the positives: in a way, just having something like this out there does a lot for getting rid of stigma around sex work. It seems like a normal enough process, transactional and to the point. Chester spends a good chunk of the book, a period of several years, batting away pointed questions by friends. His answers are informative, as are the appendices at the back of the book, which list a lot of problems that people believe exist surrounding prostitution and sex work and rebuts them.

Negatives? Not much happens, apart from chapter after chapter after chapter of Chester having sex with escorts. That’s it. In that sense, the book feels like quicksand – before you know it, you are sinking ever deeper into a wild depression. He feels empty (no pun intended) after sexual encounters, and this is transmitted to the reader. Night after night for years (not consecutively, but on a weekly basis – he is on a cartoonist’s salary, after all) he has sex with this and that person. And that’s it.

[Dov Zeller · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this book. The panels are simple and clean-- black and white, stark and compelling. The story is fascinating, but not for the reasons one might imagine, and it is, I think, appropriately mundane. Because it's about his experiences as someone who hires sex workers, Brown could have offered a graphic memoir of dramatized racy controversial stuff, but the book is quiet, sober and respectful, even when disturbing. His introspective and reporterly voice is almost eerie in its cool self-reflection. It is, in fact, a strange portrait of the artist grappling with the question of intimacy, and I think deserves attention for its rigorous honesty in that regard. As a kind of social manifesto, it is much less compelling. And the reason I don't give it a five out of five is because of the absurdly careless, insensitive commentary at the end of the book. A postscript can really shift the meaning or message of a work of art, and that's what happened for me in this case. Though "Paying for It" was thoughtful in the ways that it was, I found myself questioning the artist's self-awareness, and focusing in on the kinds of meaningful thoughtfulness he does not access. But it is one representation, one person's sense of his own experience, and I think an important exploration of relationships, sexuality, work and human connection. Perhaps this is a book best read alongside something written by sex workers or in support of the value of the experiences of sex workers. Just after a little search I found this...

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...

[Olga · Rating 1 out of 5]

I will never, ever like johns. So you write a negative review of some 18 year old sex worker on some forum because she can't seem to look you in the face when you're fucking her? It's not like she's financially coerced into doing this for a living or anything. Bravo for being wonderfully self absorbed, self serving and uncritical in your exploration of your penchant for purchased sex.

[Maggie Gordon · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should start this review by saying that Chester Brown and I do not have politically incompatible beliefs. I have a lot of ethical issues with sex work, but I am a pragmatist at heart who believes that criminalisation causes far more harm than good. I picked up Brown's book because I was interested in seeing the perspective of a John on sex work, but I'm afraid that this book didn't allay any feminist concerns. Furthermore, I found it to be a lazy and intellectually dishonest approach to the debates surrounding sex work.

To begin this review, I will note that Brown is an accomplished cartoonist; however, his simplistic style and attempts to ensure anonymity the sex workers made the book feel quite detached. The only time the work seemed impassioned in either the art or writing was when he was defending his own right to partake in sex work with a close friend. Otherwise, despite the controversial subject, the book was very bland and lacked a real emotive hook for readers.

Where the book really falls apart for me, as I implied above, is in how Brown's arguments are structured. Simply put, I find his research lacking and his points weak. When a non-academic book chooses to make use of academic literature, it is easy to undermine your own work by not researching broad enough. Brown features abolitionist feminists who wish to end sex work, but not feminists who support sex work. This inaccurately frames the sex work debate and makes it look as if Brown is setting up a straw (wo)man. Additionally, Brown's arguments are weak. Sex work is okay because individual choices that don't interfere with property rights are okay. He does little to counter arguments against this libertarian perspective, save those coming from radical feminists of a particular type. He does not contextualise his own position as a buyer and the privilege that he has, or do any balancing of the harms and benefits of sex work. He obviously believes in his right to engage in this activity, and he doesn't really give full respect to opposing viewpoints. This is problematic as the book is presented as an argument for sex work rather than simply a memoir.

Miscellaneous Things that Bugged Me About "Paying For It"

- The book starts out using the term sex worker (see: introduction), then prostitute, then whore. The shift in Chester's language perturbs me as it seems to me to be a progressive dehumanisation of sex workers.

- The scene where he admits to being turned on by hurting the sex worker he was with, and where he shows "compassion" by trying to finish quickly was creepy and discomforting. At the start of his interactions with sex workers, he was very aware and concerned about their individual needs, but this behaviour rapidly devolves as he continues to partake in their services.

- At no point did Brown ever talk about the sexual pleasure experienced by his partners. He barely spoke about the sex workers themselves, other than commentary on how they made him feel or how beautiful/ugly they thought he was.

- Brown makes some arguments about how addiction and trafficking are choices that people make. This is a very libertarian perspective that lacks nuance and understanding of social context. Instead of framing his arguments on a social level, he focuses on individual rights. This perturbs me that he seems to think that having sex with trafficked victims is okay because they want so desperately to escape their circumstances. He does say he'd try to help anyone he encounters in this situation, but he also seems to be completely oblivious to signs of sex trafficking, and ambivalent at changing his behaviour in order to prevent harm.

[Nikki · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an offbeat, extremely down-to-earth story about Chester Brown’s evolution into a whoremonger. Imagine what would happen if Jerry Seinfeld realized he was tired of having girlfriends and started visiting prostitutes instead. That’s the basic vibe of this memoir. Have you ever had full-on intercourse with a girl two times without noticing that she didn’t speak English? What do you do when the girl who answers the door doesn’t match the description you were given? Do you reject her outright or do you try to go through with it because you can’t bear to hurt her feelings? What if you find her so unattractive that you can’t get it up? What happens when one of the hookers gets mad at you for taking too long to finish? Do you still need to tip her? What would Emily Post say? Did you ever notice that hookers only initiate oral sex because they hope you’ll be too spent to bother screwing them afterwards? Chester answers these questions and more.

Once he gets the hang of things, he starts to get a little preachy because — guess what? — he really, really thinks that prostitution should be decriminalized. Fortunately, he spends much more time in bed with random girls than he does on his soapbox.

[Kate]

An illustrated apologia for being a john. I recently heard eminent brain scientist Simon Baron-Cohen on the radio discussing the issue of evil in humanity and how it comes down to a clinical lack of empathy. He basically came out and said that one line of medical thought is to consider psychopaths as severely disabled because of their extreme lack of empathy. I'm not calling Chester Brown evil or a psychopath, but he is clearly unable to access his emotions in the same way as most people; note the logical gymnastics he has to perform in order to understand that the fleeting feeling of happiness he feels while slightly depressed after his ex-girlfriend asks him to move out is related to the idea of owning his own place. He uses this same lack of emotional range to justify his regular visits to prostitutes, even those he depicts as "18" and not speaking english. If he has a momentary doubt about the ethics of those encounters, they are quickly swept away under a self-serving screed of libertarian extremism disguised as Appendices. Prostitution is a complicated human endeavor, but Brown cloaks the very real abuse that most prostitutes have been subject to under the banner of adults making choices. Some women and men do choose prostitution, but many come to it after desperate attempts to avoid it, or escape it, but Brown's own limited emotional range truly does handicap him so that he cannot possibly even guess at what the women he pays experience outside of a half hour with him.



That said, I've always liked Brown's art and I love free speech. I'd like less libertarian philosophy and more comics, next time.

[Hillevi · Rating 2 out of 5]

chester brown states his case. i do not agree. it's not a story. it has the potential to be, but fails. which probably is a shame for chester brown, because it's surprisingly often via stories that you make people really think about something - not by stating your case in a matter-of-fact way. the appendices are extra ridiculous.

in the middle of the novel, chester changes his mind; he does not oppose the idea of romantic love, but of possessive love -- and it makes me wonder why paying a prostitute makes the love less possessive than, say, an open relationship?

the character chester brown is despicable to me. not because he pays for sex but because of the reckless and inconsiderate way he justifies his personal opinions without giving a single thought to the everyday life of the many sex workers of the world. maybe there is such a thing as a happy whore and it's too bad that her or his work should be illegal, BUT i am confident that the happy whore in no way is the average sex worker and to legislate for the exception is not sound nor reasonable.

[Peter Derk · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a true, comic book story of a man who eschewed romantic relationships in favor of fulfilling his needs for love through friends and his needs for sex through prostitutes.

At the time of the events chronicled, out-call prostitution was legal in Canada. This meant that a prostitute could visit a john in the john's home or a hotel, but they could not operate out of a brothel.

If you already have very strong views regarding prostitution, I don't think this book is going to be for you. It probably won't change your mind.

However, if you're like most people who THINK they have strong views on it but if you're being honest you haven't really put that much thought into it, then it's worth a read.

The other thing, Chester comes off as a bit odd in the book. Maybe a little cold. Because we see his inner thoughts as well as what he says, something that you only really get on this level in comics, he can come off as very blunt in a lot of situations. So if you struggle reading books where the narrator isn't super likeable, this probably isn't for you.

A lot of the book makes a case for the decriminalization of prostitution. This is different from legalization as legalization means that it would be government-regulated whereas decriminalizing would just mean it's not something you could get in trouble for anymore. Legalizing would mean licenses and whatnot, decriminalizing wouldn't.

As me, it's kind of hard to know how I feel. I don't really want to waste anyone's time speculating on whether or not this is a workable system, and if you want to know a TON about that, read this book. Seriously, he's got it covered.

No, dear friends, I think the more interesting thought experiment for me would be this:

If prostitution were decriminalized in Colorado on January 1st, meaning we could be stoned and paying for sex on the same wild day, would Pete consider it?

And by consider it, I mean considering BEING a prostitute.

Well, I'm going to make some assumptions first.

Assumption 1: Someone would actually be interested in hiring me to have sex with them. Frankly I've been trying to GIVE this stuff away, and so far not a lot of takers. But let's just assume that it's because people feel guilty getting the goods (this feels gross now. Just now) so cheap, and once they could pay for it they would feel better.

Assumption 2: The going rate would be $200. Is that reasonable? I have no idea. But it makes it a lot easier to do the math in my head, and $100 seems a little light. Right? Maybe? Let's also assume that $200 is either untaxed or the post-tax number.

Assumption 3: I would have agency in terms of who I decide to see. This was kind of a big point in the book, that prostitutes should have the option to say No or screen johns just the way johns have the option to say No or decide who they would like to sleep with. It's a two-way street. So while I acknowledge that most if not all my customers would unlikely be someone I would try to pick up at a bar (listen to me, talking like a guy who can pick up people at a bar. This whoring is getting to my head), I could make decisions to pass on women who were drunk or seemed sketchy, and probably men in general. Sorry guys? I mean, you fellas haven't seemed to interested up to now, so I'll assume that light apology has us square.

Assumption 4: I could have a "menu" of things that I would and would not do. I don't have to do anything I don't want to do. In terms of what happens during the appointment, I am in control. This would be on the table before I met up with someone, so they would already be aware. Along with this assumption, I run the risk that someone I see will try to push the boundaries or even "order off menu" by force. I have to do my best to assess my potential clients, and because prostitution is decriminalized in this world, I can go to the police if something awful happens because what I'm doing is not against the law. Although I would think that if all this law changing happened it would be about 10 minutes before there was a Yelp for prostitutes and johns. I'll leave it up to you all what hilarious name it would have as Yelp is already taken and I think that would have been a home run in this case.

Assumption 5: I couldn't be fired from my job for this. Much in the way that people from my work wouldn't be fired for having a series of consensual one-night stands, if I decided to engage in prostitution and it didn't come in to play at work, then game on.

Assumption 6: I am me. I'm not a 16 year old girl kidnapped from Eastern Europe. I'm not a drug addict. I'm not Marky Mark either. I'm the exact same guy with the same background and experiences. So if I sound a little blase about the whole thing, just remember that I'm talking only about me, not about the institution of prostitution. That's a great name for a Nirvana cut that just happened by accident there.

Assumption 7: Most of these appointments would be centered around the pleasure of the client. I wouldn't likely get much, if any, sexual gratification from them.

Assumption 8: Look...I'm not going to make any wild claims about my prowess in the bedroom here. That doesn't really seem like a Goodreads-y brag. Let's just assume that through the magical combination of Will&Pill I could work it all out on an adequate level.

So. Would I do it?

Let's talk turkey. Which means money for some reason. Maybe because that crap is expensive as hell at the grocery store. If I got 6 bucks per pound for prostituting myself, I would be chugging microwaved Haagen Dazs and raking it in. Those turkeys are on easy street.

Anyway, this WOULD have a pretty significant impact money-wise. I mean, every appointment would increase my income 10%. 10 appointments a month would equal my current pay. And let me tell you, it's tough out here. I'm in a weird position. I've been looking for a little weekend work, and nobody is interested in me. Seriously. I've applied for every dishwasher and janitorial job that hits Craigslist. Nothing.

Prostituting twice a week would mean I could pay off my student loans in less than a year without touching the money from my regular job.

Now, I'm told that money doesn't buy happiness. That's what I'm told. What I KNOW from experience is that having no money does not equal happiness either. What no money buys is carpet that is not clearly grey or brown but some color in the middle. Diner Gravy would be my best guess for what's printed under the swatch. I think we can all agree that money is not the most important factor in the happiness equation, but that being a broke ass fool is not fun.

There is a consideration when it comes to disease. I think that's something that stops some people from visiting a prostitute. The fear of disease. I guess my thinking there is that it's not a lot more risky than having one-night stands, which lots of people do. Except in a one-night stand you might be less able to control any part of the situation.

Someone really should set up a dating site filter for diseases. You know, if I have herpes, I could check the herpes box and then get matched up with someone else who has herpes. That way, who gives a shit? Or at the very least you could avoid a very awkward conversation.

Another thing to think about, what does this do to my future relationships? Do people want to date an ex hooker man? An ex TJ Hooker, if you will?

The answer to that one is a little sad. I think I've hit a point in my life where there's not much use to making decisions based on what my hypothetical, possibly non-existent future wife would think about those decisions. She may or may not ever show up, and if she does, who knows what she'll be like. I guess I run the risk of repelling a soul mate, but on the other hand it's possible that my soul mate would be repelled by...I don't know, the Diner Gravy carpeting? So basing a decision on that is futile.

So what it clearly comes down to, for me, is whether or not it's something I could do without causing myself too much emotional distress.

Maybe I would hate it. Maybe I would do it once, feel some kind of intense loneliness and never consider it again. But again, I think that's a risk you run with a one-night stand as well. Or even a long term relationship for that matter. You might not like it. But you have the option to never do it again.

I'm almost positive I wouldn't like it. But what if it opened serious doors for me? Meant I could live wherever I wanted without securing a job first. Meant I could go back to school if I wanted. Meant I'd have twice as much free time. Meant I didn't have to wake up early ever again. Would I like my new life enough to feel that it was a worthwhile trade-off?

I guess maybe the point here is that I'm an educated, thoughtful, nice person. Who would consider hooking if it were legal and therefore it was possible to set up some structure for myself. So while nobody can guarantee that prostitution wouldn't be a corrupt, horrible system that ended poorly for a lot of people, I CAN look at it and say..."Well, I might do it myself."

You should check out this book. Don't worry about reading the appendices. They take things a little too far. But read it and tell me what you think. Is Chester crazy? Am I crazy? Am I (god forbid) crazIER than Chester?

[Malbadeen · Rating 4 out of 5]

come along with me on the journey that led me to read this book:

part one: I kept on hearing about "CHESTER 5000"* and how "sexy" and "hot" and "sexy/hot" it was and so naturally when I saw a graphic novel at the library that said "Chester" on it, I grabbed it (notice I didn't actually seek out the smut I just grabbed what was already there).

part two: I bring the "CHESTER" book home and I'm reading, reading, reading and wondering all the time, "where is the sexy?!", "I don't see any sexy", "this is soooo NOT sexy".

part three: I re-investigate the cover and realize I have actually picked up a copy of "Louis Riel"** BY CHESTER Brown. Not, in fact, "CHESTER 5000" which I thought I picked up. And "Louis Riel" BY CHESTER Brown is not sexy because it's the story of some long ago founding father of Canada.

part four: I give up on CHESTER Brown's Louis Riel and e-mail my friend (and publisher of CHESTER 5000) and tell him the silly tale of my mix up at which point he says, "ha ha ha ha ha ha! You want a copy of CHESTER 5000? I'll give you a copy of that, I'll leave it on my porch tomorrow".

Part five: I go to pick up CHESTER 5000 and there are 4 other graphic novels awaiting me - yay! none of which is CHESTER 5000 - boo! at which point I give up on ever reading CHESTER 5000 and move on.

Part six: I'm at one of Portland's many lovely bookstores that is replete with graphic novels and I see "Paying for it" by CHESTER BROWN!!!!!!! and I see it's about sex too and I can't believe the coincidence so I buy it and I read it.

The end.

What does that have to do with the actual book?

nothing.

*see Chester 5000 here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77...

**see Louis Riel here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26...

***See 4 other graphic novels here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23...
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10... http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11... http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...

[Kyla · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admire CB's honesty - and Sook Yin Lee's by default - but at the heart of this, I felt his arguments rang hollow. Each discussion of a woman's beauty or reviews on the internet or dubious legal age may have been honest thoughts of a John - but they creeped me right out. He seemed to think that prostitution was always entered into by women with a penchant for sex work, and never seemed to take seriously class, drug addiction, exploitation, pimps, sex slavery....that last one really bugged me. He had never thought about sex slavery and immigration until a CBC program in 2003? Blinders. I urge him - and anyone else - to listen to Lucia's Letter, a radio doc about the experiences of women coming Guatemala and sold into prostitution (http://wgcu.org/yourvoice/radio/lucia...) It came on the radio today after I finished reading this book and the two accounts of the freedom women supposedly experience from prostitution could not be more different. The casual use of "whore" and "whoring" really disturbed me too - if you feel you are engaged in a new/old morality play, try a new vocabulary.

All in all, as someone I know said, he seems to want to convince everyone that they are wrong about romantic love because he can't feel it and that he has the only answer - paying for it. I wasn't convinced.

**Bonus points for Seth's comments at the end of the book. No bonus points for Joe Matt's predictable ass-hattery.

[Pierre Kilmister · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hola soy Chester Brown y voy a vender que la prostitución está genial.
Sinceramente mis expectativas eran bien bajas, y no es un cómic que me pillara en una librería o tienda especializada, pero es una lectura que tengo en un club del cómic en el que estoy apuntado.
El dibujo me encanta, las viñetas si que podrían ser un poco más grandes porque estás a un paso de necesitar una lupa, y lo que me falla es quizás la historia aunque el tipo ha respetado el anonimato y ha omitido ciertos detalles, que bueno...
Todo el mundo es libre de hacer lo que quiera, pero es una cosa que desde mi punto de vista no está bien.
No me vale que me compares los derechos de los homosexuales con la prostitución, porque es un argumento que yo no te compro.
A favor diré que a las protagonistas se les ha humanizado, demostrando que son personas pese a que la sociedad las discrimina por ejercer este "trabajo", y quizás sea lo único que me ha parecido interesante.
Como para abrir el debate estaría muy bien... Y poco más porque te quiere vender que ser putero es la leche, y ya eso es imparcial.
Muchos hemos tenido rupturas chungas y nos ha dado por hacer manualidades, leer, videojuegos, juegos de mesa e incluso estudiar... Pero pagar por esos servicios...
Lo siento no me cae bien el tío y pocas cosas buenas puedo decir.

[Nate D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Blunt memoir of, yes, paying for sex, broken into chapters corresponding to different call girls, expanded with the author's conversations with the girls about their professions, and with friends on why this is, to him, preferable to the possessiveness and pain of long-term monogamous romantic love. This is a comic, so it's entirely illustrated, but not exactly graphic and certainly not erotic, everything depicted flatly at a remove and from a kind of philosophical distance. Brown's case is well-reasoned and thoughtful, but also sort of reductive -- sure, lots of crappy monogamous relationships resemble prostitution anyway, or trap people in impossible ideals, but this is, I think, more in line with the total inequality of social structures finally (albeit slowly) being phased out. Brown entirely disregards the possibility of relationship as a free exchange between two equals, or perhaps considers this a self-deception (in many cases, due to structural inequalities, it may be), but I'm more optimistic here. Still, even if you strongly disagree, it's a notably candid take on its subject, moreso as a visual memoir.

[Ingrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite all the negative hubbub about this book, I didn't find it offensive at all. It is radical and radically self-centered in some ways, but he makes a lot of good points. And remember: most of the fodder people are throwing at Brown was SUPPLIED by him and volunteered by him. Which puts everything into a different perspective.

As far as how it has affected me, the whole anti-possessive monogamy thing wasn't a new concept, but the book drove it home in an interesting way. I certainly look at prostitution differently now (especially the mechanics of the operation). Brown may be a bit too idealistic about prostitution, but in my opinion, most the people here reviewing him are a bit too moralistic. Who cares if he enjoys having sex with young women? Who cares if he draws his penis? It's an autobiographical piece, why did people expect him to be anything but self indulgent?

It's worth reading if you have any interest at all in prostitution, or alternative romantic arrangements.

[Seth T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have never been to a prostitute. Nor do I really ever intend to visit one. Hiring an escort, like eating balut, is not a thing I ever plan to count among my worldly experiences. Like pretty much all of Chester Brown's friends—as depicted in Paying for It—I have certain qualms about the idea of paying for sex. That said, Brown, through this memoir chronicling nearly fifteen years of visits to prostitutes, presents a compelling case for the decriminalization of prostitution in a pluralistic society.

Chester Brown, largely noted for his engaging biographical work concerning Louis Riel, stopped dating in 1996. In a conscious act of will, he abandoned the idea that romantic love was something that should be expressed in possessive monogamous relationships. He would later describe the kind of possessive monogamy found in romantic relationships as "evil." Brown became disillusioned as he noticed the jealousy, envy, and strife that seemed to eventually govern all such relationships. Though he began distancing himself from the concept of romantic relationships as a means to spare himself pain, he eventually came to see this abstinence as a moral position. Yet as we've seen in the Roman church too often in recent years, having an ethical stance doesn't diminish the presence of the appetites.

Brown, as realized in Paying for It, recognizes his abiding desire for sexual contact and begins entertaining the idea of paying for it. This memoir follows the development of Brown's thoughts toward prostitution, from simply entertaining the idea to coming to terms with his plan to act on his desire to an easy comfortability with his frequent visits to different sex workers in the Toronto area. Brown is rather forthright throughout and the reader gets a look into a thoughtlife that may veer in radically different directions from one's own. Of course, as with Louis Riel's, Chester Brown's life receives a healthy amount of spit and polish and conversations are streamlined to most effectively convey the rhetoric. Still, Brown portrays himself in rather self-effacing and non-flattering visual terms—and the Brown he presents on the page is not anything of the obviously heroic sort.

Brown may be his own story's hero, but you almost wouldn't know it.

For a book that catalogues every one of Brown's sexual exploits between 1996 and 2003—and there are more than a handful—the work is decidedly un-sexy. Paying for It's artwork is simple and rather small and Brown typically fits eight uniform panels on each small page (Paying for It is roughly the size of a small prose novel). The work is very clinical throughout, and while the reader is presented with Brown's nude form often, the face of any given partner is always obscured. Instances of Brown's sexual experiences are typically dominated by his thoughts regarding events as they are playing out. Sometimes the reader sits in on Brown ruminating on his own insecurities or the etiquette a particular situation might demand. Other times Brown evaluates the attractiveness of the girl-object underneath him. Post-coital conversations abound, with Brown and the prostitute discussing the nature of prostitution or Brown's line of work or even the nature of love. After the fact, Brown often ruminates on what kind of review he'll later give the girl on Terb (kind of a Yelp! for sex workers, from what I gather).



But as fascinating as Brown's chronicle of these encounters is, I found his intervening conversations with friends much more engaging. Between episodes with prostitutes, Brown spends time trying to justify his opinions and new lifestyle to fellow cartoonists (usually Joe Matt and the mononymous Seth) and ex-girlfriends (with whom he is still close friends). It's in these discussions that Brown's philosophy emerges as each of his friends is in some way hostile to the concept of paying for sex. Each conversation focuses on different (though generally related) aspects of the moral neutrality of the sex-worker/john relationship and through these, Brown presents a pretty well-founded defense for about half his position.

After reading Paying for It, I'm pretty well convinced that in any Western society today, prostitution should be decriminalized. This doesn't say any necessary thing about society's moral response to prostitution—just that like divorce or homosexuality or smoking or having bad opinions, it's not one of the things we legally punish a person over. The other half of Brown's argument, that romantic love is bad, is less well-founded and most readers won't find it too convincing (despite his occasionally astute observations regarding the monogamous relationship and romantic love).



As with Louis Riel, Brown presents copious endnotes that serve to enrich the text. Brown uses these often to spell out his beliefs further, which despite being pretty much raw text is still fascinating and worthwhile. One of the many appendices (#23, I believe) is devoted to Seth's response to his portrayal in the book. He uses this space to clarify some of the represented conversations and take a couple cute jabs at Brown—e.g. "Robots don't have midlife crises."



All told, Paying for It is a worthy package examining a lurid subject matter in a way that might even be appropriate in more liberal high schools. The book is certainly sexually frank, but so are biology and psychology texts. Many will find themselves morally at odds both with Chester Brown's arguments and with his life choices. Nonetheless, Brown approaches an old topic with fresh eyes (at least eyes that are fresh to many of us) and does so in expert fashion.

____________
[Review courtesy of Good Ok Bad]

[Verba Non Res · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paying for It es la historia de un john, o sea un consumidor de prostitución, contada e ilustrada por él mismo. Solo esto ya es interesante. Hay muchísimos varones heterosexuales que pagan por sexo; esto lo sabemos, desde el vamos, porque la venta de prostitución para varones heterosexuales es un negocio que funciona muy bien y desde tiempos remotos. Lo que no hay son muchos que se atrevan a admitir que pagan por sexo; al menos, no en público. En privado, como también sabemos los varones heterosexuales, es otra historia. Esto ocurre en nuestra cultura latina; no sé en otras. Durante la adolescencia, el “irse de putas” es un lugar común, como lo son los relatos de padres, hermanos, amigos, hasta cuñados, que llevan a los chicos a “debutar”. No es que el consumo de prostitución haya sido la experiencia invariable de todos, pero todos sí tuvimos un contacto al menos de segunda mano con esa práctica. Encontrarse con adultos que se reconozcan como consumidores de prostitución ya es mucho más raro. Está la idea de que es algo de que avergonzarse, si no por razones éticas, o políticas, al menos porque está mal visto que un hombre no pueda conseguir sexo sin pagar por él. Hasta hubo alguna campaña de concientización que se basó en esa idea por demás patriarcal.





Entonces tenemos este cómic de Chester Brown, que viene a decirnos que él sí necesita pagar. Su argumento es bastante sencillo. Como no le interesan las relaciones de tipo romántico, y tampoco tiene las habilidades sociales necesarias para conseguir sexo casual, la única opción que le queda, aparte del celibato, es consumir prostitución. Seguimos la historia de Brown desde que su última novia lo deja por otro hombre, al que incluso se lleva a vivir a la casa que comparten y esto, para sorpresa del lector y del propio Brown, no lo afecta para nada. (Suena un poco difícil de creer, o en todo caso patológico, pero démosle el beneficio de la duda).



Pasado un tiempo de total abstinencia, está convencido de que no quiere tener ninguna otra relación romántica en su vida, pero que aun así necesita del contacto físico y el sexo. Sigue su decisión de pagar por los servicios de una prostituta, y los prolegómenos hasta que concreta el primer encuentro. En términos narrativos, esta es la mejor parte de la historia.

El resto sigue más o menos así: Brown visita a distintas prostitutas, pasa por experiencias muy diversas en cuanto a la calidad del sexo y el grado de turbiedad de los encuentros, habla con las chicas y descubre que tienen distintas personalidades y motivaciones e ideas sobre lo que hacen. Esto también es muy interesante. Por desgracia, Brown dibujó a todas las mujeres exactamente de la misma manera, lo que se supone es para proteger su identidad, pero come on. Simplemente las podría haber dibujado con caras distintas y eso hubiese sido suficiente para protegerlas y para ayudar al lector. Me suena a pereza de ilustrador, o quizás a algo más grave. Por cierto, los dibujos de Brown no son de lo mejor. Su alter ego ilustrado, en particular, es inexpresivo, casi robótico, y eso le juega un poco en contra. Sobre todo al final, cuando el cómic pasa de autobiografía a manifiesto puro, vemos su carita de anteojos repetida cuadro tras cuadro, mientras proliferan los globos de diálogo. Creo que el argumento se hubiera entendido sin tanta explicación.



La propuesta de Brown, analizar la compra y venta de sexo desde una perspectiva racional y abstracta, es válida, y también bastante original. El suyo no es un estudio sociológico ni político. Se centra en la validez elemental de la transacción comercial: cada una de las partes tiene algo que la otra quiere; entonces hacen un intercambio, y todos felices. Y sí, creo que acá el autor tiene un buen punto. En abstracto, me parece más ético pagar por sexo que conseguirlo por medio de un clásico levante. En este segundo caso puede perfectamente haber consentimiento, pero ¿qué pasa si ese consentimiento es logado por medio de manipulaciones, de mentiras? ¿No es más libre la persona que ofrece sexo como parte de un contrato en el que las cosas están claras desde el vamos, donde ambas partes saben lo que van a obtener y lo que van a dar a cambio? Está bien, no habrá intimidad, pero cada uno sabe qué grado de intimidad necesita. No habrá amor, pero Adam Smith ya decía que el panadero no te vende pan porque esté enamorado de vos. La idea de que el sexo solo pueda llevarse a cabo en un contexto de intimidad o amor es de raíz cristiana, y el feminismo debería habérsela extirpado hace rato. Es, por otro lado, utópica la idea de que pueda existir algo así como un consentimiento pleno, totalmente libre, totalmente informado. La prostitución, de hecho, parece ser lo más cerca que estamos de ese ideal.

Hasta acá, todo bien. Chester Brown acaba de descubrir la América del sexo pago. Le parece, además, una alternativa preferible a las relaciones románticas tradicionales, donde todo es tan complicado, y precisamente porque no hay ningún tipo de contrato desde el vamos. Ni podría haberlo. Cuando empezaron a salir, ni él ni su novia sabían que ella terminaría dejándolo. Las relaciones románticas se construyen sobre supuestos tácitos que ninguna de sus partes puede garantizar. Y eso hace que casi invariablemente una, o las dos (o más) terminen un poco maltrechas. Brown insiste con esta idea, y se termina copado y proponiendo dejar atrás la monogamia. . Pero este proyecto un poco se malogra con cierto plot twist que no voy a anticipar.

Volvamos a lo central. Brown parece descartar muy rápido todos los aspectos oscuros, que sabemos que existen, en torno a la prostitución.



Digamos que alguien quiere vender su auto. ¿Es ético comprárselo? En abstracto, sí. ¿Y qué pasa si esa persona nos quiere vender su auto porque no tiene para comer? Supongo que igualmente no hay problema, aunque se siente un poco peor. Pero si la persona tiene algo que considera vendible, y decide venderlo, ciertamente no le estamos haciendo un mal. Pero, ¿y si por necesidad lo vende a menos de lo que vale? ¿Y si hay un mafioso que la está obligando a vendernos el auto, y darle la mitad de la plata a él? ¡Ah! ¿Pero y si la persona nos dice que no tiene ningún problema, que ella QUIERE darle la plata al mafioso? Bueno, nada es tan fácil. Tengo la sospecha de que casi todas nuestras transacciones comerciales incluyen algún punto cuestionable, en esta misma línea. En un mundo donde la división del trabajo existe, y es ya inconcebible, podemos tomar como un hecho nuestra participación en delitos, o al menos en actos éticamente incorrectos. Por supuesto, si vemos que alguien roba un celular, y acto seguido se lo compramos, nuestra complicidad es consciente. Pero, ¿es mejor comprar en el supermercado chino de la esquina si suponemos que la mercadería puede ser robada? ¿O comprar un kilo de azúcar que viene de la explotación y el trabajo infantil? No lo sé. Decir nada más que es culpa del capitalismo es una respuesta fácil, como para librarse de culpa, sabiendo que el problema tiene solución: o sea el fin del capitalismo. No me convence, pero bueno, por suerte no me toca hoy resolver este problema.

Centrémonos otra vez en el problema de Brown, dejando de lado el enfoque teórico según el cual toda prostitución es una forma de explotación. Está claro que la prostitución sin trata de personas es posible, existe, y que su consumo no implicaría en sí una falla ética. La pregunta debería ser entonces cómo hacemos para garantizar que las personas puedan ejercer libremente su derecho a vender sexo. El primer paso, y Brown lo señala, es descriminalizar la práctica de la prostitución. Pero se sabe que con eso no basta; en Argentina, la prostitución no es ilegal. En Ámsterdam es legal y está regulada, y así y todo sigue inmersa en un ambiente general de criminalidad. Brown supone que un paso importante es la normalización de la compraventa de sexo, y puede tener razón, pero como ocurre con todos los cambios culturales, es uno fácil de enunciar y casi imposible de poner en práctica activamente. ¿Y la regulación? Brown está en contra, pero esto, pero se ampara, me parece a mí, más en una previa cosmovisión liberal que en argumentos concretos.



El último segmento del cómic ya da paso completamente al manifiesto. Son apéndices en los que Brown examina, uno por uno, los argumentos en contra de la prostitución, y en esta parte apenas hay dos o tres viñetas sobre un wall of text. Para responder, Brown se apoya en alguna que otra referencia bibliográfica y, ante todo, en su experiencia personal, ya que parece que su identidad de john, además de asumida, es a esta altura reivindicada como fuente de sabiduría. Muchas de las objeciones que se le hacen a la prostitución, observa Brown, también podrían aplicarse a otro tipo de relaciones sexuales en las que no media el dinero, e incluso a las que tienen lugar en parejas estables. El consentimiento no es un monolito, ni siquiera dentro de la monogamia tradicional. En todo esto Brown tiene razón, claro, pero su salto directo al rechazo de toda monogamia es caprichoso. Más bien, actúa como quienes se oponen a la prostitución. Sí, las dos prácticas tienen defectos, contradicciones, zonas grises que hay que estar dispuesto a navegar, como casi cualquier otra actividad humana, pero eso no significa que haya que echarlas por la borda sin más. Al contrario, el hecho de que existan, y de que se perpetúen en el tiempo, sugiere que todo lo que podemos hacer es cambiar la manera en que las vemos.

[Harris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had been curious to read this "controversial" graphic memoir following the Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown's experience "giving up" on romantic love and instead becoming a customer of the sex trade, but unfortunately, it was a lot less thought provoking than I would have thought. Consisting of Brown's amiable, emotionless breakup with his long time girlfriend and his first clumsy attempts to break into the world of prostitution, he begins to learn the etiquette and "rules" of the business. It was an interesting, voyeuristic view into Brown's life, perhaps more than most would wish to know. It was a bit of an uncomfortable read as Brown, self-admittedly, lacks much human empathy, relying on cold logic and pure reason to make his "arguments." While he seems like a polite, pleasant conversationalist, he is a bit of a "robot," according to his friends. Bluntly honest, Brown includes much that doesn't paint him in a sympathetic light.

However, what really lost me were Brown's strident Libertarian arguments regarding the legalization of prostitution, arguing that "romantic" relationships and monogamy cause far much more harm, mentally and physically (possessiveness, jealousy, abuse, despondency), than two people exchanging money for sex. This after he later becomes "monogamous" with one woman whom he feels he loves (and who he also compensates monetarily). While his arguments can be thought-provoking, he really all but ignores much ethical and moral questions about prostitution, including power dynamics between gender and sexism, in spite of actually encountering it himself (one disturbing example is on page 188). His non-answer in regards to sex-trafficking when the women he "exchanged money" with couldn't speak any English or seemed underage: eh, they're probably not sex slaves, they seemed too well-adjusted. An interesting, but disturbing, view into Brown's libertarian and social philosophies, one that is, to me, more than a little questionable.

[Žarko]

Čitao srpsko izdanje Plati pa se klati, Komiko, 2018? Isbn9788687919891 koga zanima

Elem ovo je po meni trebalo da bude webcomic a ne tvrdi povez, a ako ostane u kući biće makar conversation piece. Tema je pokrivena prilično jednostrano iz vizure osobe kojoj je prostitucija ok i koja opisujući najstariju delatnost uspe da se zadrži u nekakvoj kapitalističkoj srednjeklasnoj sanitizovanoj svima-dobro niši, predstavlja te okolnosti i iskustva kao univerzalne, i ne uspeva da
nađe i prikaže nijednu značajno lošu stranu prostitucije.