I used to be a ho when I was 12. At least, that's what the boys called me. I was always overtly sexual, and I think playing a big game of spin-the-bottle at camp provoked it. An older boy who I'd never talked to started calling
me a ho as a "joke." I wrote in my diary, with hopefully
intended irony: "How could I be a ho? I'm a nice Jewish girl."
Despite being a ho in middle school, I never actually did anything sexual with boys, which meant that in high school I was officially a "tease." While I talked about my vagina all the
time, I didn't actually share it with others. One male friend used to
call me a nun. Since it was high school, I was oblivious to the fact
that nobody should be judging me or my sexuality, but hey! It was the
style at the time. So many hormones rushing
through my veins, but I was smart enough to not try hooking up with
boys my age because they sucked. Not a bad choice, teenage me!
In college I was neither a ho nor a prude, because I was someone else's property-- I had a boyfriend. It was quite clear that sexual activity was expected and condoned in that context.
So what I am? Virgin, whore, or possession? Just being a person with sexual agency is out of the question! The virgin/whore dichotomy says that women are either whores or
virgins, although it's not clear which is preferable. Virgins are valued
because they are pure and innocent and if you have a penis and you
stick it in, then you win. (I'm still unclear on the details.) However,
virgins are so selfish, right? It's like they are there all virginal and
stuff, and they like, won't even have sex with you. What gives? On the
other hand, it's about the same for whores: reviled for all the dicks
that have tainted the purity of their formerly-pristine vaginal cavities
(although my dance teacher says vaginas are like self-cleaning ovens,
so...), but valued for all the sexy sex that they can sex you up with.
Perhaps you're thinking, "Well, I'm neither a virgin nor a whore; I'm an
adult with a sex life that satisfies my needs and I don't think anyone
needs to put a label on my complex sexuality and being." OK, but that's
not how this works.
This schema is played out again and again in American culture. We have the idea of "a lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets"-- a woman who is an inoffensive virgin to the world, but a whore for you. In middle school I must have been a "freak in the sheets" because I was openly interested in sexual experiences, despite the fact that I barely had any sexual experience and was an actual virgin. In high school I was a "lady in the streets" because, while I talked a big talk, I'd (still) never really done much sexually. Then, of course, I reached the sweet spot in college, when I was sexually off limits to everyone except my partner, with whom I could let my freak flag fly. Even though I'm aware of this pattern/trap, it's hard to escape because the message is constant.
Take Usher's "I Don't Mind." He says: "If you dance on a pole, that
don't make you a ho. Shawty, I don't mind if you work until 3 if you
leaving with me.... you can take your clothes off, as long as you're
coming home." Meaning: You can be an actual sex worker, but I will still
consider you a virgin (and not a whore) as long as you're monogamous
with me. I'm all about the pro-sex worker attitude here, but it's still
coming from this virgin/whore perspective. Would Usher want to be in an open relationship with a sex worker, or are sex workers only acceptable partners if they're monogamous with you? Or are sex workers only OK to have sex with if you don't get attached to them, since they can never be "a lady in the streets?" The bigger questions is: can women (virgins, hos, and sex workers alike) ever have agency over their own sexuality without being labeled a virgin, a whore, or property?
