...but is he really the only one? Public moral outcries of elected officials sexual behavior is complex, often tedious and not really in the name of justice. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, likes to hire woman to attend parties and do who knows what else. Barbara Montereale, one of the women in the much reprinted picture of two women photographing each other in Berlusconi's bathroom sent the pictures to the press to be published for the truth to come out. She was paid and flown down to spend time with him. The Italian authorities are starting an investigation according to the Telegraph UK.
The three women, whose accounts of their evening with Mr Berlusconi apparently largely corroborate each other, have been questioned by police in Bari who are investigating Mr Tarantini for allegedly inciting prostitution.Mr Berlusconi faces increasing pressure to explain whether he knew if the women were being paid to attend his parties and whether he slept with a prostitute.
He is under attack not only from the press and the opposition but also the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't actually care what the Catholic church deems moral and immoral, or what makes them upset. This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?
I find moral panic and outrage over the often grotesque, exploitative sexual behavior of politicians hilarious. My instinct is to suggest that it is a private matter, just as I don't want you to talk about my private sex life, I don't think anyone's should be fodder for news material. On the other hand, that fact that stories like this come up over and over again merely shows us what men in power think is legitimate behavior. This is not a matter of "i gotcha," but more about the ways entitlement plays out with our beloved "statesmen."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Berlusconi is a Womanizer that Hires Women to Party with Him....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14537
I don't think its a big deal, prostitution is not illegal in Italy, and the women CHOSE to be there, I don't believe they can be exploited if they are making the CHOICE.
This is playing out as a media frenzy from the left over here. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people have 0 love for Berlusconi, and he is a constant embarrassment, but for many Italians he gets shit done. I'm not sensing any outrage on the street over this at all.
As far as the prostitution is concerned, as long as the women weren't underaged (that was another issue a couple of weeks ago apparently)...
And I don't see any evidence that the women were forced to be there. I'll eat my words if there's other info on the matter though. It looks like somebody had the wherewithal to sting his ass though.
I wonder what would the response would be if Merkel over in Germany did this shit though. Seriously. The bar is set so low for some of these clowns.
oops I didn't mean to reply to your comment in particular, Lisa G. Just a general comment :)
Eh. I'm with Samhita here. I'm really disturbed by the power dynamic in situations like the one presented here, and I think Samhita says it best:
"And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?"
This is part of the sex worker debate that really befuddles me. It would be ideal to say that women have the agency to make the decision to do what they want with their bodies, because we should have the choice to do it. But when it plays into the complex matrix of economic exploitation, sex, sexism and abuses of power on any level, I'm not sure if there is that much agency there.
There's always agency, sometimes ppl, women, just face shitty options. And shitty options is just life. Not everyone is born to rich parents. Not all of us can afford to go to Ivy League schools, or lucky enough to attend good public schools. Some people live in impoverished, gang ridden neighborhoods. But prostitution is the exception which proves the (agency) rule: a tiny, tiny fraction of the women who face such poor prospects go into prostitution, just as lots of poor black men growing in gang neighborhoods decline to join gangs.
I believe that the women who have enough support in their lives have the mind not to join in prostitution, but those who do make that choice most of the time, lack support in their lives. So are they REALLY making their own decision? Is it really a choice? I think this is more of an institution of power and sexism taking atvantage of poor, and/or misguided women. I know there are women who really are aware of what they're doing, and making educated decisions about it, but I believe those women are very few in comparison to the women whose atvantages and circumstances are being taken atvantage of. It is extremely condescending, belittling, and an outrageous abuse of power.
Your use of word's like "misguided" indicates that your opinion of anyone who disagrees with you no matter what they say to you indicating they are doing this of their own free will is that they are somehow mentally inferior to you or perhaps deranged.
Never mind that the first part of your paragraph uses absolute terms to indicate that all women who do this are coerced, while the latter half indicates that you're aware that the first statement is false.
I'll ask you directly, how is a person working a dead-end low-pay job any less coerced into it by lack of societal and personal support than a prostitute?
If we can agree that both careers are likely the end result of a lack of support, then can you tell me how prostitution is any worse than working in fast food without referring to a circular argument involving sex being somehow shameful or criminal?
"If we can agree that both careers are likely the end result of a lack of support, then can you tell me how prostitution is any worse than working in fast food without referring to a circular argument involving sex being somehow shameful or criminal?"
I should clarify. When I said misguided, I in no way meant that these women would be any less anything than me or anyone else.
What I meant was that jobs like prostitution, stripping, or pornography are different than any other low-paying jobs, in that they are dangerous, involve most often, not only physical abuse, but emotional abuse as well (because these women ARE having sex, are giving up a part of themselves physically, which I strongly believe involves significant emotional labour, investment, and damage. I know people have different viewpoints on this matter. And I am not saying that any of these jobs are immoral either (that is perspective and personal opinion, and has no place in this argument). What I am saying, is that they are exploitative, and corrupt. The women who choose these jobs often place themselves in danger.
There is also the power dynamic. What if these women think they're being payed to just go out to dinner with one of these polititians, and later finds out that she is supposed to sleep with him? How on earth would she escape that one? Who would believe her? If she made a choice to get payed to sleep with him, I suppose we could argue that there is no abuse of power, but I still disagree. If she is in such dire circumstances that she feels she needs to accept a job like this, I believe it is extremely disrespectful and an abuse of power for any politician to allow her to do it. There is a huge difference between any other type of manual labor job and selling your body in my opinion. Maybe if men were equally prostituting themselves the way women were, conditions were safer, and the industry were unionized, I would feel different.
Yes I agree that the vast majority of prostitutes face many physical dangers due to this occupation. The vast majority of prostitutes are "street walkers" or in forced bondage of some sort.
What part of a woman is she "giving up"? Her sacred special flower? This is mystifying the sexual act. Now if you believe in voodoo then voodoo might have an effect on you, it's called sympathetic magic. It is predicated on people being told superstition is fact, when it is demonstrably not so.
Or are they giving up dignity? Who makes prostitution an "undignified" trade? It's not like "shame" is built in to this any more than there is native shame in being a garbage collector or corpse handler. People who wish to project their own sexual issues on to others create the belief that prostitution is shameful. This is no different than the creation of "untouchables" in some cultures. It's not only harmful to those under the gaze of shame but it's completely impractical.
What is "emotional labor"? You mean like empathy? Why shouldn't a good prostitute be able to be empathic toward her/his client? Should people with feelings also stay clear of the medical fields?
Yes, people do have different opinions on this, and if you feel thusly about prostitution I'd borrow from one of my favorite bumper stickers: "Don't like prostitution? Don't be a prostitute."
"What I am saying, is that they are exploitative, and corrupt. The women who choose these jobs often place themselves in danger."
Almost every facet of capitalist labor is both exploitative and corrupt. It is built on those with power and resources using those without either. But prostitution is a titillating subject while picking lettuce hardly raises an eyebrow.
There is no indication that these women were told they were going to a fashion shoot and then coerced into having sex with this geezer. From all accounts posted they were pros who knew the score. Your insinuation is that they are somehow naive to the point of stupidity.
I've stated previously that I've known and had relationships with sex workers, none of them were tricked in to it any more than the time I took a "short-term" fast food job that I ended up doing for three years. Would they have done it if they had trust funds? No. 90% or more of the work done in the world is done by people who have no option but to plow the row they are facing, usually for a lot less money than a high end prostitute.
You make good points which I suppose I hadn't spent too much time thinking about in the past. I think what is so salient about sex-work, like you said, is the fact that it is sex, and the fact that many sex workers do get abused at some point or another; or worse, killed. I think at the very least, prostitution should be legalized, with strict protection for both the clients and workers. I think the main problem I have ever had with the sex industry was the ongoing abuse that the workers suffer. I realize that workers at factories, in mines, even waiters and cooks suffer work related injuries, verbal abuse from their bosses, long hours, etc. And I am not trying to trivialize any of it. But having your life put in danger at a potentially crazed individual's hands is pretty extreme, and often times that is what these workers are exposed to. This can also be just as psychologically damaging as rape.
There is also the issue of workers who get into the business too young. Not only are they not emotionally mature enough to handle the type of job they are doing, but they risk suffering permanent emotional scars as a result.
Another issue is how the sex industry aids in portraying women as sexual objects, and gratification for men. I am not blaming them, but it doesn't help. Objectification is a perspective, and the ones who have that perspective should have the responsibility to change it; but how can we complain about an advertisement on television (because it is sexually objectifying women) and then support selling out bodies? (this was not meant to be rhetorical by the way)
I think you answer your own question...To be uneducated or misguided is not to lack agency. Again the proof is that many millions of women face poverty, crime and unemployment and yet decline to work in prostitution. The missing point in the discussion--at least in this country--is drug addiction. Men & women prostitutes both are willing to sell their bodies for the next high...but I wouldn't say they lack agency.
There's always agency, sometimes ppl, women, just face shitty options. And shitty options is just life. Not everyone is born to rich parents. Not all of us can afford to go to Ivy League schools, or lucky enough to attend good public schools. Some people live in impoverished, gang ridden neighborhoods. But prostitution is the exception which proves the (agency) rule: a tiny, tiny fraction of the women who face such poor prospects go into prostitution, just as lots of poor black men growing in gang neighborhoods decline to join gangs.
This might not be the only story of a man in power who hires women although, I would say, it is a rather peculiar one that ought not to be dismissed as a “private matter”. (I would also say whatever involves prostitution is far from being a private matter but that might be the topic for another entry)
As an Italian feminist, woman, citizen I am sick of reading what is going on in Italy now and I am sick of waiting for the revolution to be called and this guy thrown out of the chair he is sitting on. This sickness might impact on my already rather poor English so please bear with me.
I am not buying the private vs public matter divide: this is not a private matter. The private is sooo political now. According to Patrizia D’Addario’s claim Berlusconi did not only hire women to “sit down and look pretty” at his dinner party (which to me would be already enough) but paid her (or paid someone to pay her) to spend the night with him “in the big bed”. This cannot be called a private matter: a prime minister who allegedly instigates prostitution cannot be called a private matter. Not even a prime minister who promises favours to a woman in exchange of sex (as D’Addario claims) can be a private matter. This tells us a lot about the condition of women in Italy, the patriarchal culture that pervades the ruling class, what is deemed acceptable or not in terms of sexual behaviours in that context. We are talking here about the same man that two years ago appeared at the Family day: a demonstration called by the catholic forces to protest against civil partnership, for the “traditional family” (whatever that means). This whole story tell us a lot about the power relations that are still present in Italy: we cannot turn our heads and think this is just a matter of dirty bed sheets… I am not a huge fan of moral panic but what is going on in Italy is a matter that calls for feminist outrage! as this can give us a (further) proof of the condition of women in Italy.
I am not a huge fan of the Catholic church either but I call for more attention on this respect. The Church in Italy seems to be the only force that can oppose Berlusconi at the moment, as the opposition parties are too weak and lacking of consensus. It is important to produce a valid discourse against Berlusconi that is an alternative to the Church. If not, the Church will again and furthermore expand its political power in Italy with devastating consequences on issues of sexual rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights and so forth…
Great post Samhita! I completely agree with you and MsMay. It's easy to say that this is the women's choice. But with these power dynamics and this trend becoming more and more common I don't think it's as simple as saying it's a matter of choice. We need analysis here.
What is the "power dynamic" when you hire someone to do yard work, paint your house, sell you french fries, wash your car, babysit, etc?
People who have money and need a service done pay people who need money and are capable of performing a service.
Now you want to discuss the disproportionate wealth controlled by men in general then I'm right beside you. But why is it always about prostitution when every menial/service-type task is about who has the power and who has none?
Well I do think the lopsided gender dynamic is part of the reason why we should be looking at this stuff with a critical eye. For example, when shit goes down we have a nasty habit of excusing, dismissing and not-believing only one of the parties involved when it comes to prostitution.
But if your baby sitter or the person who takes care of your garden says that they have been mistreated or cheated out of pay for example, they would likely to be seen as reasonable, credible victims.
Throw in the fact that fools in power can't handle their business like they demand that everyone else has to, and it does get to be a bit outlandish. I mean you're going to fly somebody in from another country (taxpayer's dime?) for sex and yet you are putting into place laws to restrict women's reproductive freedoms??? Hells, naw.
Like I said, when Merkel starts having parties with 20 pool boys over in Berlin, then perhaps we can have analyze this differently.
Misuse of government funds for any reason is worthy of discussion, but tying the argument of stolen public funds to the explosive topic of sex (of any kind, really) is hyperbole.
Were the escorts coerced beyond the kind of coercion-through-denial-of-access that I relate to that felt by any bottom-rung member of the proletariat? Were the paid the agreed sum? Were they mistreated in some manner that we can all agree is employee abuse?
But tying this abuse of public power to an anti sex-work argument is completely unnecessary.
I'm someone who has known and has respect for people who choose the sex work trade the same as any other trade that a worker might go in to.
The vilification of all aspects of sex work is the vilification of and denigration of those who choose it as a career, not just those who purchase the services being sold.
Slut shaming and predominantly an effort to control free people in similar, of opposing directions, as those who force people into any form of slavery.
Whoa.
Nobody is slut shaming and vilifying the women in this conversation. Anti-sex work? Are you talking about the Church? Because people can have valid concerns about this issue without being Anti.
Regarding the sex angle, I don't believe it's hyperbole. Seriously, check out Berlusconi & company's stance on assisted fertility, rape and abortion. Can you honestly not see the connection to wider societal implications for his (and many others') so-called philosophy? Why doesn't he just brand a message on every woman's body that men in power can have access to women's bodies and then vote away reproductive rights and sexual autonomy for the rest of us? Rub our noses in it.
Re-read the actual OP. While in Italy the issue may be his hypocrisy, here on this forum it's all about the fact that his transgression was with professional sex workers and specifically about the relationship between buyer and seller.
The OP does not go into his politics, but dwells on the nature of the sexual act being with prostitutes.
The rhetoric about "power" wouldn't bug me if it wasn't almost always used to refer to sex work, and then always about women working the trade and never about the men who also work it for the same reasons (and who typically are paid less while just as often the victims of assault and theft-of service).
Sex work has a stigma, not because of the power-dynamic (which as I've stated is true of all service jobs) but because of the sex. All of that stigma is reinforced by the overt tactics of those who openly shame workers and the less overt but just as shaming tactic of "siding with the victim" in a manner which overrides the free will and choices of that "victim".
"We don't like what you do, but we don't want to be perceived as bullies so we're going to call you a victim and remove your choice under the guise of protecting you from yourself. Have fun salting french fries for $5.25 and hour."
The point isn't that sex work is a great choice, it's that it is a valid choice for some people just as much as working any job; it may even be the best choice for some. The villain isn't the work, it's the system that puts power in the hands of the tiny minority.
By emphasizing the prostitution angle as what is wrong with this picture your tarring sex work with the same brush as political corruption and theft. Sex for money isn't the lascivious angle to this story.
From the OP: This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase.
Are you talking about this part from the OP? Because I actually think Samhita went out of her way to turn the spotlight onto the particular men here. Now some of the comments might have been more about the sex work angle (including my 1st one at the top), but I don't get that the nature of sex work was the primary focus of what Samhita herself wrote.
Are you really going to get on this blog and say that the purchasing of sex by wealthy politicians isn't about abuse of power? Are you so blind that you can't possibly see the difference between purchasing women's bodies for sex and hiring someone to rake your lawn?
Yes.
Are you going to say that people in the traditionally recognized service industry (fast food, bottom-tier manual labor, etc) are not coerced by social and financial disadvantage?
You think someone wears a hair net because they had other opportunities?
The only difference is perceived "shame" of the occupation, and that shame is artificially derived and projected upon the job by observers. We're not talking about 12 y/o women who were sold into slavery, we're talking about women of some means beyond the Third World here. "Her body her choice" is not just a RvW argument.
How much respect does a McWorker get for minimum wage and 1/2 off a Happy Meal? For a physically demanding job that frequently involves burns and cuts and verbal/emotional abuse from employer and customer they get a wage that qualifies most of them for food stamps. Meanwhile a "jet set" escort/prostitute/cortisan can make thousands of dollars a day.
Yeah there isn't likely a retirement package for being a prostitute, but what is the McDonald's 401k like?
And it may be tempting to tie your argument to the coerced sex slavery trade, but that's a specious argument as we're not talking about that any more than I'm talking about sweatshops run on the backs of undocumented workers or 14 y/o women making Nike shoes and iPods.
Either you have someone forced into any job which is wrong no matter what the job is, or you have someone making the best financial choice they feel they are able to. Your consent is neither desired nor required.
Way to completely derail the entire OP from the abuse of power to your own rant on labor and class. And BTW, your callous hairnet comment is both privileged and patronizing.
I'm still trying to find any "abuse of power" in the article. Sounds to me like the ladies were paid well and treated well. What bothers me is why this woman went public with the information at all. What does she, or anyone, have to gain? Who was hurt here?
I agree 100% with Logrus and anyone reading his/her (?) comments with a clear perspective, free of society's sexual shame & stigma, would too, not JUST me, a woman who used to be a very well-paid sex worker (just like the ladies in the article), by choice.
"Are you going to say that people in the traditionally recognized service industry (fast food, bottom-tier manual labor, etc) are not coerced by social and financial disadvantage?
"You think someone wears a hair net because they had other opportunities?
"The only difference is perceived 'shame' of the occupation, and that shame is artificially derived and projected upon the job by observers."
I know that if I was unemployed and lived in an area with a workfare system for welfare, I'd definitely rather wear a net on my hair and flip burgers with a spatula in my hand to survive than be told "prostitution is just regular work, now that someone offered you a prostitution job you don't qualify for food stamps anymore" and have to choose between starvation and losing my virginity letting a customer I didn't choose enter my vagina. Those are my feelings about my body, not brainwashing from a 3rd party.
So you're in favor of letting anti-choice people determine what is right for you on the basis of how they feel.
Because it's not about how you feel about your body, it's about how someone else feels about their own body.
Prostitution is NOT "just regular work" but that doesn't automatically make it exploitative either.
And while hookers with pimps don't have the option (you cannot lump all sex work into the same catagory) most independent sex workers absolutely do "chose who enters [her] vagina."
Many independent sex workers turn down a majority of callers actually, and even at times will reject other potential clients upon meeting them, when it's called for.
It's called being your own boss.
Besides, prostitution ist not about "purchasing a body", but purchasing a service.
I don't know. I'm not prepared to say that morality has not role in public life. I do think prositution (at least in the US) is an easy one: officials must obey the laws too, even the one's against prostitution.
But consider the case of someone like John Ensign who had admitted adultery with the wife of an employee. This is the same as Gavin Newsome. Sleeping with the wife of an employee violates common decency, common sense, and common courtesy to such an extent that I think it disqualifies you from office no matter what else you've done for the community. So while I'm all for extending some latitude to public officials, there are some moral bounds reasonably placed on public officials.
Berlusconi has a long list of quotes that he's made publicly which make his opinion of women quite clear. I don't feel that this is an issue of shaming sex workers or sensationalizing a private matter. The issue is a man running a country who very publicly flaunts the fact that he holds women in slightly higher regard than chattel.
As long as he uses his own money I have no problem with it, depending on the laws in Italy. Now how he got it, is another thing to be discussed and how much he hides from the IRS.
Can we blame the women who take money from men in power a little bit too ?
Although I prefer every woman to use her brains instead of her sex appeal to get through life I think that prostitution should be legalized and regulated.
Spitzer was nailed for doing something illegal which he had said he would particularly focus on to fight.
Can we decide if we want prostitution to be legalized and regulated or not ?
Just society's oppression mechanisms at play.
It keeps men & women serving to its societal goals by having them chase oppressive goals.
It tells men:
"You're only as good as the number of women you have sex with, besides, they're all just confusing, and all their care about is your money and power, not your emotions, they're weird, so... just buy them"
It tells women:
"You're only as good as the man you get to love you, and you're only as good as how sexually desired you are, besides, all men are jerks who don't care about your feelings & only your body"
I find comments that equate actions like Berlusconi's as being "power" rather amusing to be honest. Don't get me wrong, he's no holocaust victim... Lol.
But he IS just a TOOL. He spent his entire life doing stuff he probably hates himself for doing, in order to get money and "power", so he can buy women he doesn't really like.
"Society has us chasing goals to be able to afford things we don't even need, to impress people we don't even like, to feel better about our crappy lives".
First, Samhita thanks for initiating this discussion. I think it is an important one to have even if there is not necessarily one good clean answer.
Jezebel recently posted a photo essay of sex workers that I felt was very powerful, showing the variety of experiences that women in the sex industry face. I think this is the link: http://jezebel.com/5300330/sex-workers-are-different---similar-+-the-world-over/gallery/?skyline=true&s=i
I am not a prostitute, but I have worked in the sex industry. I have friends who are strippers, models, and prostitutes. Our stories are not always easy or beautiful but they are also not always the same. One solution or way of thinking will not be the best solution for individual men and women, and society at large, but I do commend you all for having the discussion as I do believe that it will lead us to a better place.
I would also recommend that anyone interested in this issue take a gander at Annie Sprinkle (anniesprinkle.org). She has a lot of great ideas - and has worked as a prostitute, porn star - she is a feminist and performance artist, gay rights activist.
We need to work *with* sex workers to create working feasible environments and policies. Sex work will never go away, nor should it. Guys like Burlusconi or the Catholic Church should NOT be the ones creating these policies as they have clearly demonstrated themselves to be unfit for the responsibility.