March 4, 2025 - 10:30am
If you can’t make history at the Oscars by choosing a man Best Actress, then opting for the young star of a film about a feisty “sex worker” will do just as well. Once this year’s early favourite, transgender “actress” Karla Sofía Gascón, was cold-shouldered following revelations about historic social media posts, the goal was wide open for 25-year-old Mikey Madison. In Anora, she plays a stripper who marries the son of a Russian oligarch, demonstrating Hollywood’s undimmed appetite for sanitised versions of the commercial sex trade. Pretty Woman, anyone?
Madison had already displayed her willingness to spout nonsense about prostitution at the BAFTAs, when she dedicated her Best Actress award to the “sex worker community”. She did it again on Sunday. “I also just want to again recognise and honour the sex worker community,” she gushed. “I will continue to support and be an ally.”
Everyone wants to be an “ally” these days, although it isn’t clear what this actually involves. Madison has certainly embraced the jargon, always referring to “sex workers” — a phrase designed to pretend it’s a job like any other — rather than prostituted women. Normalising the sale of women’s bodies has been a prime objective of people who make money from it, and it’s been extraordinarily successful.
To its shame, the British Government has even adopted the term, with a 2014 review for the Department of Health claiming that “sex worker” is now “the preferred term used throughout the literature”. “The term has been adopted as it is free of complicated, derogatory and sexist connotations which are more commonly associated with the term ‘prostitute’,” the review stated. It’s all the more ironic, then, that an actual “sex worker” consulted by the film’s director, Sean Baker, is uneasy about the violence directed at Madison’s character in the film. “As a sex worker, I feel like we’ve seen enough violence against sex workers on screen,” Andrea Werhun told MailOnline.
Male violence is, of course, what prostituted women face every day of their lives. That’s not what the audience at the Oscars wants to hear, cocooned in clothes borrowed from their designer friends and in their chauffeur-driven limousines. Sunday night was an opportunity for celebrities to congratulate themselves on being cool and “sex-positive”, while remaining at a safe distance from the reality of an existence plagued by violence, homelessness and addiction.
Multiple studies show that women who sell sex have usually been sexually abused as children, entering the “industry” as young as 13. A briefing published by a medical journal last year pointed out that prostituted women suffer from PTSD, anxiety and depression. It added that “the constant need to negotiate boundaries, handle difficult clients, and navigate potentially dangerous situations can create chronic stress and exacerbate mental health challenges”. No wonder, when they face demands for unsafe forms of sex, exposing them to disease and physical injuries.
Instead, Hollywood prefers feel-good stories about plucky “sex workers” using their wits to triumph over adversity to become symbols of sexual liberation. It’s a fantasy world that unquestioningly embraces the latest fashionable cause, whether it’s “sex work” or troubled young actresses cutting off their breasts. Celebrity “allies”, unfortunately, rarely do much to advance the welfare of women.
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.
polblonde
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMore liberal cultural and social bankruptcy. It came as little surprise but feels a little like an archaic remnant from a former age, only to be issued by a last reserve like Hollywood.
“Sex work is work”, so the saying goes, but work isn’t sex and sex isn’t work. ‘Sex worker community’? What a joke — just because people do similar things does not make them a ‘community’. T’is a Pity She’s a Sex Worker, the Movie? (apologies to John Ford) No, it doesn’t quite work. Joan Smith has exposed the ignorance of Hollywood, and those who think the same way, in no uncertain terms.
The author criticises the use of “sex worker” because it implies that sex work is just ordinary work – then substitutes “prostituted women” to imply this is something done to women rather than something they actively choose. Can we just stick to “prostitute”.
These women are basically exploiting men in the same way drug dealers exploit addicts. They do it for the money. Some are exploited in their turn by men or other women. Some do well, and some don’t. Some are addicts, some have messed up lives, but some are doing far better financially than they would be in any job they could actually do.
There’s a reason Smith uses “prostituted women”, though there is much debate among women about terms. “Prostituted women” indicates it’s not a choice. Most women would do anything else if you gave them a proper choice.
Palpably not true.
There are plenty of jobs, but most are poorly paid with limited prospects. It is nevertheless a proper choice.
Great comment – I had the same reaction to “prostituted women”. The Orwellian watering down of language is amazing, and even creeps into the language of someone who is criticizing political correctness. Sigh.
I think the reason you got downvotes is that some people think that women don’t choose to be prostitutes because they are poor. Similar reasoning to how people do drugs because they are poor, or homeless. Personal agency is denied, and we hurt these people with “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. I know many people who grew up very poor in my neighbourhood. Not one became a prostitute.
Well said.
Prostitution is a grim business, but the hardcore feminist line taken by UnHerd is clearly divorced from reality.
It’s a mistake which many make, but your claim that the import of an article is a “line taken by Unherd” is nonsense.
Does Unherd support the line taken by Terry Eagleton, for instance? The whole point is to publish different perspectives from those that might be apparent in the msm. It doesn’t always get the balance right but in the main, it’s fulfilling it’s core mission.
On this, as on the trans issue, there is rarely any balance. Terry Eagleton is the one author on here I never read. I’ve never forgiven him for the money I spent on one of his dull godawful books.
Unherd is quite oddly, uncritically second wave feminist. Even younger writers seem to have got bogged down in the slough. In other areas there is a better range of ideas.
Note the “for instance” i used regarding Eagleton. I wasn’t citing him as the exemplar to be dismissed.
I think you’ve missed my point in other ways. Unherd isn’t “oddly, uncritically” anything – it does what it says “on the tin” – publish articles you mightn’t read elsewhere. All you’re saying is you don’t agree with some/many of them, which is a different matter altogether.
Not at all. In some areas it has achieved balance, in others not. And in some areas it is very repetitive, with the same authors saying the same thing repeatedly. In others it is not.
Obviously in balance I think it is worthwhile but I would like to see it being a but more unherdlike in some areas.
Re the term “prostituted women”, and its lack of attribution of agency to female prostitutes, I propose that those in charge of official speak at Unherd and beyond use “un-sexed men” instead of Johns, so that our language minimizes hurt and mirrors “un-housed people” instead of the homeless. Of course we could just call Johns sexless. Perhaps best settled by a committee of stakeholders.
If you really want to highlight the desperate plight of the John then the “sexually deprived” or “ victims of sexual discrimination” might fit the bill. Surely sex is a “human right” that ugliness, boorishness or general lack of attractiveness should not debar a man from enjoying. Workers in the National Sexual Health Service should surely be celebrated. Bang your pots and pans for the noble sexual relief worker. A sentiment that is surely Unherd.
Good comment, and I am absolutely sure that someone out there is making that claim without the least bit of sarcasm.
There’s a balance, but the majority of prostitutes are not in it by choice. This is one of those tricky situations when a minority (prostitutes by choice) provide an argument for those excusing the abuse of the majority. I’m not accusing anyone here of excusing abuse, but we need to be careful not to allow the wrong inferences to be drawn from our comments.
Somewhere between this fairy tale nonsense and the authors horrorshow feminist version is the truth. Could Unherd try and give us a balanced picture of what that is actually like.
I can no longer post in feminist spaces/articles because I am constantly moderated, yet there are many women like me who cringe at the infantilization of females. We may never be truly free in online discussions, but we are very much alive and thinking. And no, we are not TERFs or any other label—these ideological battles are all connected at the core!
Honestly, I shouldn’t even say “we” because I’ve encountered only a handful of women like me. We tend to unsettle men and provoke self-awareness in women, but mainstream spaces have no place for us. We are also often chose men as partners because there is no fear! but we are often loners at the core.
Acting used to be considered on the same level as prostitution, so maybe things have simply come full circle.
A lot of actors are just prostitutes in another level.
Yes they are already a kind of prostitute. So propagandizing for literal prostitution isn’t a big stretch
Thank you. I’m an academic in America and I can’t stand this bullshit. My supposed feminists peers are the worst perpetuators of the Only Fans fantasy that prostitution is a preferred line of work rather than a degrading outcome of abuse and male violence.
It would be too much to describe it as a “preferred line of work” – but for some women it is preferred on balance to any other work they could actually do. Obviously most women in that situation would settle for lower pay and a nicer job – and that’s the better choice – but some want, or in some cases need, the larger financial rewards that prostitution brings.
Onlyfans even more so since it reduces many of the risks of actual direct physical contact.
What I hear in this argument is “I’m not giving up my prostitution and/ or pornography habit, so let’s see what we can do to keep the effects of sexual exploitation in the closet”.
I can’t help you with your hearing problem I’m afraid. I could suggest you Google ad hominem, try to make arguments rather than personal attacks, and don’t jump to silly conclusions.
You’re welcome
In the US there exists a substantial lobby which supports the sexual exploitation of adults and children. Many consider pornography and child and adult prostitution to be “victimless”crimes. I beg to differ. Abandonment of countless victims in favor of a tiny fringe minority of “happy hookers” simply isn’t morally defensible.
Well you would say that wouldn’t you. But for some people sex work is preferable to working in a care home or in an Amazon wish fulfilment centre, and you just can’t face it.
Take it up a level. A former colleague of mine comes from money and his children went to an expensive nursery school. He had to drop them off at school for a couple of days and was absolutely gobsmacked by the number of stunningly attractive young mothers dropping their children off in Ranger Rovers and similar, all living a life of leisure and arranging to go for coffee/lunch or meet down the gym.
You do not have to have a degree in sociology to work out that these young mothers had a choice between working for a living or trading on their looks and they chose the latter. No matter that hubby was 10 to 15 years older, short, blading with a pot belly and a workaholic, she fell in love with his wallet. Still there is always the prospect of a comfortable divorce when the kids are in their mid-teens and in the meantime there is always that young gym instructor.
I do not criticise them for this. This is the way it always has been and always will be. I just get fed up with people pretending otherwise.
Not all sex workers are exploited. I worked as a prostitute for 8 years from 1976-1984. I worked from my own home and met my clients through contact magazines. I was never subjected to violence and did not perform acts that I found distasteful. I was able to earn good money for working a minimum of hours and met quite a few interesting men of whom some were regular clients and helped me in other areas of my life. Much better in many ways than a humdrum 40 hr week occupation for miserable pay where there was still the possibility of sexual harassment from male bosses/ colleagues. I do not consider myself to have been psychologically damaged by my spell as a prostitute and have been happily married for 40 years to a wonderful man who knows what I did and doesn’t care about it.
A courageous response.
I do not know why the downvote
How do you know that the “stunningly attractive young mothers” were being supported by men, or where they were going after they’d dropped the children off? They may have been successful entrepreneurs wealthy in their own right like the Kardashians.
The larger financial rewards are normally necessary due to drug addiction, what regular employer would want to hire a heroine addict. As for Only Fans, yes, less direct physical contact, but I suspect the psychological effects will start to stack up in the longer term.
I’m afraid that when the bots and AI that screen people for employers start trawling the web looking at prospective candidates, or indeed curious would-be mothers-in-law want to find out who their son’s planning on getting hooked up with, it won’t just be psychological effects that are a longer term concern.
Does prostitution “Bring larger financial rewards”? I think not. Most street walkers barely get by and usually have to finance a drug habit. High-class call girls are another matter.
If you become a prostitute, it’s because you are unable to do anything else. As far as I can tell, being good-looking helps, but is no job requirement. You are likely addicted to drugs, and like to have 1 or more STD, or are in recovery from an STD. It’s a degrading life. Sex is a part of life, but monetizing it is soul-crushing.
Why is sex work the “World’s Oldest Profession?”
What is far more offensive and dangerous is grown men competing against women and girls due to some deranged gender farce. The “World’s Oldest Profession” isn’t going anywhere, but innocent girls and ladies should not face full-grown male genitalia in the locker room showers or on the field of play.
There’s anecdotal evidence in the media in south Yorks that some of the child victims of the rape gangs were, when they reached 18 or so, recruited into local ‘massage parlours’ as prostitutes. They fit the real world profile described in this article.
Although the chance of Hollywood covering their life story accurately is approximately the square root of zero.
The only comfort is knowing the contempt the women who actually have to work in this industry have for these virtue signalling fools. I’d say they would tell her where to shove her allyship in double quick time.
Great article. Prostitution even when legalised almost always involves violence and tends to be run by gangsters. Amsterdam and Germany are no different. It’s a vile trade.
I think prostitution is a socially important and necessary evil. It seems to me that those who condemn it out of hand haven’t considered what would happen if women with no other recourse couldn’t resort to it and if men who could not get women to sleep with them willingly or were not able to enter into stable relationships with willing women had no access to sex. It’s one of those things that you don’t want someone you love to do but, if you think about it, you realize someone has to do it to avoid worse consequences.
Isn’t marriage just an institution of prostitution, where the wife gives up her body for sex in exchange for the resources the husband provides?
In Anora when marriage is proposed the two have just finished having sex, which the prospective husband wants to secure exclusively. The prospective wife responds to the proposal by suggesting she will only agree in exchange for a 3-carat diamond ring, or 4- or 5- or 6-.
Sex for economic security. Prostitution.
Marriage was originally a contractual agreement for the lawful siring of children which grew to be seen in the modern age as more of a partnership based on mutual attraction and affection. The sex within marriage was always seen as being instrumental to the goal of siring children, not a straight-up sex for cash transaction. Because of the importance of children to the perpetuation of a society, marriage was seen as being an important social institution not solely based on the pleasure or fulfillment of the married couple. The entire community had an investment in the couple’s bond. Indeed, in many cultures, it’s simply understood that a man does not seek to fulfill his real sexual urges with his wife. There are other women for that, not the mother of one’s children. At any rate, any longtime married man will tell you that sex becomes a less prominent aspect of the relationship as time goes on. I assume, based on your musings, that you’re not married.
Married for 36 years. So far.
Incredible. Do you tell your wife she’s a prostitute?
No, of course not. I’m just pointing out the biology that drives human behavior. It’s complex, but our biological urges mean more than abstract notions of morality. That’s why females engage in prostitution and males buy their services. Always have, always will. But not the other way around.
My own marriage is no exception. I married for sex not security. My wife the opposite. That’s an oversimplified view of it, but at its core it’s true. Just as much for me and my wife as for Ani and her husband in the movie. There’s nothing to be ashamed of in that. It’s just biology.
“Instead, Hollywood prefers feel-good stories about plucky “sex workers” using their wits to triumph over adversity to become symbols of sexual liberation.”
Did the author even watch this movie? It seems not because I watched Anora last night and it’s not about a plucky sex worker who becomes a symbol of sexual liberation. The movie is funny, tragic, and charming. I’m not sure why all of this, frankly, incredibly boring and priggish nonsense is being spouted about it. Other than the lead actor and director referring to a non-existent “sex worker community” they claim to be allies of, the film itself doesn’t glorify or glamorize prostitution. It’s about a young, naive prostitute who’s searching for love and self-worth by the wrong means, in the wrong places. The fact is, prostitution exists in real life (i.e. world’s oldest profession) and some women engage in it. Being an aspect of reality, I see no reason to make such a big deal about a film that includes it. I don’t hear anybody bitching incessantly about Les Miserables “glorifying” prostitution because Fantine becomes one. Anora portrays the titular character as a stripper and escort from Brighton Beach who enjoys the initial whirlwind romance with Vanya, the son of a billionaire Russian oligarch, leading up to their Vegas marriage only to come up against the hard reality of his parents’ attitudes towards a women who does what she does and her fitness to be their son’s wife. It’s certainly not a happy story nor one that should convince any young woman who isn’t an idiot to pursue a life in the sex trade.
“…see no reason to make such a big deal about a film…” There is a reason to make a Big Deal about Anora: its a damn good film! It’s an independent film, made on a shoestring, filmed on-site in NYC, etc. If you are perceptive, you will find four films in one. Best Actress, Mikey Madison, seamlessly slips from role to role and crushes it. Not to mention Anora won La Palme d’Or au Festival de Cannes 2024 and Best Picture, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 2025. That’s a Big Deal.
I agree, man. Great film. What I meant was, of course, no reason to make a big deal about the fact that the protagonist is a prostitute. The film didn’t glorify or glamorize prostitution. Anora’s life was portrayed as sad and lonely and her as a vulnerable girl desperate for love and confirmation of her worth in a life she’s chosen that simply commodifies her body.
The movie “Anora” does not glorify prostitution. The workers are actually depicted as teetering somewhere between hope and crisis , most of the time. Unlike the ugly “Pretty Woman” Cinderella treatment of the subject. Well done again Sean Baker, he nailed poverty in “The Florida Project “ and gave Anora , who prefers Annie , just the right amount of chiaroscuro.