Once I spotted in the Urban Kvetch —a front corner in HEEB mag— this small criticism on  Diablo Cody, I am having a hard time getting my mind off from her, for I can understand where the article was coming from. I actually cracked up on it, though I am in entirely favor of Cody. So I write this entry in defense of Ms. Cody today.

In a way, a lot of people, like those Urban East Coast spirited folks, yeah, we New Yorkers, might find a typical Mid-Westerner co-ed type like her uncool, to say the least disagreeable to her winning the Oscar for the first time writing. This is a Cinderella story and I actually like her, including her book Candy Girl: A year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper.

Though I was not very impressed by the movie Juno for a couple of reasons such as too much hype, not again teenager movie, etc., Cody was still a first time writer to take part in any film production. I would say that it was such a thrill to see a woman game and totally won all. Besides she absolutely heightened the general preconception about sexworkers overnight. So I guess I am one of those who think highly of her. Dig?

As a film worker, though, she seemed to be involved and endorsing certain interests that highlight only teenagers, as I raised above on Juno, which is not cool from a critical point of view.

Upon arrival of her Candy Girl in book stores, though, which was way before her Oscar whirlwind, I read it out of the sense of obligation for sexworker lit. I could not finish it straightout in one round, for I honestly found her style of writing a bit unsettling at first. Due to the overuse of uncommon vocabularies, it almost read as if it was a collection of sampling words for a vocabulary builder, just themed the strip joints to attract and motivate busy students who have to score in SAT. I was afraid that this kind of text could cloud the author’s voice even if it was meant to be the signiture style, but I leaned that it really became her voice by the mid point of the book. So I just stopped complaining and read on.

But the very thing that I got fazed by in the book was her relationship to ‘Johnny,’ her then live-in boyfriend, later her husband, and currently her ex-husband. This guy, as clearly described in the very beginning of her book, was the very motivation of her moving to Minnesota from Chicago—they had met via the Internet, maintained the inter-state relationship, and she recklessly moved in with him after meeting once in LA. That was the choice the author had made, and there was no point in a busybody’s getting worked up on any of what was written there. But I still could not help pointing out this; Johnny guy did not mention that he was still married, if living separately with his wife, until Cody quite was settled in her new life with him. On top of it, moving in with this man inevitably put Cody in a situation where she had to act a role of the undesirable step-mom when she was not sure what she got herself into. Johnny’s wife occasionally began harassing this new comer as the threat to her motherhood/soon-to-be-ex-wifedom. This was how Cody learned Johnny’s marital status. Johnny’s wife was living nearby, and motivated to inform her with it.

I am not passing any judgement but it seems this might explain something very characteristic of Cody, which I would explain later, so read on.

This Johnny guy was entirely agreeable to, or even encouraging, her budding stripping career even when she was working as a copy editor in a local ad agency as well. This has got to be an incredible amount of work load BTW. I can say this out loud because I know how consuming it can be to hold either work, and she was taking both. It is described that there was no remorse between two of them except about Johnny’s having hidden his real marriage status; he had no urgent plan to get a divorce despite the obvious fact that Cody was already living with him. The reason that Johnny did not get down to the divorce process was alleged, or assumed, by Cody that he was afraid of losing his custody of his daughter.

So I had to raise the real apparent question: isn’t this Johnny a sleaze ball or what? I would say yes, but it is not my business. Don’t get mistaken that I am passing any judgement to Cody.

But check these out: they bought a car together but only Cody paid. She took charge of the bills of Johnny and his family’s, and furnished her quasi step daughter’s room accordingly, all to help Johnny to separate from his wife, and she later bought a house to live with Johnny in suburb with a mortgage of thirty years. All would not have been possible had it not by her sex work career, she later noted.

I bet Johnny was appreciating a stripper in the house where he was not even rushing to get a divorce, which only Cody was working hard toward and made happen entirely. This woman stayed up all night long flashing her pussy to the point she malfunctioned in the day job while this Johnny was sound asleep at night. Dig? 

The weird thing is that I did not hear any critical or negative comment about Johnny from any reader, to say the least from Cody: she clearly defended Johnny from any criticism beforehand in the account. When it comes to the description of their life, it was obviously very limited, probably for protection of their privacy, and I thoroughly understood it. Still, this restricted take on their life, which motivated her continuing sexwork longer than she originally meant, perversely rang the very loud bell to indicate that the quasi married life with the really married man sucked for her. I believe that it should not be the only way to assess the quality of one’s life with someone whom he/she is closely attached to, but I would not take it if I were in her shoes. Cody actually did, though, with the understatement of her real sentiments to be integral and/or the overstatement on Johnny’s charm. Or this was what love meant to her: sacrificing your sentiment for the integrity of your life over all. Dig?

I guess I might be one of the very few who take a mean look at the happy picture, but I after all cannot help politicizing this because this is a very archetype of dynamics where a lot of sexworkers fall into when they are affiliated with men, just to live, so called,  ‘a normal life.’ So I examined the link between Cody’s seemingly deliberate overlooking her Johnny’s obvious flaw and Johnny’s conveniently being very understanding about Cody’s working in the sex industry.

I always wonder what the curse is when a working woman lives with a man who affirms the woman who work, probably regardless of job-type, and her earning power, but now let’s just focus on sex workers’ case here because that is what the structure x-ray-ed.

The man who encourages/appreciates/expects his girlfriend’s/wife’s working is usually on the way, or already in the particular dynamics with her that are exploitative, therefore, corrupting. Or thre is something incompatible about a woman’s financial independence and her (posing) relationship to a man. It already indicated the women’s condition and their financial predicament. Women were fundamentally domentic slaves who belonged to male members of a society.

This ‘patriarchy eqpeating pimp’ logic was theorized originally by Marx, and proved by a bunch of men and women who lived it, myself included. Personally I understand there is only denial underneath whatever the front when you are involved with a man who affirms your working in the sex industry. The reason is very simple: the currency economy is doomed to exploit the socially powerless unless they invent something that prevents it, for capitalism is closely attached to people’s desire and there is no stronger and focused desire than men’s need to simply ejaculate. In that condition, female bodies are, whether you like it or not, the most comodities to be used for the purpose: it has been institutionalized until today as marriage and sexwork. Marx was therefore carefully theorizing the intersection of supply and demand and trying to invent a way to resist and change the doomed structure. Although Marxism was Marxs’ effort to save the powerless in a society, women and kids, from exploitation, it also showed the dead end of the economy system where banned prostitution. OK, this is the point. The collapse of the East, in a way, proved that we can’t deny the capitalistic element if you have to boost economy in order not to die out from starvation, but at the same time, we can’t just let our alarm inactive regarding exploitation. To summarize, we have to seek out the right way to organize capitalization of female sex with the least exploitation instead of pursuing being idealistic and ending up with a bunch of hypocrisies.

This is the linchpin to acknowledge what women’s condition is up to day and what their bodies mean in economy. In this sense, sex is never free, and sex that is free of charge is supposed to be criminalized, and any treatment of women in the society is a form of economical transaction.  As you see, bartering for female sex has been the major engine of the economy, and this has been overtly/covertly the means for women’s very immediate survival up to day. 

Regardless of you are married or eloped, just living together or seeing regularly including sexual activities, the man is liable for the sexual transaction in any method that involves two parties. If the man  who benefited does not pay for it, let alone accepting money like Johnny did (he not only did not provide Cody, but depended upon money she made through her sex), according to the unwritten part of the tradition, he was not only getting away with what he was liable already but also benefitting his partner’s earning through her sex work. This is basically pandering in denial. Dig?

But Cody’s account refuses to interpret it that way.  It is not my business, and I pretty much know how people fall into the situation, whether they affirm it or not. Although I personally wish there were some room left for any unconventional alternatives for relationships for sex workers and any women with her independent economic power, it is not very realistic to imagine any in regards of the transaction of money and sex. This is the fundamental theory. We are living in the ruin of the convention that constituted mostly co-dependence, and it creates a lot of inconvenience if people still try to develop the illness like situation when they are completely wholesome.

The funny point is this; marriage and sexwork—getting men off to get rewarded for it— are two sides of the same token. We sexworkers conduct transactions revolving around sexual activities, and if you try to have an exception,  whoever officially benefits you sexually as he makes believe he does not owe or own you, the logic and the principle begin to corrupt. This logic is what governs your life, and this might be what people call ethics. A lot of people deny as saying this is love. It is time, then, to examine the definition of love you believe in. Isn’t it another euphemism of exploitation?

I absolutely believe Cody to be a bright woman. Narrowing her intelligence down to one word, though, it could be literally her optimism. This translates her ability to choose what is positive over what are negative. She has always chosen what she can take out of everything including tons of shit. This was what her story Candy Girl was all about, and summing up, what the whole sex industry can be as well. Whether you see sexwork as heaven or hell is up to your perception: it undeniably offers opportunities, though, and I give you my word for it. Because Cody chose only bright side of every shit she plunged into bravely, she did not have to waste her time on being angry on sexwork or on her Johnny’s furtive manner of pimping her benefiting her financially. And she took the chance to testify what sexwork brought her. This after all made me think we really have no time to be so grudging, even for a man like Johnny.

Although I am absolutely not her kind, I admit there is something really touching in Cody’s account in terms of how to take a chance. Now I definitely believe that I need a bit of essence of Cody; being a good sport, not dwelling upon the negative aspects of a relationship with a man, etc. although I still do not know how.

In the interview in BUST mag this year, she was emphasizing how important it would be for women to have their voices heard, using all the media now available. She was one of those who made it without being discouraged by the ever present misogyny even in Hollywood. This made me think, indeed. I still feel skeptical about Johnny but now they split, so what do I ask for? What happened to the mortgage?

The criticism the Urban Kvetch raised was;

Cody’s Johnny’s girl tattoo represents her being so uncool.

She was never a ‘COOL’ type in Heeb’s sense, nor will be. Let her be your Mid Western Comfort, which is what she really is.