Most prostitutes still fit the demographic of being victims of their circumstances. Their johns somewhat out of the loop and with definite psycho-social problems.

Moreover isn't the idea of comodifying sex the ultimate capitalist ploy? Why would modern left wingers support the commercialization of sex?

In the old days we promoted "fee love". Isn't that much better?

Whoops! Now that is a freudian slip!

Of course I meant "free love".

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

Prostitution: An honourable career choice

You might be particularly interested in the revelations by some babblers of being on the purchasing end of the transaction.

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

But even at that even the attractive ones to me seem cold and and unappealing. I therefore conclude that legalizing sex for services is simply wrong for logical and aesthetic reasons.

What we should have is free sex for all as part of a public service covered under public healthcare. You get to use the services four times a month or something. You need to have a clean bill of health and use the appropriate protection. The service providers are all government employees etc, etc,

This would be different entirely. It would change the entire scene. Of course many would argue that this would make it even worse for those seeking to service a drug habit buy selling sex.

Perhaps there are free love dating services out there somewhere that provide for consenting strangers to anonymously get together for a shag. But honestly I think such sex would be lousy however vicariously attractive it might sound.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
What we should have is free sex for all as part of a public service covered under public healthcare. You get to use the services four times a month or something. You need to have a clean bill of health and use the appropriate protection. The service providers are all government employees etc, etc,

---

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
nonesuch, under 'gender' in your profile you said 'social construct'. Are you prepared to consider that your judgements about prostitution are just that - social constructs?

---

quote:

---

The notion that paying for sex objectifies the seller; the notion that those who pay for sex are 'unloved' and are reduced to paying someone to pretend; the notion - implicit in your post - that what is wrong in your eyes is automatically a failing of society, something the rest of us should be elevated above (even those who do not share your values regarding the commodification of sex)?

---

But it's still wrong to make love a commodity, just as it's wrong to own and sell water.
And it's still a failure of society if people can't be loved freely and can't keep their bodies for their own pleasure.

By the way, i didn't say 'immoral'. Immoral means unacceptable in a given religious climate; always subject to change. I said 'wrong', which is far more universal and absolute.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

The prostitute walks away with her body quite intact, and all hers. It doesn't belong to anyone else, any more than my body "belongs" to my partner once I have had sex with him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
... jobs in which people are used up and cast aside ...

---

What an unhelpful and false generalization. I think back to the very best I ever knew; Late twenties, divorced, very intelligent; she put herself through a masters degree in psychology; was always careful to arrange her class schedule so as to have two afternoons during the week free - (well, certainly not free
), carefully screened and selected her clientel, and used what she learned about her clients as material for her thesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
But it's still wrong to make love a commodity, just as it's wrong to own and sell water.

---

Where did i get the idea that sex and love are the same thing? Where did i get the idea that the enjoyment of food is related to nourishment?
No, it's not the same thing. It's only the best expression and celebration of romantic love that we've come up with, so far. You can have sex just for fun, just as you can eat ice cream when you're not hungry. But you shouldn't have to.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
I'm talking about a good life, a good society. Some activities should not be for sale - or rent. Sex is one of these things. Art is another, and sport and music and comfort and laughter and prayer. These are things that people should do for the joy of it; to share if they want to, when they want to, with whom they want to.

---

In summary, it seems (to me) that if prostitution were legalized/unionized, many of the current issues regarding cleanliness, health, international blackmarket forced sex slavery, liveable wages and fee structures would no longer be issues. So, in essence, it appears that most people who are adamently opposed to prostitution may actually be opposed to the symptoms of it's current less-than-legal status.

Being one of the "oldest professions" of humankind, it seems highly unlikely that further statutes against it are going to have any effect other than making it that much more vulnerable to blackmarket profiteers.

What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if it's fully legalized, and all practioners as well as 'clients' must have mandatory health insurance coverage, as well as an agreed upon fee structure?

Not unlike other service providers, many of whom must also be 'bonded' as well as insured.

If you don't believe in selling the fruits of your artistic, athletic, musical, comedic or sexual abilities, no one should try to make you. Who are you to decide that some things should only be done for joy, while others may be done for profit?

I certainly don't see how anyone benefits by an artist working in a factory all day, painting only in her precious spare time and giving away her work as birthday presents to friends and family.

quote:

---

If someone is free to share their sexuality with whom they want, when they want, can they take money for doing so if they want?

---

There is merit to this idea in the purely Marxist sense. When someone is employed the service is provided to the customer and teh value of that labour is taken by the boss or capitalist who returns only a fraction of the value to the worker.

Whores provide a service and get all the money and so they are in that sense not exploited. Advocates of regulation and legalization also argue that the giovernemnt or police or even society in general provide additional protection for those operating under these terms of self employment.

If you look up the definitions of whoring usually there are two. One is the simeple "sex for money" one which is value free. The other is one about the compromising of principles for wealth. Conceptually you can get around the latter by sticking to the former. If someone's job is to get paid money for sex and is not exploited in the process then they have not compromised on their principles strictly speaking.

But the etymology of whore is somewhat different:

quote:

---

Middle English hore, from Old English hre. See k- in Appendix

Derivatives of Indo-European roots have often acquired starkly contrasting meanings. A prime example is the case of the root *k–, “to like, desire.” From it was derived a stem *kro–, from which came the prehistoric Common Germanic word *hraz with the underlying meaning “one who desires” and the effective meaning “adulterer.” The feminine of this, *hrn–, became hre in Old English, the ancestor of Modern English whore. In another branch of the Indo-European family, the same stem *kro– produced the Latin word crus, “dear.” This word has several derivatives borrowed into English, including caress, cherish, and charity, in Christian doctrine the highest form of love and the greatest of the theological virtues. •Another derivative of the root *k– in Indo-European was *kmo–, a descendant of which is the Sanskrit word for “love,” kma, appearing in the name of the most famous treatise on love and lovemaking, the Kamasutra.

---

Little mention of exchange.

Oh yes the other definition is prostitute the etymology of which is someaht amusing:

quote:

---

ETYMOLOGY: Latin prstitta, from feminine past participle of prstituere, to prostitute : pr-, in front; see pro–1 + statuere, to cause to stand; see st- in Appendix

---

Are thus the word viagara and prostitute the same?

Anyway if you think on it fairly then you can see that it really depends on what we mean by "legalizing prrostitution". Do we mean legalizing and giving sanction to the grotty and oppressive social conditions that surround it now? Do we mean more free sex? If we mean more free sex would this not be offensive to unions seeking to protect the prostitute?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
How many of you really wouldn't care whether your life-partner comes home from a hard day at the office or the brothel? (It's none of my business how you feel, but you need to to be honest with yourself about it.)

---

???

Be honest about what? Having feelings about a spouse having a job that interferes with monogamy is a far cry from thinking prostitution is wrong.

I *wouldn't* want my spouse to sell sexual services - but I wouldn't want him to to be a rock star or an NBA player either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
This whole "selling her body" stuff has its roots in what I consider a very anti-feminist view of female sexuality, where the woman's body "belongs" to the man she's sleeping with.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Having an open attitude toward sex by removing the stigma around prostitution is positive but . . .

---

The idea in this musical was that prostitution was so common - where the mating ritual was a commodity market between soldiers and "whores" - that for certain segments it became the social convention.

The story is about a rebellion against that type of debasement and the assertion that there is a noblesse oblige for the capitalist to remember his humanity.

I think the left should be against acquiescing to this social arrangement 9prostitution) just because it is "easier" to recocile with some debased form or perception of human nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
Anyway if you think on it fairly then you can see that it really depends on what we mean by "legalizing prrostitution". Do we mean legalizing and giving sanction to the grotty and oppressive social conditions that surround it now? Do we mean more free sex? If we mean more free sex would this not be offensive to unions seeking to protect the prostitute?

---

That seems to imply that the "grotty and oppressive social conditions" that surround the trade are inherent, but I don’t believe it addresses the ways in which such conditions are sanctioned legally. The "legalization of prostitution" as I understand it is about the right to self-determination the right of a sex worker to be recognized as a full and active participant in such transactions (recognized as having total possession of their bodies, minds etc.), the right to seek legal council in the event of an assault, rape, theft without fear of criminal prosecution, the right to work without fear of harassment and or abuse by the police, the right medical services, mobility within the profession etc.

Snip

quote:

---

It is invisibility which has exacerbated the negative aspects of prostitution both for the community and the prostitutes themselves. Invisibility means we don't need to look closely at prostitution or our response to it because we have the illusion that it is only a marginal part of our society. Invisibility means that this is unlikely to change since the individuals who are in the best position to explain why things aren't working or what in fact the problem really is -- e.g. the prostitutes themselves -- have no way of being heard, since being invisible also means being inaudible.

---

Snip

quote:

---

Invisibility has allowed us to create a standard of rights and freedoms for prostitutes which are separate but not equal to those guaranteed to the rest of the population. While this results in poor if not dangerous working conditions for prostitutes, it also has severe repercussions for the qualitative standards of the community as a whole. Rights lose their meaning and effectiveness when they lose their objectivity. A society which protects only a select portion of its people is soon unable to protect anyone.

---

Prostitution in Canada: The Invisible Menace or the Menace of Invisibility? -Sylvia Davis

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
I therefore reject Anchoress' "too ugly for free love" thesis. It is a somewhat circular arguments if you examine it. With enough compassion everyone getting laid regularly (without having to pay for it) is a practical possibility.

---

OK, number one I didn't say 'too ugly for free love' - that's a slightly shallower interpretation of my actual words.

quote:

---

In fact, to my eyes (I could be wrong), it sounds to me from most of your posts that your solution to the prostitution problem is for women to give it up for free.

---

Give what up?

Isn't there some sort of objectification going on here?

As to the general idea, many cynics have said that all relations between the sexes are in some sense "prostitution"; the primary purpose being using sexual attractiveness to get something else.

This is a social convention that mostly applies to women since in the past most had only there biological function (sex through child bearing and rearing) to offer. Now it is much different. In most marriages there is a vast complexity of attributes that attract peopleas often confounding conventions as much as toadying up to them.

As women are becoming liberated men's real perceptions of women are developing and so there are new definitions of female and male attractiveness.I'm not against "whoring" in the sense that it involved truly free love. I am just against the idea that making sex a commodity in a narrow sex-for-cash relationship is somehow liberating. It is pure capitalism and as such highly destructive, in my opinnion.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

In trying to figure out where in the hell you are coming from, I choose the latter. Reading your posts, I hear "kid"; someone who has spent, at best. only a very few years as an adult and who has no real experience with "relationships". As such, especially given your seeming "know-it-all" attitude, you have nothing to add to my perspective.

Prostituion, in lieu of a health care program that gets people laid when "medically necessary", fills in this gap, and has ALWAYS done so, well before the social construct of "capitalism" was conceived and furiously promoted.

Also, the concept of 'free love' is very euro-centric. There are whole cultures (including most of asia) where single women - to put it crudely - just don't put out. So if a man is not fortunate enough to be married, the likelihood that he could satisfy his sexual needs through casual dating or even non-marital monogamy is not anywhere near that of a caucasian man.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

I imagine something more along the lines of a sexual therapist. If you were feeling sexually unsatisfied, or unable to achieve satisfaction no matter what you tried, or (of course) if you just couldn't get any, then you could take yourself to a professional who would meet with you, talk about your problems and decide if he or she would take you on as a client. The key difference would be that the sexual therapist would be treating your sexual well-being, rather than just following your orders. They would decide what sexual relationship would be the best treatment for you and it might be the exact opposite of what you thought you needed. Their skills would not be just the art of giving pleasure, but the healing of sexual misfunctions that would allow people to progress into non-commercial sexual relationships.

quote:

---

I've often wondered what prostitution might become in the future. Y'know, when we dispense with all this patriarchy nonsense….The key difference would be that the sexual therapist would be treating your sexual well-being, rather than just following your orders.

---

quote:

---

I hear "kid"; someone who has spent, at best. only a very few years as an adult and who has no real experience with "relationships". As such, especially given your seeming "know-it-all" attitude, you have nothing to add to my perspective.

---

Well I am sorry but you have completely misread me but that is understandable given the vagueness of my bio stuff.

But what is interesting is that you have drawn your conclusion from my opposition to the idea of some sort of simplistic legalization of prostitution as a "profession".

Now in your more forthcoming bio you indicate that you are also a professional. Your assertions about relationships almost seems like they are somehow related to the topic of sex for cash.

What does a pure transcation gave to do with relationships? Did your own experience in relationships involve this sort of horsetrading? Perhaps you are a divorce lawyer?

Whoring must be a huge cause of marital bust-ups.

quote:

---

It was the topic that brought my mother around on the issue of prostitution, and it related to a group of prostitutes who formed a 'compassion club' to service the sexual needs of single para- and quadraplegic men - who - certain fortunate individuals excepted - have little hope of sexual contact through dating. I'm interested to know where these men would fit into a 'free love' society, since many of these men are not in a position to provide reciprocal sexual satisfaction.

---

Well did these men pay these women themselves? Unlikely some other source of cash paid them if indeed they were paid at all.

And on the issue of "reciprocal sexual satisfaction" free love is free love. You don't need to provide reciprocal favours all the time. The very idea is the idea that sex is about getting a good deal with your "stuff". I think the best sex is the sex where you focus on giving pleasure. That is why whore's like their work I guess. The hours, pay and working conditions sure are lousy.

quote:

---

There are whole cultures (including most of asia) where single women - to put it crudely - just don't put out. So if a man is not fortunate enough to be married, the likelihood that he could satisfy his sexual needs through casual dating or even non-marital monogamy is not anywhere near that of a caucasian man

---

Sorry, can't help myself:

There was a young man from Lachine
who invented a screwing machine.
Both concave and convex
it could serve either sex -
but, oh, what a bugger to clean!

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

Em... Where does that leave women, sexual-need-satisfaction-wise? Lots of hetero male prostitutes in Asia? Or anyplace? Because if it's a need then surely single Asian women and ugly old western women and paraplegic women are suffering the same privation. And what about poor people? I mean, some of us can't even afford regular visits to the chiropractor.
I haven't heard of any deaths due to celibacy... which doesn't mean there are none; could have been misattributed to some other cause. Or maybe people don't die of sexual need because they can satisfy it - inexpensively and safely - without a partner? Might be a good idea to look into more of self-service devices.

---

Um... I'm guessing that maybe you aren't expecting an answer to your questions, but I'll give you some anyways, as best I can.

1. In much of the world, chastity and/or virginity is more of an expectation of single women than it is in North America, so single women in Asia and most of the rest of the world would not be going to male prostitutes.

2. There has been speculation as to why few women go to prostitutes. Various suggestions include: women have lower sex drives than men; women are sufficiently inhibited as to not be able to enjoy sex with a stranger; women don't possess the economic freedom to pay for sex; women are more concerned about disease and violence; women are embarrassed to pay for sex; there aren't enough male prostitutes out there; women can get laid without having to pay.

3. I don't understand your question about poor people.

4. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one can die from lack of sexual release. Is there something else you are trying to say?

5. Not all people are capable of masturbating.

6. Indulging in masturbation does not necessarily satisfy one's sexual needs.

Saying that it's "wrong, wrong, wrong" or "right, right, right" isn't an argument.

Discussing prostitution as okay doesn't mean one accepts that the present situation, whereby men with sufficient incomes are the only ones able to avail themselves of non-romantic, paid-for, sexual release is cool. Discussing the acceptability of prostitution with "how would you like it if your daughter, sister, companion, mother, etc., was a prostitute" has validity, but only if the question is framed so that lingering preconceptions, individual and social are to be imagined away and replaced with an honest alternative.

I don't think that people die from lack of sex, in the form of some massive seizure. I do think that people can waste away without that form of human contact.

I think that other mammals, however highly we might regard them, just don't have all of the mental baggage (from our higher intelligences) and relatively long life-spans in which to suffer them, that we humans do. What i mean by that is that some people just make themselves and others miserable. But their need for contact compels them to seek out a life partner.

While women haven't been able to avail themselves of male prostitutes, how many sad, desperate women can we think of who throw themselves into doomed relationships because they need to be close to someone, anyone?

In cultures where women's sexual needs are not considered by the dominant (masculine) cultural mores, whose to say that the women are happily going about their lives free of concern for their sexual needs? Just because their culture would burn them alive for seeing a male prostitute (as it would burn alive any male prostitutes), doesn't mean that they're happy.

I'd bet if we didn't have this constant barrage of sexual imagery, we wouldn't be thinking about it nearly so much, but just looking at how human sexual urges have always crept out of the constraints that human socieities have placed over them, it seems obvious that it is greater than we can control.

The origins and rationales for these restraints are important subjects in themselves and should be considered. I don't think sex is a harmless, 100% posititve diversion. I think it is inevitably tied up into a lot of other issues, and we have to consider them rationally and honestly. I think openess is better than restriction, but we have to be honest about it.

I've babbled enough, I think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:

I haven't heard of any deaths due to celibacy...

---

No, but we HAVE heard of untold numbers of children getting sexually molested because of institutions insistance that people remain celibate (Roman Catholics priest, Thai Buddhist monks, etc.)

Besides, who said anything about it causing death? Come on... especially for young people, a lack of sexual interaction WITH A LIVE PERSON (and not just your hand and/or handy piece of hardcare) is a major cause of concern. Obviously, some people come to terms with a celibate lifestyle-- but that's usually not done on their own terms.

My main concern with prostituion is the victimiziation of children, and the only realistic way I see getting kids off street is to fully legalize the profession and subsequentially take a hard line on street workers, especially children, while also taking an equally hard line against the poverty and addiction problems that cause these individuals to work the street.

In Thailand, the "Land of 10,000 Smiles", 40%+ of all men have their first sexual experience with a sex worker due to several factors which have already been alluded to in this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panama Jack:
I wonder how long it will take before Viagra and related drugs are covered by insurance programs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress

1. In much of the world, chastity and/or virginity is more of an expectation of single women than it is in North America, so single women in Asia and most of the rest of the world would not be going to male prostitutes.

---

quote:

---

Panama Jack:
... the growing realization that sexual gratification ain't just a thrill, it's something central for the general happiness and well being of practically every human being, both male and female

---

quote:

---

Anchoress:
Good point, Panama Jack
.... a group of prostitutes who formed a 'compassion club' to service the sexual needs of single para- and quadraplegic men - who ... have little hope of sexual contact through dating.[and].. not in a position to provide reciprocal sexual satisfaction...
Also... cultures (including most of asia) where ...if a man is not fortunate enough to be married, the likelihood that he could satisfy his sexual needs ... is not anywhere near that of a caucasian man.

---

quote:

---

2. There has been speculation as to why few women go to prostitutes. etc

---

quote:

---

..women can get laid without having to pay.

---

quote:

---

3. I don't understand your question about poor people.

---

quote:

---

4. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one can die from lack of sexual release. Is there something else you are trying to say?

---

quote:

---

6. Indulging in masturbation does not necessarily satisfy one's sexual needs.

---

quote:

---

7. I don't understand what you're trying to say about the self-service thing.

---

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

But you still haven't answered my question.

---

-Anchoress

What question?

quote:

---

DonnyBGood, you must be young if you think whores enjoy their work. Street prostitutes are often in it for the money or drugs or because they have been forced to be.

---

Trisha

I am not young chronologically. In fact I am over 50! But what is with this age thing?

I was saying that whores, by definition, enjoy raw sex. Prostitutes on the other hand probably rarely enjoy sex if they are doing it for money.

I am trying to say that free love and sexual liberation is not served by prostitution but constrained and oppressed by it. Why should it be simply "legalized". Why does that make the real situation better?

Here is a good article on the issue:

Red light reality

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by this little girl:
now this is a bit off topic, but i am wondering about the language that people have chosen to use throughout this thread. i'm curious to know why certain words are used - prostitute, sex worker, hooker, whore, etc. language is powerful and i would like to learn more about where folks are coming from.

---

Personally, i don't condemn prostitutes, but totally - intellectually, morally* and emotionally - reject the practise of selling intimacy. Also selling fun, spirituality, creativity and passion. I disapprove only slightly less of selling time and effort for another's profit. In fact, i just plain dislike capitalism and the way it reduces all life to dollars.
That's where my choice of words is coming from.

*An afterthought. Perhaps i ought to clarify, since i used the word moral here and had said earlier that my objection to prostitution is not a moral one. My objection may coincide with various moral codes, but goes far beyond them.
For example, a religion may condemn prostitutes as immoral women, yet fail to condemn the men who make them so; another religion may approve and even practise prostitution in its rites. Both would be wrong.
It is wrong, whether established systems approve it or not, to diminish any person's humanity by treating them as a convenience or function.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

my bone to pick is that i feel that people who are not sex workers should not use the word whore because they cannot reclaim it and are therefore using it in a derogatory way. does this make sense?

---

- this little girl (actual age: 25+)

Here is the problem as I see it. The word "whore" as I pointed out earlier has a different etymology than the pay for money definition. Prostitute has a more mechanical etymology implying its existing meaning.

If you look at fashion today and apply the standard of 50 years ago most women today dress like "whores". I don't use the word derogatorily and I enjoy today's fashions infinitely more than the prissy straightjackets of the 50's. But in some ways this fashion is also repressive cramming people into some bizarre mould.

But "whoring" is really just men and women having consensual sex in a noncommittal environment. For it to work there has to be mutual respect and compassion and attendance to the problems that attend such freedom such as STDs.

If society were to allow this it would be better than simply legalizing prostitution.

So the point is I think that there is a double standard if you insist only "sex professionals" can lay claim to the language of sex, a language which has considerable power. I oppose such a restriction.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

quote:

---

I was saying that whores, by definition, enjoy raw sex

---

quote:

---

Good point, Panama Jack, and I was going to bring it up regarding a side-issue that I think is important. It was the topic that brought my mother around on the issue of prostitution, and it related to a group of prostitutes who formed a 'compassion club' to service the sexual needs of single para- and quadraplegic men - who - certain fortunate individuals excepted - have little hope of sexual contact through dating. I'm interested to know where these men would fit into a 'free love' society, since many of these men are not in a position to provide reciprocal sexual satisfaction.

---

Interesting, the service those women provide is not unlike that of a surrogate. The only difference is that surrogates are specifically trained to build up a physically challenged person's self-esteem and work on body image issues so that the client would be prepared to go out and seek their own partners. I'm not sure how I feel about prostitutes. If sex trade work was legal and part of our healthcare system, I'm not entirely certain I would actively seek one out, I think the service would seem rather impersonal, rather like a nurse giving you a sponge bath. I've dealt with a lot of healthcare workers in my very short life. I don't think I would want one handling my joy department in an intimate way. I wouldn't deny the service to other men however.

quote:

---

So if this word defines women who enjoy raw sex, what is the term for men who enjoy raw sex

---

quote:

---

So if this word defines women who enjoy raw sex, what is the term for men who enjoy raw sex?

---

Men I think can be whores too.

quote:

---

whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
n.
A prostitute.
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

---

No gender reference here.

But there is the reality that men rarely are prostitutes for women "Johns" (Janes?). Now ask yourself if a man would think it demeaning or shameful to have sex for money with say 16 women over an eight hour period. I think I heard somewhere that men in reasonable shape could have sex every half hour so it is theoreticaly possible. But it never happens. Women never have to pay for sex.

So by legalizing prostitution without examining the social relations that create this imbalaced situation we are really not siolving "the problem" but actually making things worse.

Here is a good article on the yes side which knocks some holes in my opposition to legalization in some aspects but affirms certain ideas I had.

Common Myths

quote:

---

After hearing from some "working women," he amended his column and subsequently noted, "They would prefer that prostitution be decriminalized instead of legalized.

"They feel that if prostitution is just legalized, it will allow the government to impose all manner of unrealistic controls, which means that the new laws will also be largely ignored."

According to Horne, "Decriminalizing it would make it no different than safe little sports like boxing, demolition derbies, and ice hockey

---

I think this was also alluded to by Anchoress.

edited to add:

quote:

---

However, Amy, a former full-time prostitute who we interviewed, said that she generally enjoyed her work, especially the sex. The fact that she regularly climaxed with the men she spent the night with would seem to support this. After more than two years as a prostitute without contracting an STD or becoming pregnant, Amy found a job with a large U.S. corporation.

---

This is poking a lot of wholes in my distintion between prostitutes and whores having different attitudes about the sex and who enjoys it. Apparently they all do. But it supports the notion I had that whores actually do enjoy the work and that this likely the main reason they return to it.

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

quote:

---

what is the term for men who enjoy raw sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonnyBGood:

Women never have to pay for sex.

---

I've been giving a lot of thought to this statement. I think that the lack of understanding of our social framework that it demonstrates is profound. And this is not a criticism particular to DonnyBGood; he just happened to supply the statement in this conversation, I've actually heard it many times before.

I've been trying to reverse the statement in a couple of different ways - is the opposite of "Women never have to pay for sex" "Men always have to pay for sex"? Or is it "Women always have to be paid for sex"? Would we accept either of those statements as readily as we accept the initial one?

Saying "women never have to pay for sex" implies that it is always freely available to them. Is this true? I don't know about others (well, maybe the folks in BWAGA, which counts several women in its ranks ) but when I was single, months would go by with no sexual contact. Where was this sex that's so freely available to women when I was 21 and longing to get some of it?

Maybe the answer is that it was there, available, and I didn't know how to find it. I was much older before I realized that men didn't have to like me, or indeed be terribly attracted to me, to have sex with me. Perhaps then it was true that sex was freely available; I certainly wasn't choosey, happy to share a good time with pretty much anyone who wanted to share one with me. There were a lot of men then, whose names I can't recall and whose faces I now couldn't pick out of a line-up, a whole string of one-night stands.

Now having read that, how many were just a little shocked? How many thought that I must be a whore, to be fucking men that I didn't like and barely knew? I'll bet more than will admit it. But I just treated my sexuality like most men I knew treated theirs - like entertainment. Certainly not all men are frivolous with their sexuality, but many are, many more than are women. Men who have sex with a lot of women are praiseworthy; he's a lady's man, a stud, a smooth operator. Women who have sex with a lot of men are seen as whores, even if there's no money exchanged. So, while women may never have to pay dollars and cents for sex, it certainly isn't free.

Women are socialized not to be sexual except within a narrow framework. Outside of that framework, as every high school student knows, she's a slut, she has a bad reputation, she sleeps around. And if she did indeed ever pay money for sex, she'd undoubtedly be much worse - a desperate slut.

That would be the conclusion, wouldn't it? She's so desperate that she has to pay someone to have sex with her, i.e. she is unable to attract any man with whom to have sex. Which again, is a reflection on the woman, since we know men are always willing and eager and if she can't get it for free, there must be something dreadfully wrong with her. Instead of thinking that she has a healthy normal urge but with no intimate partner with whom to satisfy it, she's chosen a professional.

"Women never have to pay for sex" also implies that if they had to, women would/could pay for sex. This is often untrue. Probably they wouldn't, as discussed above, but in many cases, they also couldn't if they wanted to. In general, not in every instance but in general, women still earn less than men do. And single women, who presumably would be the ones wanting to pay for sex, are more likely than single men to have children under their care. Such women would be unlikely to be in a financial position to pay for sexual services. (Of course, this would apply to lower-income men as well, I'm just not discussing them in this post)

quote:

---

There has to be a term? It sounds like asking, "what is the term for cows that eat grass?"

---

There's a term for women, "whore", why shouldn't there be a term for men too? There's no term for women of sexual quality such as "stud" is for men.

The terms "whore" and "slut" have been used to degrade women who enjoy sex for a lot of years. Men have never had these types of terms applied to them. Don't you think it's about time that a better, more complementary term should be applied to women?

How does this apply to this thread? If prostitutes were considered in a better light, many of the problems would become less troublesome and it would be a less dangerous occupation, opening the doors to fairer treatment of the workers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisha:
There's a term for women, "whore", why shouldn't there be a term for men too? There's no term for women of sexual quality such as "stud" is for men.

---

PS: CMOT:

quote:

---

None,
No you can't die from celibacy, but it can certainly make you very miserable.

---

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I reference to DonnyBGood's comment here:

quote:

---

This is poking a lot of wholes in my distintion between prostitutes and whores having different attitudes about the sex and who enjoys it. Apparently they all do. But it supports the notion I had that whores actually do enjoy the work and that this likely the main reason they return to it.

---

This kind of attitude and the supposed documented support for it are exactly what keeps women and children being kidnapped, drugged, brutalized and/or raped into sexual servitude. The truth is that for every woman who enjoys prostitution work, there are between 20-50 who not only do not but who can't get out of it. It's likely even be more than that. The majority of street prostitutes are owned by pimps and are living a life of pure hell. Many were runaways from situations where they were sexually or otherwise abused. Many live their entire lives drugged up in order to keep on living. Many are beated by pimps and johns regularly. Many have diseases and are dying. Most never intended to get into this kind of work.

Women do not return to abusive situations because they like it, they go back because there is little support for them to get out and stay out. This applies to domestic situations and prostitution. I have never yet met a woman who enjoyed being raped or beaten to within an inch of her life.

Do you think all the women that disappeared in Vancouver were on the streets because they wanted to be? I very much doubt that that is so. What about all the others who have been killed or disapeared in other places? Did they put themselves in such danger because they enjoy sex? Not on your life!

quote:

---

This kind of attitude and the supposed documented support for it are exactly what keeps women and children being kidnapped, drugged, brutalized and/or raped into sexual servitude

---

Whoa Nelly! (I mean Trisha)

You are confusing the two things that I have been talking about. I am in favour of sexual freedom. I do no see anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of sex for cash. In fact it seems less oppressive than most other employment relations in principle.

But I have also said I am against the idea of the simplistic solution of legalizing prostitution precisely because of all those reasons you cite.

How would legalized prostitution have prevented the murders, rapes and abductions, the pimping and abuse? Would it not result in more of that kind of thing?

quote:

---

Women are socialized not to be sexual except within a narrow framework. Outside of that framework, as every high school student knows, she's a slut, she has a bad reputation, she sleeps around. And if she did indeed ever pay money for sex, she'd undoubtedly be much worse - a desperate slut.

---

No doubt this is true. But I never felt this way about women that were called this in highschool. I disliked people who spoke this way about women. Many of my male friends felt the same way. It is not to say we were anywhere near the majority but things are changing and have changed in the last 25 years.

But in theory men mostly pay for sex, as I understand it, not only for gratification but also for control. And this control fetish is the dangerous aspect of this social arrangement. It is bizarre really. Why do people, men or women, value this aspect so much?

It this dimension that is strange. Men may feel inadequate so they demand control and buy sex. Women, oppressed, discriminated against, abused even never or rarely buy sex do they not have even more justification for feelings of inadequacy or need for control? Is really the difference between the sexes we are talking about or the consequences of the capitalist patriarchy?.

The reports I cited were well documented and by women. Prostitutes don't have in the majority, drug problems or evil histories according to these reports. The fully functioning prostitute ,(absent of oppressive social conditions like drugs, crime and pimps) enjoys the sex and makes a lot of money at it.

These reports often argue that the profession can be viewed as a support system for marriages that are themselves too constraining.

But I think that the two notions of sexual freedom and sex-for-cash are essentially contradictory. But I guess the "free love" discussion is somewhat off topic.

Most sexual relationships that last are mature enough to recognize that lousy sex occasionally occurs and in some ways it is just as liberating as the "quivering lump" inducing
experiences.

Marriages where there is no sex for medical or psychological reasons might be served by prostitution. My point is that these cases are rare and there is another freaky agenda as a result of flawed social conditions that needs to be addressed before we jump into "legalization".

I've been lurking on this thread for a while and on the previous "honourable profession" thread. The topic absolutely fascinates and horrifies me -- very strong feelings. Here are a few points that come to mind and haven't been specifically identified as far as I can tell:

Who says prostitution is the oldest profession. Maybe it isn't. Lots of thing we believe and say over and over again could easily be completely upside-down. We didn't live in ancient times. How on Earth can we be so sure? I think it's extremely naive to think that since time immemorial women have been in this role of possessing and restricting access to something that men want, and are prepared to pay for, is to pander to all kinds of implicit sexist assumptions. Could the reverse have not been just as likely? Perhaps in the early days of humanity women devoted all kinds of resources to getting men to do the dance that makes the human race with them.... um... just a minute here... How would that be different from what women do today? I'm with the babbler (can't remember their name at the moment) who pointed out that women do plenty of longing for sex and intimacy and can't seem to get it.

It was a relief to see the posting that challenged the idea that johns are guys who ain't gettin' any. I heard an undercover vice cop describing the kinds of johns she had managed to trap as she posed as a street prostitute. She said a good number of them had a child's car seat in the car and presumably were married. Her impression was that many were married.

Most people respond to this line of discussion with questions about why those men aren't getting what they need from thier spouses. Gosh, I wonder how many years I went without getting what I need from my spouse! (A situation I'm happy to report has since been pleasantly resolved by losing the loser.) How many women live out their entire lives not getting their sexual needs met by their partners? I would guess the proportion would be very, very high.

Why then is there practically no market for male prostitutes, strippers, etc.? Why don't we have an entertainment industry that features young studs scantily clad, slithering all over the television screen during Oprah commercials or other programs women like to watch? Is it because what women want is totally different from what johns and other men are after?

My working hypothesis is that in this patriarchal culture, which damages both sexes, this is one of the symptoms of the damage males have suffered. Some important part of their humanity and dignity is eradicated by their unbalaced position of power over women and this causes them to need to pay someone to pretend they like them and are even sexually turned on by him. ..either that, or they are turned on by using another human being's body in the context of an economic exchange and usually, as has been pointed out in this thread, someone vulnerable, traumatized, and trapped. I think that's a sick kind of sexuality, and it's a sort of sickness for which women seem to have immunity. But there I got getting on my high feminist horse again. Oh well...

One more thought: the one thing that I find hardly ever gets discussed in these debates on the sex trade is the effect of the trade on ordinary, hetero women like myself and on the relationships we live in with male partners. For example, how many women wonder if their partner seems like one of those guys you would never guess had a deviant bone in his body, but then recalls stories of women whose husbands have been found using child prostitutes or some such thing and thinks to herself "Could I be just as mistaken?" This situation, I think, has an overall damaging effect on relations between hetero partners.

Ok, I'll stop monopolizing the conversation and hope that others will be stimulated by some of what I've contributed and will respond to it.

Whew! Thanks for listening, babblers. I feel a lot better.

quote:

---

Why then is there practically no market for male prostitutes, strippers, etc.? Why don't we have an entertainment industry that features young studs scantily clad, slithering all over the television screen during Oprah commercials or other programs women like to watch? Is it because what women want is totally different from what johns and other men are after?

---

quote:

---

I heard an undercover vice cop describing the kinds of johns she had managed to trap as she posed as a street prostitute. She said a good number of them had a child's car seat in the car and presumably were married. Her impression was that many were married.

---

OK let us assume then that much of the sex trade is for men within established marriages. Is it right to arrest the John, destroy the marriage, damage the kids, break up the home just because the guy paying for extra sex?

Who says they are not having great sex within a relationship and everything else is OK. Every normative psychologist might argue that this beahvior is definitive. In other words, married men visiting prostitutes indicates martial problems. The question is for those who favour legalization is, "Is this the cure for the problem or the cause?".

Suppose you had a public sex clinic where anyone could go and have sex with anyone else, consensually and anonymously with no strings attached and at no cost.

She: "Dear, I'm just going down to the sex clinic for two hours. I'll be back soon. Luv Ya!"

He: "OK hun. Have fun but save some for me! See you tonight for the real thing! Luv ya!"

Does this work?

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
Suppose you had a public sex clinic where anyone could go and have sex with anyone else, consensually and anonymously with no strings attached and at no cost.

She: "Dear, I'm just going down to the sex clinic for two hours. I'll be back soon. Luv Ya!"

He: "OK hun. Have fun but save some for me! See you tonight for the real thing! Luv ya!"

Does this work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisha:
This kind of attitude and the supposed documented support for it are exactly what keeps women and children being kidnapped, drugged, brutalized and/or raped into sexual servitude. The truth is that for every woman who enjoys prostitution work, there are between 20-50 who not only do not but who can't get out of it. It's likely even be more than that. The majority of street prostitutes are owned by pimps and are living a life of pure hell. Many were runaways from situations where they were sexually or otherwise abused. Many live their entire lives drugged up in order to keep on living. Many are beated by pimps and johns regularly. Many have diseases and are dying. Most never intended to get into this kind of work.

---

It seems interesting to me that one set of generalizations is being refuted with another…

While I don’t think that the article DonnyBGood posted makes or implies any generalizations about prostitution: I do think that the assertion:

quote:

---

This is poking a lot of wholes in my distinction between prostitutes and whores having different attitudes about the sex and who enjoys it. Apparently they all do. But it supports the notion I had that whores actually do enjoy the work and that this likely the main reason they return to it

---

does. Then again statements such as:

quote:

---

Most prostitutes still fit the demographic of being victims of their circumstances. Their johns somewhat out of the loop and with definite psycho-social problems.

---

As well as the one being argued I believe have been the framework in which the topic of the thread (has) is being discussed.
My problem with both statements is that they totalize rather then address the experience(s) of sex work and the real subjects of this dicussison (or at least who I think should be) in their own right.

The decriminalization/legalization of prostitution (my interpretation anyway…) isn’t so much helping victims then it is about the right™ of people to take control of their work and their lives. Whether that means receiving or seeking out adequate protection, access to services afforded to anyone else, or even the ability to leave the profession if one chooses to do so…

Just like the use of the word "whore" by sex workers (as mentioned by this little girl) at least I think isn’t about "laying claim to the language of sex" it is (to me) about reclaiming (or laying claim to) ones own self, ones body—y’ know those bodies being "sold", those bodies being "violated" or "degraded", those bodies that are the objects of discussion but never really the subjects of them…?

Etc.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

quote:

---

Well, yes. You did say 'anonymously'; why tell the significant other?

---

quote:

---

How would legalized prostitution have prevented the murders, rapes and abductions, the pimping and abuse? Would it not result in more of that kind of thing?

---

If prostitution was legalized and became an honourable profession, there would not be the devaluation of the women and the hatred that is responsible for the majority of the situations stated above. That could and likely would reduce these occurrances substantially over time. I'm not saying that the problem of street hookers making drug money would be 100% solved. I don't know if that could ever happen. There would still be a market for cheaper services so that wouldn't be totally ended either. The result for these women could be that the danger would be reduced because they would be treated less badly by those in authority and their clients.

If women were able to enter the profession out of choice, it would reduce the need to build up stables by brutal means. Again, it won't end it 100% but will reduce it substantially. If women were properly organized, pimps would no longer be needed because the prostitutes would be able to protect themselves and act as their own agents. If the women were self-controlling, nobody could abuse them and get away with it.

For example, drug dealers (but not pharmacists) also face great dangers.

I don't mean to condone prostitution (or drug dealing) but it should plain that the illegality, not the work itself, is the source of the danger.

I was quite suprised to discover that prostitutes enjoy their work. I had this idea that they were forced into the profession by their circumstances and that the sex was joyless. But apparently this is not so.

The most persuasive argument for legalization is that it will eliminate a great part of the criminal and oppressive circumstances. Maybe but look at other professions like boxing which has been legalized for a long time and has many attendant risks anfd is rife with corruption and exploitation.

John McCain the republican war hero and presidential hopeful has called for the sport to be unionized in order to protect the boxers from exploitation. That is, the conservative solution is more than legalization and ends at unionization. Surely a socialist critique should look beyond that?

So the sex clinic idea was simply a trial balloon. Perhaps something altogether different is needed.

I don't agree that it's mostly the illegal or underground nature of the trade that causes most of the prostitutes' problems, including the stigma they face. The stigma could just as easily come from people's revulsion toward someone whose job is terribly unsanitary (even with latex), physically, but more important, spiritually (lots of bad karma generated I would think).

Also, how am I, a hetero female, supposed to feel toward all those women who are hustling business from my spouse? ...angry, jealous, and threatened quickly spring to mind. So I can imagine that most women feel negatively toward sex trade workers for that reason. I wonder if anyone would ever care to actually ask how people like me feel about the sex trade. Almost all the research ever done inquires about the experiences and feelings of workers a johns. Nobody seems interested in the ordinary woman's opinion. (not particularly unusual).

There is the other problem that sex trade workers do things that are (reasonably, I think) considered anti-social and deviant in society. Now I agree that "society" goes rather overboard in its repressive attitudes about sex, particularly where women are involved, but really, is it prudish to feel negatively toward a woman who is trying to get your husband out of his pants and into hers? (I can hear a chorus of "What a husband does is up to him, not up to a prostitute he may encounter!" Well, yes, of course, but I'm just focussing on the sex trade worker for the moment.) Is it prudish to feel uncomfortable with the idea of a woman (or man, for that matter) naked, with her legs spread open, displaying her various orfices to dozens of men or rubbing against them, one after the other?
It's not the kind of thing we tend to think of as um... normal? um... socially acceptable...? I'm having a hard time finding a word for it.

Then there's the misogyny inherent in our culture and the resulting social discomfort with female sexuality. In the context we live in, as long as women are viewed in the way we are, the sex trade will probably always reflect and reinforce the devaluing and denigrating of women. Therein lies much of the reason for the stigma sex trade workers face. For example, I for one, don't like to see someone acting out the kind of denigration and devaluing that I feel in many areas of my life. I might even feel like she's part of the problem, particularly if she's making lots of money at it and really enjoying her work.

quote:

---

What I am against is the trite notion that the social conditions surrounding drugs and prostitution are somehow resolved by waving the magic wand of "legalization".

---

I don’t believe that the current conditions that exist (or those characterized as existing) within prostitution will be resolved by waving the magic wand of "legalization".

I mean are we looking at "legalization" as an omnipotent magic wand that will "fix" things, or as a strategy which would (or could) serve as a method of addressing, responding to, or dealing with such conditions as they exist or as how we imagine that they exist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bobbie k:

Also, how am I ... supposed to feel toward all those women who are hustling business from my spouse? ...angry, jealous, and threatened ...?

---

bobby k,

The point is that people need to think of the big picture. How many marriages are ruined by prostitution? Are these negatives of a higher value than the lives of prostitutes?

If casual sex was acceptable or if there were sex clinics and the social attitudes that support them were widespread would prostitution even be necessary?

[ 14 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

It is hard not to note that prostitution flourishes when men have much more money than women. In that sense, I am not surprised that it has been described as the world's oldest profession.

Nevertheless, it seems that most clients of prostitutes are basically lonely men. Perhaps the prostitutes are lonely too. (What about mail-order brides?) And how many women have placed ads to find someone?

Thanks for the insight and advice, but it's not my particular spouse I'm concerned about, although I realize it was sort of framed that way. I was using myself as an example, not (fortunately) voicing a concern about my spouse's trustworthiness.

My point is that part of living with the sex-trade is that all women understand that there is this wide spectrum of sexual services and entertainments available to all men, including the man we are intimate with. We all have heard the anecdotes about the well respected family man who gets caught and charged as a john and nobody would ever have suspected he would do such a thing, least of all his spouse. Well, if one spouse can be so thoroughly duped, what about the rest of us? Was she stupid? No, probably not.

Now maybe most women don't ever entertain such thoughts about men patronizing the sex-trade (acutally I wonder if most hetero women make a point of NOT thinking about this at all, just because it's so disconcerting). But when you consider the sheer size of the sex-trade and the money it manages to shake out of the wallets of all those men, you have to wonder who all those guys are! ... my boss? my MLA? ...my physician?.... my brother? ... my son? ... my husband? Really, it sometimes crosses my mind in a meeting or during a social interaction... gee, would he...? If not him, then who? Who is screwing these 14-year-old street kids and 40-year-old drug addicts and whoever else is available out there?

This is all part of our living in a cultural context where women who are very provocatively cast come-hither looks at all the men, (including the guy whose hand you're holding) from the magazine racks, the grocery store shelves, the tv screen, the movie screen, ... virtually everywhere.... virtually all the time.

It makes me wonder what are the effects of all the men in our society being continually exposed to this "fuck me" message from all these provocative women and teens, while at the same time all the women are continually exposed to the threat of someone seducing their partner. Sure, most of the time it's a symbolic seduction, not a de facto one, but just think about the overall effect of this barrage, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.... Do men get bored by this? Apparently not. Do men want to see this all the time? When we see this kind of thing on the tv or in a grocery store my husband points out that he didn't ask for it. Well, who did? (please don't let me convey the impression that I harass my poor spouse every time we pass a magazine rack or turn on the tube...really...as over-the-top as the situation is, I think I manage to exercise an appropriate amount of restraint -- or self-censoring, perhaps).

quote:

---

Do men get bored by this? Apparently not.

---

I do. When I was in grade 12 the powers that be thought it would be a cool idea to introduce television into the hallways of my high school. The school administrators thought it would be a good way to broadcast information about school events. Unfortunately it is almost always tuned in to Much Music. Every video seemed to feature scantily clad anorexic blond girls. I soon got sick of watching them. I have a thing for large women. There wasn't a pear shaped beauty to be found anywhere.
mens magazines also have the same lack of variation.
You do realize that by saying " men" you are stereotyping 48% of the human race, right?

quote:

---

I don't think it only affects women who don't nicely fit the Barbie-doll standard of feminine "attractiveness".

---

No one fits that standard. Barbie's measurements are impossible to emulate, and those that try to emulate them end up dying.

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

* Make that the objectification of people. These days, the best-rounded human characters in tv ads are dogs. There are hardly any in the actual programs.

If you believe it you end up paying for it to find out it is false.

We should be more critical and more sexual.

quote:

---

The bizarre thing is that as any straight guy discovers early on all the sex advertising is a mythology.

---

Ummmmmm......what do you mean?

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

The women working sure have a look of expectation about them as I drive by. So, the stereotype of the married male customer might have something to it.

We've had these discussions on this topic off and on for years now-- at least us long timers. It might be interesting to go back over our old posts and see if our views have changed over time.

I think we can all imagine a safe, professional kind of prostitution that we can perhaps see a need for, or at least find not objectionable. But I think we all know the actual reality of prostitution is very far removed from that imagining.

I like nonesuch's post about living in a society where there just isn't a need. I'm like that on issues like this. Abortion is one also. I'm pro-choice, but I'd rather live in a society where women didn't have to make that choice.

When you start to think about how fucked up this society is sexually, we know that getting to the pint where prostitution is moot, is a journey that will stretch much longer than anyone's time alotment here on earth.

And in the mean time, men and women work in dangerous circumstances, and something emediate is required while we work towards the utopian ideal.

quote:

---

Prostitution is baffling to me. It's extremely easy to get sex in our culture I don't see why people would pay for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
I've heard several times in different interviews with rich, famous men who pay for sex - when they're asked why they bother since they could doubtless get laid whenever they want - the answer is they aren't paying the women for sex, they're paying them to go away afterwards.

---

Generally though, with men, I think many employ prostitutes for the turn on of employing prostitutes.

It's a power/control thing, a constant theme in human sexuality.

I conclude that if people within society cannot get enough sex then this is a social constraint not a natural one.

Look at Stephen Hawking - very constrained by physical limitations but did much in the world of science and sired a family as well.

So I think that while prostitution may be convenient personally, it is also very convenient socially as a way for rsociety to redirect the powerful revolutionary force of eros.

Are those in favour of legalizing prostitution in favour of a more liberated sexual enviroment or less?

For example what does someone like Sue Johanson think? I'd like to know.

Which leads to the entire issue of whether or not it is socially acceptable to go to a prostitute if your spouse does not want to do some sexual practice or technique. Sex therapists like Johanson give advice on how to get comfortable with the slightly kinky but wouldn't it be a lot easier just to go somewhere and be shown? I mean people play sports together but still go to clinics to improve their "stroke" or their "swing" etc. Is this the function that prostitutes play within society? Are people who have used prostitutes better sexual partners? Are prostitutes themselves better partners?

I think all of the answwers to these questions are no mainly because their is little emotional content in pure technique usually. Prostitutes are there for some other reason than sex therapy generally speaking. Of course they may provide this "spin off" (if you'll pardon the pun.)

quote:

---

Are those in favour of legalizing prostitution in favour of a more liberated sexual enviroment or less?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

There has been speculation as to why few women go to prostitutes. Various suggestions include: women have lower sex drives than men; women are sufficiently inhibited as to not be able to enjoy sex with a stranger; women don't possess the economic freedom to pay for sex; women are more concerned about disease and violence; women are embarrassed to pay for sex; there aren't enough male prostitutes out there; women can get laid without having to pay.

---

I read a book once entitled How the Mind Works, where they talk about a study they did on some university and college campuses. They had young men approach young women and young women approach young men (I guess heterosexuality was assumed), and they were asked one of the three following questions:

a) Would you like to go on a date?

b) Would you like to go to my place?

c) Would you like to have sex?

When asked (a), men and women responded yes about equally, about 50%, I believe (I'm going from memory here). When asked (b), men's yes percentage went up to 70% and women's went down to about 30%. When asked (c), women's went down to 0% and men's went up to 90%, and the ones who turned the young women down said things like "My girlfriend is in town; when she's out of town, I'll call you if you give me your number" or other requests for a raincheck.

The point of this part of the book is that there are differences between how men view sex and how women view sex. Comparisons are made between humans and other primates which show similarities which cannot be explained by social constraints on women in human society.

Men and women have about equal sex drives.

Men tend to be more promiscuous than women. The author of the book theorized that this is because, biologically (I'm not talking socially here), men's commitment to the possible results of sex (a child) are nil, just a few minutes' worth of sex. A woman's commitment is far larger and longer, so biologically she has evolved to be more picky about her sexual partners. This is true for gay men and women too. The gay men I know have all had sex with hundreds of, some well over a thousand, men; one friend jokes "Do some people actually find out their names before having sex?" The lesbians I know are not promiscuous in the least. (I realize that the people I know do not form a statistically valid sample; take my, and anyone else's, anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt.) This has nothing to do with being gay or straight; this has to do with being men or women.

Men also tend to separate sex and emotions more than women do; biology is also blamed for this, although I don't remember exactly how.

At the same time, while I think that some ideas in evolutionary psychology should not be avoided as some people would wish, I think that Pinker draws conclusions too quickly and too "cutely." Here's a fairly scathing (but not closed-minded) criticism of How The Mind Works that is worth reading:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR23.2/berwick.html

quote:

---

Prostitution is baffling to me. It's extremely easy to get sex in our culture I don't see why people would pay for it.

---

The more I read this, the more pissed off I get. Are you really that clueless? Women can get sex anytime, anywhere, because ultimately, they hold the veto. Men, to put it crudely, must take what they can. You've obviously never been to a bar on a Friday night.

Speaking from experience, or more properly lack of experience, access to sex is extremely easy in our culture if you are an attractive young woman, or a hot guy, but if your gawd-given looks fall a just little shy of Jude Law or Cameron Diaz, your prospects fall off significantly.

There are a lot of lonely men who do not possess the social skills, physical attributes, self esteem, or face it, money, necessary to engage in a successful, "normal" relationship with a woman (or man). That there are people willing to provide what is a deep physical need for them is something we should encouage and congratulate.