Does prostitution have a place in a socialist society?

[Dani Phantom]

In a post-revolution society,should prostitution be legalized?Personally,I don't think so;prostitution is a form of patriarchy IMO,and should be abolished.Besides, there would be no need if there is economic equality.

But that's just my opinion.If you're pro-prostitution,why are you?

[Art Vandelay]

Edit: my answer was stupid because I did not properly read the question.

[Ilyich]

In a post-commodity society, sex wouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Would it?

[Luc]

nope (didn't vote though cause the 2 "No"s are lame)

prostitution requires money, are we not for abolitioning money? I am uncertain how prostitution could even function in a post-revolutionary society bceause of this

[Ilyich]

nope (didn't vote though cause the 2 "No"s are lame)

prostitution requires money, are we not for abolition money? I am uncertain how prostitution could even function in a post-revolutionary society

Here's a related question, though: In the transition from capitalism to socialism, assuming we use labor vouchers, can labor voucher be used to purchase sex.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Vladimir Lenin would object to such notion, syphilis isn't anything to play with.

To answer your question, I don't think prostitution should be around in Socialism. The reason is because it will involve an exchange of some form of payment. Additionally, I don't believe a woman/man should sell themselves.

If someone enjoys sex, they can inform the individuals who are present to their desires, and can have extreme amounts of sex that way.

Also, why when you think of prostitution it exclusively female? I've seen documentaries on male prostitution.

[Luc]

Here's a related question, though: In the transition from capitalism to socialism, assuming we use labor vouchers, can labor voucher be used to purchase sex.

just came across my mind :/ if there is a new kind of currency i sapose


though im for free-access

[Hermes]

I'm for prostitution in the sense that people who want to share their body with others should be free to do so, although obviously there wouldn't be exchange of money involved in a socialist society.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how you can argue that it'd be patriarchal, because there could be both male/female prostitutes. And while STD's are terrible things, if it is protected by the government there would be far less chance of it occurring.

[Luc]

I'm for prostitution in the sense that people who want to share their body with others should be free to do so, although obviously there wouldn't be exchange of money involved in a socialist society.


but then is it prostitution anymore or just hooking up? :p

[Blake's Baby]

Is this all an elaborate joke?

Hermes seems to be 'groping' (I use the word advisedly) to some sort of 'why are governments like condoms?' set-up, though I'm not sure of the punchline. '... because you can't conceive of them fucking you' perhaps.

The options in the poll are just... shit. 'Yes it's good' and 'Yes it's good' or 'No it's bad' and 'No it's bad'... really? Is that it?

As the actress said to the commissar.

[Hermes]

but then is it prostitution anymore or just hooking up? :p

True, my mistake. I was probably misusing the word prostitute.

[Nox]

Yeah, I wanna get laid!

In all seriousness though, it will still probably exist in a Socialist society. Instead of money, people will exchange labour vouchers or actual items for sex. It will be a lot less prevalent simply because people won't have to resort to prostitution to make a living (as many people in capitalist societies do), but it will still exist.

[Prometeo liberado]

Prostitution may cease to exist but will Porn survive? Is one exclusive of the other?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think this is an interesting question though I think some of the responses seem limited in their scope and treatment of the industry. Considering we are talking about the "world's oldest profession," I don't think we should strictly limit our view of the phenomena to just sexual intercourse for profit or the exchange for something of equal value. I think this is a limited view of it because hypothetically speaking sex work could be seen as a social service. I say this because I view sex as a natural human appetite equivalent to the need for food, drink, and so on.

For example, I've heard in the Netherlands that handicapable persons are given a stately allowance that they can use to hire sex workers. This, in effect, can be seen as a social service. What's this have to do with a post-revolutionary society? I think the idea of sex work having a social aspect shouldn't be ignored and I think it's why it will probably never die out, just perhaps change forms.

It would also be worth considering the "Johns," part in the equation. Why do some men and women chose to pay for sex instead of going the usual route of slumming around places of drinking and dancing? It is the convenience? Some psychological reason? Are they socially awkward or inept? Or do they just like the variety and the exotic? The answers presumably vary from person to person. The "customers," play a central role in this equation. I think it would be possible for those whom feel they are extremely talented in the sexual arts to organize themselves as say, a factory would and could provide sexual services to others, free of cost whether it be money, labor vouchers or actual physical commodities.

Just as their are asexual people, whom feel little or no desire for intercourse, there is also hyper-sexual people whom love to make fuck. I have also heard from numerous documentaries on the subject that sex workers love what they do (granted, these tend to be the ones in brothels and not the ones on the street whom are under the despicable thumb of pimps).

So my answer is, yes, conceivably their would still be sex work it would have just changed and evolved into something somewhat different as the rest of the society would have.


Prostitution may cease to exist but will Porn survive? Is one exclusive of the other?

I think the porn industry would follow the same changes that the "regular," movie industry would.

[campesino]

sex is recreational/personal, it produces nothing of value. I doubt the workers committee will give labor vouchers/certificates to prostitutes, who don't produce.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

sex is recreational/personal, it produces nothing of value. I doubt the workers committee will give labor vouchers/certificates to prostitutes, who don't produce.

I don't believe in labor vouchers but I would still argue they provide a service just like any other worker and contribute to society even if their product isn't tangible.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

I support freedom of choice for everyone in a socialist society, so yes I see nothing wrong. However, like all vice, it needs to be closely regulated.

[Raúl Duke]

Here's my opinion.

It's true that under capitalism prostitution and to slightly lesser extent pornography has patriarchal element.

But perhaps under socialism these elements can be eliminated. To a some extent we already see this with pornography, I've heard of people making new forms of it that's allegedly less patriarchal.

I think this is a question that a generation under socialism can more easily solve. Personally, as long as it's done in a way that isn't patriarchal/etc, that I guess it might maybe be fine.

I'm not exactly pro-prostitution/etc but I personally don't see anything wrong with it if by chance someone wanted to be a sex worker under socialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I support freedom of choice for everyone in a socialist society, so yes I see nothing wrong. However, like all vice, it needs to be closely regulated.

I disagree with the regulation bit. I don't think it would need to be regulated at all and regulation generally implies the existence of a state.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

I disagree with the regulation bit. I don't think it would need to be regulated at all and regulation generally implies the existence of a state.

I'm assuming you would mean once the world has achieved Communism and there would be no state? I do believe that people are responsible, however knowing how street prostitution works and how dangerous it can be for both the client and prostitute, there would have to be a way to make sure they are both safe and doing it for recreational purposes, and that the prostitute isn't being forced to do it.

[hatzel]

vice

Qué?

Vox populi's on it here. Of course one could quibble over exact definitions - if 'brief encounters' can be arranged at present through various websites and advertisements, without money changing hands, would similar practices, taking the places of prostitution in contemporary society, be prostitution or otherwise, in the absence of direct monetary exchange? Does it matter? It only becomes relevant with the separation between labour and non-labour forms of activity, which I would argue would not ideally persist beyond capitalism.

Raúl has pointed out quite rightly that there are new 'feminist' forms of pornography emerging, whilst previously women's erotica was primarily in the form of novels. Now there's plenty of 'visual' pornography - pictures and videos - that intend to cater for women and couples, and as such seek to express non-patriarchal sexualities. Let's not turn this into one of those threads, though; irrespective of one's 'take' on pornography and patriarchy, there are people of all sexes, genders, sexualities etc. who enjoy displaying themselves in such a manner and being seen. People who submit pictures and videos of themselves to websites and magazines, often because they find it arousing to do so. This will most likely continue.

[Magón]

The way I see it is, if a man or woman wants to go around prostituting themselves, then it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks about it. Just like porn. If two or more people want to shoot themselves having sex, spreading it around on the internet or burning it to some DVDs for a material copy, and that's what they do to get by, then who's to say they should't?

The porn industry already has an apparent self regulation (or did at least, not anymore here in Cali apparently,) that after 28 days, the actors have to be tested to protect themselves and the other actors they'll work with later down the road. It was an agreed upon system by the actors and everyone else in the porn industry.

Prostitution could be the same way. If someone wants to go prostituting themselves, let them self regulate. Give them the proper knowledge and knowing of how long it takes this or that STD to show up, and let them regulate how often or not they're tested. Hell, unionize them and let them regulate that way?

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Qué?

Vox populi's on it here. Of course one could quibble over exact definitions - if 'brief encounters' can be arranged at present through various websites and advertisements, without money changing hands, would similar practices, taking the places of prostitution in contemporary society, be prostitution or otherwise, in the absence of direct monetary exchange? Does it matter? It only becomes relevant with the separation between labour and non-labour forms of activity, which I would argue would not ideally persist beyond capitalism.

Raúl has pointed out quite rightly that there are new 'feminist' forms of pornography emerging, whilst previously women's erotica was primarily in the form of novels. Now there's plenty of 'visual' pornography - pictures and videos - that intend to cater for women and couples, and as such seek to express non-patriarchal sexualities. Let's not turn this into one of those threads, though; irrespective of one's 'take' on pornography and patriarchy, there are people of all sexes, genders, sexualities etc. who enjoy displaying themselves in such a manner and being seen. People who submit pictures and videos of themselves to websites and magazines, often because they find it arousing to do so. This will most likely continue.

I was mainly trying to provide a word for it, and yes I agree this shouldn't become one of those kind of threads.

[hatzel]

I was mainly trying to provide a word for it

A think a word other than 'vice' would be greatly preferable. One which doesn't carry such repugnance in it, and doesn't make accusations of utter moral depravity.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm assuming you would mean once the world has achieved Communism and there would be no state? I do believe that people are responsible, however knowing how street prostitution works and how dangerous it can be for both the client and prostitute, there would have to be a way to make sure they are both safe and doing it for recreational purposes, and that the prostitute isn't being forced to do it.

That again, requires no regulation. The sex worker's would be self-managed and I believe that current brothels have extensive surveillance and on site security in case something were to occur. Further, unlike the sex workers on the street under capitalism there wouldn't be possibility of financial coercion (as there would be no currency nor markets) or the possibility of chemical enslavement (as in sex workers being coerced into having sex to support drug habits). So, really, there would be no possibility for any coercive actions to be taking place as they would be self-managed and they would have voluntarily opted for such a vocation. Not to mention, things would also change on a cultural level in terms of gender dynamics and so on.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

A think a word other than 'vice' would be greatly preferable. One which doesn't carry such repugnance in it, and doesn't make accusations of utter moral depravity.

Would commodity be better than?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Would commodity be better than?

I think commodity in terms of this line of work could be somewhat objectifying, I personally would choose to call it a social service.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

I think commodity in terms of this line of work could be somewhat objectifying, I personally would choose to call it a social service.

Social service could be considered a commodity in most situations, at least in Marxian terms. This is a matter of perspective though, so there can be a multitude of terms to describe this particular service.

[Zulu]

Prostitution will "wither away", just like the state, money and monogamous family.

[MarxSchmarx]

Prostitution will "wither away", just like the state, money and monogamous family.

The question, being about a socialist society, is what to do in the mean time.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Prostitution will "wither away", just like the state, money and monogamous family.

Wtf you mean "monogamous family"?

[jookyle]

I think you're all forgetting about The State and Revolution where Lenin specifically talks about the redistribution of sex and orgasms.

[Sea]

I disagree with the regulation bit. I don't think it would need to be regulated at all and regulation generally implies the existence of a state.
No. Just no. Not in this context. Regulation in general implies decision making and enforcement of those decisions. Regulation in a capitalist state implies the decision making and enforcement by (and therefore existence of) that state.


sex is recreational/personal, it produces nothing of value. I doubt the workers committee will give labor vouchers/certificates to prostitutes, who don't produce.
Depends on how tightly regulated the condom industry would be! :D

[Zulu]

The question, being about a socialist society, is what to do in the mean time.

Nothing special. Since there will be full employment under socialism, plus ever increasing public fosterage of children, women will have no reason to prostitute themselves.

[Raúl Duke]

I doubt the workers committee will give labor vouchers/certificates to prostitutes, who don't produce.

does this apply to other service industries?

Like, say a restaurant, a bakery, and such? Those have service labor (waiters/waitresses, etc).

That's why I feel it's hard to discuss prostitution (and to a lesser extend, pornography; as some mention if people wanted to distribute sex videos of themselves I'm ok with that) until we know how (what form) socialism is. But like hetzel mentioned it, I would prefer we don't moralize the issue per se (throwing around "vice" and such or being against it in society solely because one personally don't like it ["I don't like it, therefore it's bad!"]; I personally find elements of prostitution, strippers, etc, particularly in the capitalist context, to be objectable but I don't let my personal feelings cloud my thoughts on whether this activity is "banned" or something under socialism).

[~Spectre]

We can speculate as to whether it will naturally wither away. We can speculate as to whether some of the more problematic elements will wither away. We can however say, that a forceful prohibition of it would be ridiculous.

[Zav]

It has existed in every other society, so why not? In a Communist a-economy there will still be people advertising a good time, though there wouldn't be money involved.
I don't think that prostitution is inherently patriarchal, but rather that patriarchy limits it. Without economic power relations, the other power relations would most likely be gone as well, and so there would be a distribution of sexes and genders in prostitutes matching the greater society.

[Sputnik_1]

Prostitution will not survive for a quite simple reason - in a moneyless society where we are free of division of labour, there is no having sex for money. Also, with the overcoming of patriarchal society the perception of women as sexual objects of men would gradually vanish.
Will the porn survive? Probably. There is no one to ban it so unless everyone has lost their interest in making porn movies then they are gonna still be made. If people free of any social pressure on gender roles (man dominant, woman submissive) decide to make a porn movie I'm guessing that it would look diiferent than it does now. Also, if there are people who want to make them without any financial purpose and people who want to watch them, then I don't know why they should be stopped from doing that.

[Sputnik_1]

It has existed in every other society, so why not? In a Communist a-economy there will still be people advertising a good time, though there wouldn't be money involved.
I don't think that prostitution is inherently patriarchal, but rather that patriarchy limits it. Without economic power relations, the other power relations would most likely be gone as well, and so there would be a distribution of sexes and genders in prostitutes matching the greater society.

Well, I agree to some extent. Prostitution is about exchange of money with sex. If someone does it because he/she likes sex, not for money, then I wouldn't call it prostitution.

[hatzel]

Nothing special. Since there will be full employment under socialism, plus ever increasing public fosterage of children, women will have no reason to prostitute themselves.

I don't understand what either of these things have to do with the matter. Okay, maybe employment (but if you're still talking about employment after capitalism you're doing it wrong), but what does fostering have to do with this exactly?

By the way lots of you are buying into the lie that all prostitution is driven by economic necessity alone, hence eliminating such necessity will eliminate prostitution. Not so. Sure, there are people walking pavements in certain parts of big cities who would probably prefer not to, but there are also plenty of men and women who work in the sex industry/-ies because they want to. The fact that these people are more likely to be in the somewhat more prestigious (I guess) jobs, like 'high-class' escorts (ie well paid) or making big-budget pornography is relevant but not decisive; even if these people were to win the lottery, they would probably continue working in these industries, not because they need to, but because they want to. Difficult to understand for those who blindly accept preexisting prejudices in assuming that sex-work is the lowest of the low, and that therefore nobody would really want to have such a job, that they're all just looking for a way out...

[Tenka]

No,it is immoral
HELL NO!Patriarchy needs to be destroyed!!!!!
These options suck.
Rather, prostitution has no place in socialist society because people won't trade sexual favours for MONEY in socialist society....

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

If it were to exist, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

In a post-revolution society,should prostitution be legalized?Personally,I don't think so;prostitution is a form of patriarchy IMO,and should be abolished.Besides, there would be no need if there is economic equality.

But that's just my opinion.If you're pro-prostitution,why are you?

Why do you think it's patriarchy?

[Zulu]

plenty of men and women who work in the sex industry/-ies because they want to.

Than that's not prostitution, that's nymphomania.

And, once those industries go bankrupt, they will have to do it for free.

[eyeheartlenin]

I'm for prostitution in the sense that people who want to share their body with others should be free to do so, although obviously there wouldn't be exchange of money involved in a socialist society.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how you can argue that it'd be patriarchal, because there could be both male/female prostitutes. And while STD's are terrible things, if it is protected by the government there would be far less chance of it occurring.

Specifically, in response to Hermes, maybe I am missing something, but I believe that if there is no exchange of money, then, the best I can figure out, it's not prostitution.

In more general terms: When I was in college, in the YSA, we read about how one of the advances of the Cuban revolution was that female prostitutes were given jobs, other work to do, so that they had alternatives to their previous situation, and that sounded to me like a real advance, and a much better situation for those women, and clearly, that is what the SWP/YSA leadership thought, and they were staunch defenders of that revolution.

The big problem with prostitution, as I see it, is the gross inequality between the person buying and the prostitute; the person with the money is on a much higher level than the person reduced to selling him/her-self, and there is nothing socialist about that terrible inequality, so I am against prostitution under socialism. A revolution, surely, ought to be able to give people better choices, or what's the point?

[Zav]

The big problem with prostitution, as I see it, is the gross inequality between the person buying and the prostitute; the person with the money is on a much higher level than the person reduced to selling him/her-self, and there is nothing socialist about that terrible inequality, so I am against prostitution under socialism. A revolution, surely, ought to be able to give people better choices, or what's the point?
I don't think this is the case. In fact, I think the reverse is true in most instances. Not all, or even most, prostitutes are forced by economic or other means to sell themselves.

[eyeheartlenin]

I don't think this is the case. In fact, I think the reverse is true in most instances. Not all, or even most, prostitutes are forced by economic or other means to sell themselves.

Well, with respect, in my experience under capitalism, in a large east-coast US city, it was the case that, according to what people who approached me told me, they were forced to prostitute themselves out of economic necessity. According to those people, that was explicitly the case. I would never diss prostitutes or other oppressed people, but why else would anyone turn to such an alternative, in such a dangerous environment?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No. Just no. Not in this context. Regulation in general implies decision making and enforcement of those decisions. Regulation in a capitalist state implies the decision making and enforcement by (and therefore existence of) that state.


It's difficult to fully address this topic properly consider a "post-revolutionary society," could mean different things to different members. I'm not sure however presumably, if there exists no state, and said industry is self-managed by the sex workers themselves one would assume self-regulation in correlation with their own self-interests would take place and be agreed upon, yes. I don't think their would need to be outside forces regulating the industry with or without the state.


Nothing special. Since there will be full employment under socialism, plus ever increasing public fosterage of children, women will have no reason to prostitute themselves.

This is a rather silly and simplistic argument. You're assuming that sex work is inherently more lowly than any other work, service or otherwise and thus (as I believe another member pointed out) moralizing it and trying to claim that no woman would ever want to use her sexual talents as her vocation. Which simply isn't true. You're also assuming that all sex workers are women; which again, isn't true.


Prostitution will not survive for a quite simple reason - in a moneyless society where we are free of division of labour, there is no having sex for money. Also, with the overcoming of patriarchal society the perception of women as sexual objects of men would gradually vanish.

These again, contain a lot of assumptions about the industry which do not accurate and fully the industry as it exists even today. As I have previously stated the notion that sex work will just vanish away because their would no currency or financial incentive follows the same folly and illogic as some capitalist proponents whom argue that scientists and doctors won't do shit because there would be no financial incentive. Further, it is possible for such an industry to occur without a man viewing a woman as a sexual object or vice versa. More it would probably evolve into being seen as a person providing another person a very intimate and passionate social service for them.


Well, I agree to some extent. Prostitution is about exchange of money with sex. If someone does it because he/she likes sex, not for money, then I wouldn't call it prostitution.

That's a very limited view of sex work and I think, in terms of this conversation it would behoove us to just devolve into semantic arguments as they do not address the question of why has such a vocation, existed for so long, internationally, under a wide array of economic modes of productions.


Than that's not prostitution, that's nymphomania.


:rolleyes:


Specifically, in response to Hermes, maybe I am missing something, but I believe that if there is no exchange of money, then, the best I can figure out, it's not prostitution.

Again, I don't think we should get into semantics as it doesn't address the underlining issues.


In more general terms: When I was in college, in the YSA, we read about how one of the advances of the Cuban revolution was that female prostitutes were given jobs, other work to do, so that they had alternatives to their previous situation, and that sounded to me like a real advance, and a much better situation for those women, and clearly, that is what the SWP/YSA leadership thought, and they were staunch defenders of that revolution.

As I've said previously, sex work isn't some lowly job that is so beneath "proper," ladies (and men) that if they were given an alternative absolutely none of them would decide to continue with working in the sex industry. This is following outdated Victorian moral values. Sex, even in this industry, is not impersonal, it's rather the opposite and further, it is an appetite like hunger or thirst of which the workers provide just like other social service workers provide for their 'customers.'


The big problem with prostitution, as I see it, is the gross inequality between the person buying and the prostitute; the person with the money is on a much higher level than the person reduced to selling him/her-self, and there is nothing socialist about that terrible inequality, so I am against prostitution under socialism. A revolution, surely, ought to be able to give people better choices, or what's the point?

Presumably if we're talking about sex work in a post-revolutionary society that simply isn't true. The sex worker would have all the control because, to put it quite simply, if s/he doesn't want to fuck someone then they don't have too. The johns pleasure would be solely dependent upon the full consent of the sex worker. It's only under capital would this be true. They would be completely self-managed and absolutely no one is going to force them to fuck someone they don't want too.


Well, with respect, in my experience under capitalism, in a large east-coast US city, it was the case that, according to what people who approached me told me, they were forced to prostitute themselves out of economic necessity. According to those people, that was explicitly the case. I would never diss prostitutes or other oppressed people, but why else would anyone turn to such an alternative, in such a dangerous environment?

Street sex work even under capital is not representative of the entire industry and thus can't be construed as some inherent template in which the entire industry is under and conforms too. As I've said before, it been in my experience that sex workers who work in proper brothels and not the streets love their job and wouldn't want to do anything else because they see it as providing a very personal social service which can help people sexually, emotionally and so on.

[Dani Phantom]

Why do you think it's patriarchy?

First of all,women don't want to be prostitutes,but men do.Pimps force them to sell themselves for sex,so it's not an individual choice.Even when they do decide to do it,it's out of extreme poverty,so it's still against their will.

When a society says prostitution empowers women,it's saying that they don't give a fuck how they feel,and that men can use women as a play-thing.Also,in Nevada where its legal,there is a higher rape rate then California,New York,and New Jersey.

Does this make any sense?

[Sputnik_1]

These again, contain a lot of assumptions about the industry which do not accurate and fully the industry as it exists even today. As I have previously stated the notion that sex work will just vanish away because their would no currency or financial incentive follows the same folly and illogic as some capitalist proponents whom argue that scientists and doctors won't do shit because there would be no financial incentive. Further, it is possible for such an industry to occur without a man viewing a woman as a sexual object or vice versa. More it would probably evolve into being seen as a person providing another person a very intimate and passionate social service for them.
That's a very limited view of sex work and I think, in terms of this conversation it would behoove us to just devolve into semantic arguments as they do not address the question of why has such a vocation, existed for so long, internationally, under a wide array of economic modes of productions.

You do realize that there is a difference between a doctor and a prostitute, right? Prostitution IS having sex for money. Having sex because you like it is completely different. I personally think that it is sort off depressing to be a sexual object in order to make money, I'm absolutely not saying that it's immoral, I'm just saying that it is a sexual intercourse that doesn't involve any other relation between the two than exchange of a service with money. Someone wants to fuck for fun or pleasure? Great, no problem with that. But I certainly wouldn't call that prostitution.

[hatzel]

Something important you're overlooking: the distinction between those who enjoy having sex and those who are aroused by the idea of selling themselves. There is a difference, and saying that those who enjoy working in the sex industry just enjoy having sex - any sex will do! - is overly simplistic. They may be aroused by their being an escort above and beyond the simple act of having plentiful sex, their being an escort not(!!!) functioning merely as a means to an end, but as the end in and of itself.

[Kotze]

assuming we use labor vouchers, can labor voucher be used to purchase sex.Never thought about that. Hmm.

There was a Babylon 5 episode where a culture had the rule of making business deals official by having sex.

I think there would be a big problem with legal prostitution in a labour-voucher system, a problem that exists with all kinds of services that need very little in terms of special tools and machinery to be performed, where there is little evidence of it being rendered, and that is, and I guess nowhere else to such a degree as here, that one could fake instances of it as an alibi for black market payments.

[Hermes]

Specifically, in response to Hermes, maybe I am missing something, but I believe that if there is no exchange of money, then, the best I can figure out, it's not prostitution.

In more general terms: When I was in college, in the YSA, we read about how one of the advances of the Cuban revolution was that female prostitutes were given jobs, other work to do, so that they had alternatives to their previous situation, and that sounded to me like a real advance, and a much better situation for those women, and clearly, that is what the SWP/YSA leadership thought, and they were staunch defenders of that revolution.

The big problem with prostitution, as I see it, is the gross inequality between the person buying and the prostitute; the person with the money is on a much higher level than the person reduced to selling him/her-self, and there is nothing socialist about that terrible inequality, so I am against prostitution under socialism. A revolution, surely, ought to be able to give people better choices, or what's the point?

Aye, afterward I agreed that I misused the term prostitution.

However, I do agree with Vox Populi and Zav.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You do realize that there is a difference between a doctor and a prostitute, right?

I'm not stupid, so yes, I do however you're missing the point. It is the same sort of argumentation that if financial incentive or the carrot at the end of the stick isn't provided than no one would have any reason to do anything. The vocation may be different but the argumentation is the same.


Prostitution IS having sex for money.

Again, you're relying on semantics for your arguments. Abstractly one could view sex work as sexual relations for some sort of compensation. Sex work has not only included the exchange of currency. If viewed in this abstract way, one could see that said compensation is rather flexible and vague; even if we divorce it from the current conversation.

But if you really want to play this semantic game, then fine, so be it. How about you go and look at the etymological evolution of the word you have so chosen to use "prostitute." You will find that this notion of "sex for hire," or "sex for currency," isn't inherent in it's etymology; rather it would be "exposed lust," or "indiscriminately offered." Following this, my view of sex work in a post-revolutionary society absolutely flows from sex work as we have seen since time immemorial.



Having sex because you like it is completely different. I personally think that it is sort off depressing to be a sexual object in order to make money, I'm absolutely not saying that it's immoral, I'm just saying that it is a sexual intercourse that doesn't involve any other relation between the two than exchange of a service with money.

This is absolutely a limited view of the trade (and yes I called it a trade) and I think one based out of some preconceived albeit misguided views about the profession and is a reflection of bourgeois values that strips away the beauty and passion that could be found in such a service. It cheapens the whole thing just as capital cheapens virtually everything in modern life. Sex workers could provide unbelievable benefits to someones confidence, psyche, emotional well being, happiness, and so on.

There has even been couples whom have gone to the brothels to help strengthen their bond or marriage between one another. The view that sex or passion which is given indiscriminately is somehow inherently objectifying is not just wrong, it's dead wrong and is again a pure reflection of bourgeois and patriarchal values. We're talking about two or more person sharing one of the most intimate acts that humans can engage in, to deny how that could be a social service which could benefit society is beyond me.


Something important you're overlooking: the distinction between those who enjoy having sex and those who are aroused by the idea of selling themselves. There is a difference, and saying that those who enjoy working in the sex industry just enjoy having sex - any sex will do! - is overly simplistic. They may be aroused by their being an escort above and beyond the simple act of having plentiful sex, their being an escort not(!!!) functioning merely as a means to an end, but as the end in and of itself.

I agree but I would also argue that sex may not be the motivating factore, whether it be the sex itself or the idea of them "selling themselves," or providing this service. It also could very well be helping people emotionally, physically, sexually and any variety of things. Sex makes one happy does it not? I sure as fuck feel happy after a good long screw and with any profession that causes such happiness usually the people whom are performing said service agree, that's what it's all about.

Edit: I say all of this as someone whom has engaged in said work.

[Tenka]

^Are you conflating prostitution and porn acting as they exist today? I believe that is mistaken, if so. There is amateur porn acting, but amateur prostitution is a technical impossibility. If someone is turned on by the idea of being payed money for sexual favours, there is also such a thing as sexual roleplay, which I'm sure will still exist in abundance after a socialist revolution (paper money could still be manufactured as a novelty item of no real use but for such games).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

^Are you conflating prostitution and porn acting as they exist today? I believe that is mistaken, if so. There is amateur porn acting, but amateur prostitution is a technical impossibility. If someone is turned on by the idea of being payed money for sexual favours, there is also such a thing as sexual roleplay, which I'm sure will still exist in abundance after a socialist revolution.

Actually, I've been primarily addressing sex work and have rarely even addressed or mentioned porn (I think I may have perhaps once, past this I don't think I have). Further, everything I have stated thus far isn't influenced by the idea of "sexual roleplay," and have only been addressing, real, legitimate, sex work as it exists both today under capital and in a post-revolutionary society.

[Leftsolidarity]

I said "Yes, I see nothing wrong with it" because both "No"'s incorrectly critiqued prostition in my opinion. There is such a thing as male prostitutes.

I would say "No" if the question dealt with people selling themselves as commodities, though.

[Tenka]

Actually, I've been primarily addressing sex work and have rarely even addressed or mentioned porn (I think I may have perhaps once, past this I don't think I have). Further, everything I have stated thus far isn't influenced by the idea of "sexual roleplay," and have only been addressing, real, legitimate, sex work as it exists both today under capital and in a post-revolutionary society.

Okay, but prostitution can't exist in a socialist society. Therefore, if it's what gets some individuals off, as you seem to have suggested in an earlier post, they will have to resort to roleplaying to simulate the exchange of money for sex.
In a reply to another user, you said:

Again, you're relying on semantics for your arguments. Abstractly one could view sex work as sexual relations for some sort of compensation. Sex work has not only included the exchange of currency. If viewed in this abstract way, one could see that said compensation is rather flexible and vague; even if we divorce it from the current conversation.
where, in the part I bolded, you seem to include both prostitution and (professional) porn acting under the banner of "sex work". I don't think it does anyone a service to view it in so abstract a way (though professional porn acting, I can't see persisting under socialism either).
Also:

But if you really want to play this semantic game, then fine, so be it. How about you go and look at the etymological evolution of the word you have so chosen to use "prostitute." You will find that this notion of "sex for hire," or "sex for currency," isn't inherent in it's etymology; rather it would be "exposed lust," or "indiscriminately offered." Following this, my view of sex work in a post-revolutionary society absolutely flows from sex work as we have seen since time immemorial.
I've heard said time and time again that prostitution is "the oldest profession" -- but is not patriarchy the oldest class relation?

I really can't see how "sex work" would work under socialism; people would have sex hither thither and yon, but what would they exchange it for apart from some subjective emotional benefits?

[Regicollis]

If a system of labour vouchers is introduced I don't see any reason why sex workers should not be compensated for their work. If people should be compensated for baking cakes for people why should they not also be compensated for providing sexual services to people?

If we achieve full communism the concept of work would disappear and along with it concepts like "sex worker".

There would be a huge difference from today's sex work though. Nobody would be forced to do it since everyone would have their needs met and the sex workers themselves would decide what kind of work gets done, who does it and for how long - just like any other workers.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all,women don't want to be prostitutes,but men do.Pimps force them to sell themselves for sex,so it's not an individual choice.Even when they do decide to do it,it's out of extreme poverty,so it's still against their will.

First of all, women don't want to be bakers. Bakery owners force them to sell themselves for making bread, so it is not an individual choice. Even when they do decide to do it, it's out of extreme poverty, so it's still against their will.

Down with breadarchy!, and let's think a little bit out of the box, for a change.


When a society says prostitution empowers women,it's saying that they don't give a fuck how they feel,and that men can use women as a play-thing.Also,in Nevada where its legal,there is a higher rape rate then California,New York,and New Jersey.

The only place that I know where prostitution is illegal is the United States. Yes, that is it. It is legal in France, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Argentina, Greece, Russia, Spain and Sweden. It is legal in all civilized countries. It is only illegal in the United States, and perhaps other barbaric countries, such as, maybe, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

And I doubt very much the rape rate in France or Sweden is higher than in the United States.


Does this make any sense?

Unhappily, it does...

Prostitution is the essential wage labour. That's why it is so difficult to discuss it. A real, rational discussion of the subject starts with the realisation that we are all prostitutes of one kind or other, which is something that for some reason we don't want to admit. The rest is moralising bullshit.

Luís Henrique

[Regicollis]

Prostitution is legal in Norway and Sweden for the sex worker but not for the customer.

This policy has not worked when it comes to bettering the conditions of sex workers or reducing their number. It has forced the prostitution underground and made it much harder to help those sex worker who might want help.

[Hexen]

Prostitution would be a memory of the past in a Post-Revolutionary society due to material conditions that will make it disappear.

[¿Que?]

In a socialist society, everybody gets a prostitute!

[Leftsolidarity]

Prostitution would be a memory of the past in a Post-Revolutionary society due to material conditions that will make it disappear.

Nice extremely vague answer

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Okay, but prostitution can't exist in a socialist society. Therefore, if it's what gets some individuals off, as you seem to have suggested in an earlier post, they will have to resort to roleplaying to simulate the exchange of money for sex.

No, I have not, you have injected this weird notion of roleplay into the conversation where I have not. It's very simple, the brothels will be self-managed by the prostitutes (I'll use this word so as not cause any confusion) and instead of people coming in to pay an exorbent amount of money to fuck said prostitute they will instead be able to do so for free.

It's not like I'm suggesting that someone goes in, hands people slips of paper with currency symbols drawn on it and fucks someone, that's absurd. Really, the only roleplaying that would be involved would be in the bedroom at the johns request. :lol:

You also seem to be suggesting that the allure and "naughtiness," of paying for sex or having sex for money is what drives it, which isn't true thus they wouldn't have to "resort to role playing."


where, in the part I bolded, you seem to include both prostitution and (professional) porn acting under the banner of "sex work".

Alright, allow me to clarify then. When I said sex work and sex workers, I was referring to prostitution and prostitutes. I was perhaps using terms which had far reaching meanings that I didn't really intend considering, while, yes, porn actors do have sex for money and are using their sexuality to obtain money, I see them more as actors in line with other non-porn actors, even if said story-line and acting is quite often shit.


I don't think it does anyone a service to view it in so abstract a way

Actually, it's really not all that abstract, allow me to quote myself.


But if you really want to play this semantic game, then fine, so be it. How about you go and look at the etymological evolution of the word you have so chosen to use "prostitute." You will find that this notion of "sex for hire," or "sex for currency," isn't inherent in it's etymology; rather it would be "exposed lust," or "indiscriminately offered." Following this, my view of sex work in a post-revolutionary society absolutely flows from sex work as we have seen since time immemorial.


Etymological speaking, my argument is sound and follows some of the main root definitions of the word and title.


(though professional porn acting, I can't see persisting under socialism either)

So, all professional acting and cinema will die out in a post-revolutionary society? Do I got that right?


I've heard said time and time again that prostitution is "the oldest profession" -- but is not patriarchy the oldest class relation?

That's a rather piss poor argument, to be quite frank about it. There is nothing inherently patriarchal about prostitution, if that's indeed what you're suggesting. This also seems to suggest that all prostitutes are female, which, isn't true at all.

Riddle me this, I'm queer, I'm male, I've had sex for money, where does patriarchy factor into this equation?


I really can't see how "sex work" would work under socialism; people would have sex hither thither and yon, but what would they exchange it for apart from some subjective emotional benefits?

These "subjective emotional benefits," are at the very core of the trade. I mean, why the fuck else would people turn to prostitutes? To me, that's one of the main driving reasons as to why such a profession exists and has existed for virtually all of human history. I mean, there are numerous other profession which produce no tangible products or commodities other than subjective emotional benefits or pleasure. Thus, I don't really see what's your point here nor do I see why you keep insisting that because their would be no currency or markets, this couldn't possibly exist. Following this argumentation, according to you, a great number of social service jobs will no longer exist because their would be no exchange of currency or commodities and they only produce "subjective emotional benefits."

[Tenka]

No, I have not, you have injected this weird notion of roleplay into the conversation where I have not. It's very simple, the brothels will be self-managed by the prostitutes (I'll use this word so as not cause any confusion) and instead of people coming in to pay an exorbent amount of money to fuck said prostitute they will instead be able to do so for free.

It's not like I'm suggesting that someone goes in, hands people slips of paper with currency symbols drawn on it and fucks someone, that's absurd. Really, the only roleplaying that would be involved would be in the bedroom at the johns request. :lol:

You also seem to be suggesting that the allure and "naughtiness," of paying for sex or having sex for money is what drives it, which isn't true thus they wouldn't have to "resort to role playing."
Sorry, I had mistakenly gathered suggestions of fetishism from part of one of your earlier posts:

I agree but I would also argue that sex may not be the motivating factore, whether it be the sex itself or the idea of them "selling themselves," or providing this service. It also could very well be helping people emotionally, physically, sexually and any variety of things.
I had misread this to say something to the effect that the idea of "selling themselves" could be a motivating factor, which would imply a fetish for this idea if it had been what you said.


Alright, allow me to clarify then. When I said sex work and sex workers, I was referring to prostitution and prostitutes. I was perhaps using terms which had far reaching meanings that I didn't really intend considering, while, yes, porn actors do have sex for money and are using their sexuality to obtain money, I see them more as actors in line with other non-porn actors, even if said story-line and acting is quite often shit.
I agree.


Etymological speaking, my argument is sound and follows some of the main root definitions of the word and title.
Most people, especially Leftists, don't tend to care much for "root definitions" of words. Prostitution is generally, widely understood to mean exchanging sexual favours for money, or rarely some other payment. I guess it would help to just disregard this semantic mess and move on.


So, all professional acting and cinema will die out in a post-revolutionary society? Do I got that right?

Yes, everything will be amateur (how about looking up the root definition of that, eh?).


That's a rather piss poor argument, to be quite frank about it. There is nothing inherently patriarchal about prostitution, if that's indeed what you're suggesting. This also seems to suggest that all prostitutes are female, which, isn't true at all.

Riddle me this, I'm queer, I'm male, I've had sex for money, where does patriarchy factor into this equation?
Because there are male prostitutes, prostitution is not patriarchal? That's like suggesting the same of the corporate ladder because there are female CEO's; the same of bourgeois politics because there are female presidents. Patriarchy, in my mind, pervades all relations of power; the exceptions don't extinguish the rule. But maybe you're not some sort of crazy feminist like I appear to be -- that's fine, this discussion is not all that relevant to the topic as it's developed anyway.


These "subjective emotional benefits," are at the very core of the trade. I mean, why the fuck else would people turn to prostitutes? To me, that's one of the main driving reasons as to why such a profession exists and has existed for virtually all of human history.
Wait -- whose emotional benefits are you talking about? The John's? I'm sorry, but fuck johns. Nothing is more pathetic than paying for sex; I sometimes wonder if someone who does it has any idea how to masturbate. Buying sex with a prostitute, in the majority of cases where prostitutes are like poor immigrants with their visas or something dangled before them, is tantamount to raping them with money. Prostitution has to be looked at as it exists, for most prostitutes, today: and this thing has no possibility of persisting in socialism, as far as I can tell.


I mean, there are numerous other profession which produce no tangible products or commodities other than subjective emotional benefits or pleasure. Thus, I don't really see what's your point here nor do I see why you keep insisting that because their would be no currency or markets, this couldn't possibly exist. Following this argumentation, according to you, a great number of social service jobs will no longer exist because their would be no exchange of currency or commodities and they only produce "subjective emotional benefits."
Well, it is true that a lot of complete nonsense occupations have sprouted up under Capitalism -- not to say that all of the occupations of which you speak are these.

[Firebrand]

Prostitution will die along with all other forms of wage slavery. I was under the impression that we were in the business of abolishing the practice of forcing people to live by the sale of their time and labor, whatever the use to which that time and labour is put. Prostitution comes under the heading of doing stuff for money, which I think in a post capitalist society shouldn't be happening.

[¿Que?]

An issue that hasn't been raised, but which I think has a lot of relevance to this topic is the broader question of how socialism is going to affect emotional labor in general.

For those that don't know, typical labor does not require the type of emotional self control that emotional labor requires. For example, a factory worker stubs his or her toe, and he or she can curse the machine, the company, anything, and it won't affect their work performance, and consequently wages. At the very least, the worker does not have to pretend to enjoy his or her job.

Emotional labor requires emotional self control and even manipulation. These are jobs like sales, customer service, waiting on tables, flight attendants, and all manner of employment that requires one to put on a face and in which emotional expression is deeply connected with earned wages.

I think prostitution falls under this category and it helps the issue to think about it in these terms.

[Comrade1988]

In a post-revolution society,should prostitution be legalized?Personally,I don't think so;prostitution is a form of patriarchy IMO,and should be abolished.Besides, there would be no need if there is economic equality.

But that's just my opinion.If you're pro-prostitution,why are you?

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

[#FF0000]

I don't really see people exchanging money for sex in a post-revolution society where there is no money anymore so

[#FF0000]

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral immoral

[roy]

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

but there wouldn't be any money, so what exactly wouldn't be tolerated? sex?

[Comrade1988]

then if there wouldnt be any money then it wouldnt br prostitution now would it?

[Yu Ming Zai]

I dun think prostitution would even exist in a socialist society if one's culture has the right mindset. What is considered immoral or moral is social construct that can be changed overtime to suit our ever-changing society. If prostitution is about demand, then we must look at what's causing this scarcity.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

First of all,women don't want to be prostitutes,but men do.Pimps force them to sell themselves for sex,so it's not an individual choice.Even when they do decide to do it,it's out of extreme poverty,so it's still against their will.

When a society says prostitution empowers women,it's saying that they don't give a fuck how they feel,and that men can use women as a play-thing.Also,in Nevada where its legal,there is a higher rape rate then California,New York,and New Jersey.

Does this make any sense?

I think so. I guess I imagined patriarchy as men being leaders of the family, not anything where men subordinate women. Thanks!

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

I never thought I would see anyone here call something immoral.

[Leftsolidarity]

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

I can see you're new here so I'd like to be nice but when you already seem to have a tendency set and call something immoral (WHEN IT'S MARXISM-LENINISM! COME ON!) then it makes it really easy for someone to rip you apart.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No it would not be allowed or tolorated as prostitution is lumpen and is capitalist immoral counter revolutionary behavior

I would take the time to address this horseshit but I think I'll keep it simple and say, take your Victorian bourgeois morals, fake revolutionary politics and fuck off.


then if there wouldnt be any money then it wouldnt br prostitution now would it?

I've already addressed why this argument is limited and inane, perhaps you should scroll up.


Sorry, I had mistakenly gathered suggestions of fetishism from part of one of your earlier posts

Quite alright, it was indeed a misreading. Moving forward.


Most people, especially Leftists, don't tend to care much for "root definitions" of words. Prostitution is generally, widely understood to mean exchanging sexual favours for money, or rarely some other payment. I guess it would help to just disregard this semantic mess and move on.

Since when? For example, the word "hysterical," is oft seen as sexist language considering it's etymology. I point the root definitions and etymology of the word and title because it reflects a more proper definition for the social interaction, dynamics of and core of the trade more so than the very simplistic 'fucking for money.' Even in English speaking countries 'prostitute' or 'whore' doesn't only refer to those whom literally have sex for money but also is used for anyone whom has promiscuous and frequent sex, indiscriminately (which coincides with it's etymological definition as well).

Example: "you're such a whore."

Tell me you've never heard the above in reference to someone whom didn't have sex for money, just frequently and indiscriminately.


Yes, everything will be amateur (how about looking up the root definition of that, eh?).

Following it's etymology this could perhaps be true though open for conversation.


Because there are male prostitutes, prostitution is not patriarchal? That's like suggesting the same of the corporate ladder because there are female CEO's; the same of bourgeois politics because there are female presidents.

That wasn't what I was suggesting but alright.


Patriarchy, in my mind, pervades all relations of power; the exceptions don't extinguish the rule. But maybe you're not some sort of crazy feminist like I appear to be -- that's fine, this discussion is not all that relevant to the topic as it's developed anyway.

I'm well aware of this but my point is that not only are not all prostitutes female but also that said vocation isn't inherently patriarchal.


Wait -- whose emotional benefits are you talking about? The John's? I'm sorry, but fuck johns. Nothing is more pathetic than paying for sex; I sometimes wonder if someone who does it has any idea how to masturbate.

This is your own subjective opinions. I could very well say I find a great number of things, actions, behaviors, etc. that I would find pathetic. Yes, I'm talking about the emotional benefits for the john. Your own views or perception of the trade (as far as this conversation is concerned) is ultimately irrelevant and is merely personal conjecture.


Buying sex with a prostitute, in the majority of cases where prostitutes are like poor immigrants with their visas or something dangled before them, is tantamount to raping them with money. Prostitution has to be looked at as it exists, for most prostitutes, today: and this thing has no possibility of persisting in socialism, as far as I can tell.

The above could be said of a whole variety of profession which exist under capital but social service and otherwise; such is the nature of work under capital. The problem here is that I believe some aren't viewing the industry as it exists, today, as a whole and are merely clinging to the popular public notion that prostitutes are inherently those whom are under the thumb of pimps or chemicals and are walking the streets. This, while true, isn't the whole picture. I have been speaking about the industry both as it exists today and in a post-revolutionary society. You can't just pick and choose modern examples, knock them down and then declare your position to be correct.


Well, it is true that a lot of complete nonsense occupations have sprouted up under Capitalism -- not to say that all of the occupations of which you speak are these.

:rolleyes:

Again, I could very well say that about numerous other occupations, social service or otherwise.

I'm beginning to wonder if your own preconceived notions and prejudices are creeping into the current conversation.

[Tenka]

Vox Populi:

I point the root definitions and etymology of the word and title because it reflects a more proper definition for the social interaction, dynamics of and core of the trade more so than the very simplistic 'fucking for money.' Even in English speaking countries 'prostitute' or 'whore' doesn't only refer to those whom literally have sex for money but also is used for anyone whom has promiscuous and frequent sex, indiscriminately (which coincides with it's etymological definition as well).

Example: "you're such a whore."

Tell me you've never heard the above in reference to someone whom didn't have sex for money, just frequently and indiscriminately.
Just for the record, I have never heard anyone in the U.S. use "prostitute" to refer to anyone other than a literal prostitute who is payed money for sexual favours.
They use "slut" and, more harshly, "whore" for people who are simply promiscuous, but never "prostitute" from what I've seen.
Think we'll just have to agree to disagree on most everything else, e.g., what the meaning of the word prostitute is in the context of this discussion.

I'm beginning to wonder if your own preconceived notions and prejudices are creeping into the current conversation.
I stopped wondering whether yours were a few posts back.

And as regards "pimps" and "chemicals" and "walking the streets", I'll just leave this here:

A difficulty facing migrant prostitutes in many developed countries is the illegal residence status of some of these women. They face potential deportation, and so do not have recourse to the law. Hence there are brothels that may not adhere to the usual legal standards intended to safeguard public health and the safety of the workers.
The immigration status of the persons who sell sexual services is - particularly in Western Europe - a controversial and highly debated political issue. Currently, in most of these countries most prostitutes are immigrants, mainly from Eastern and Central Europe; in Spain and Italy 90% of prostitutes are estimated to be migrants, in Austria 78%, in Switzerland 75%, in Greece 73%, in Norway 70% (accordind to a 2009 TAMPEP report, Sex Work in Europe-A mapping of the prostitution scene in 25 European countries).[71] An article in Le Monde diplomatique in 1997 stated that 80% of prostitutes in Amsterdam were foreigners and 70% had no immigration papers.[72]

[wunks]

every one of the answers in this poll is wrong. it won't happen, but not because it's immoral or because with patriarchy gone prostitution would necessarily be gone (neither of those statements are true). the right answer is "no, because prostitution is the exchange of money for sex which wont happen in a society that abolished capitalism".


First of all,women don't want to be prostitutes, but men do.what?

and prostitution isn't something that exists because of patriarchy. female prostitution is increased by patriarchy because patriarchy makes it more difficult for women to get jobs, but patriarchy is not the direct reason women become prostitutes. people become prostitutes for money, that is the direct reason (regardless of whether or not it is influenced by patriarchy). that would be the case regardless of whether or not patriarchy existed.

[Raúl Duke]

From this thread, I can see this question requires previous questions to be answered and definitions to be cleared.

The people saying "no, it's immoral!" or "don't worry about it, socialist material conditions will make it disappear" are reaching into vague conclusions. How do we know for certain that it won't exist under socialism? (and morality is, to an extent, a vague thing) Socialism is, for all extents and purposes, a hypothetical thing at the moment (unless you think Cuba is socialist, in which case there is prostitutes, from what I heard).

I guess we all wish that in socialism we wouldn't really have prostitution around anymore particularly due to its negative connotations within capitalism.

But the OP's question has a side question of its own, which I want to raise: lets assume prostitution does arise under socialism, what should be done? Personally, I say we tolerate it and make sure that regulations are in place to insure that whatever abuses may potentially take place are prevented (I stance I have that is similar to the stance I have of prostitution under capitalism). But ultimately, I'm not the one unilaterally "in charge" and neither are most of us, in the end it's up to the people to decide (we, as part of the people, also have a voice but one of many). Plus my opinion is flexible, particularly since I don't know the nature of hypothetical prostitution within socialism so I lack the information to make an informed stance on the issue (as might exist in socialism).

[blake 3:17]

I guess we all wish that in socialism we wouldn't really have prostitution around anymore particularly due to its negative connotations within capitalism. Others consider it sexist/misogynist.

I am fully in favour of decriminalizing all sex work performed by adults. Socialist society will abolish commodified labour, that doesn't mean that labour will not be performed, and there's no reason to outlaw sex work. I'm friends with a number of pros, haven't been on either side of the exchange, and see no reason why it should be banned.

[Agent Ducky]

Gonna take a wild guess and say one of the seven who answered "Yeah, I wanna get laid!" was... Nox....

[Luís Henrique]

Gonna take a wild guess and say one of the seven who answered "Yeah, I wanna get laid!" was... Nox....

By the way, what is the result up to now? They are only available to those who have already voted, which means that all of us who reject all the four alternatives can't see them.

Luís Henrique

[Movimento Sem Terra]

No because it's a form of Patriarchy and exploitation toward the woman . Should be Banned .

[Blake's Baby]

What if the prostitute and the client are both guys? How does it oppress women then Antoine?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In a post-commodity society, sex wouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Would it?

Post-commodity society, who are you kidding with this cop out of an analysis? Yes, in a moneyless, classless world things would not be 'bought' and 'sold' per se, but that doesn't mean that the underlying objects of value that we call commodities today won't continue under another name, in another economic form tomorrow.

Wishing prostitution away under the guise of abolishing commodities is too simplistic and utopian.

[andyx1205]

Well, interesting thread. From what Ive read, when it comes to morality on the issue of prostitution it depends on the details of the prostitution, the presence of exploitation, and so forth. Here in Montreal, Canada there are professional escort agencies.

So I'm a 22 year old student and socialist and on a recent drunk night was persuaded to call an escort girl. She was the same age and it cost $180 for an hour. She has an occupation where she earns money by offering a service, and I'm not exactly rich but lower-middle class background.

I thought about the lowering of my morals, but... how many times do drunk girls get picked up by random people and have unprotected sex? The escort will be cleaner and safer than that girl, and I see no reason the risk factor for disease being higher for the escort than a lot of other girls.

In a socialist society everyone will contribute to society. Now, the amount of prostitutes will be less but this simply filters out prostitutes that would be working under conditions of exploitation. Other women may prefer to offer sexual services in their contribution than engage in other work, this would be their choice, their freedom.

Some so called socialists seem to favour sexual repression.