Prostitution

[Awful Reality]

What, here, is the general consensus about prostitution, or, more generally, sex work?

Off the bat we would automatically decide that prostitution is negative- highly negative. It is one of the worst forms of exploitation, when women are driven by economic conditions to literally sell their bodies to others. This constitutes the majority of prostitution in the modern day.

However, there is always the case of someone like Xaviera Hollander, the author of the famous The Happy Hooker, who gave up a relatively moderate-income employment as a secretary at the New York Dutch Consulate to become a prostitute simply, as she says, because she liked sex. This, of course, is an aberration- most sex work originates in crime rings and exists out of the nature of sex that it is not exactly a commodity in the Marxist term as it cannot really be exchanged with other commodities, yet is still a use-value.

In a socialist society, obviously, "poverty" would be eradicated. Therefore, we would only see this rare instance as described above. Do we oppose it, as it is consensual and stems not from exploitation? Or do we support it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't think you can really say that prostitution would be considerably more rare in a socialist society. While it is true that today prostitution mainly arises out of poverty, it is also true that the moral (and legal) stigma attached to prostitution deters some from engaging in it. Thus the fact that there would be no poverty in a socialist society would have to be balanced against the fact that, presumably, oppressive religious morality would have no place in a socialist society so it's hard to predict the future of prostitution in the long term.

As for the question, I am generally opposed to any law which is based on morality as opposed to the prevention of harm to others. Only where there are extremely compelling public policy considerations, which usually involve preventing the indirect causing of harm, to support a law based on anything other than the prevention of harm to others would I support it. Of course the profession (I use the term loosely) would have to be regulated, so as not to prevent the spread of STDs and the like. But this should involve no more of an intrusion on the profession or the liberty of prostitutes than regulatory laws for any other occupation, be they through the law of torts, contract or the criminal law.

[Awful Reality]

Only where there are extremely compelling public policy considerations, which usually involve preventing the indirect causing of harm, to support a law based on anything other than the prevention of harm to others would I support it.

But don't you think that it's reasonable to suggest that despite whatever societal or legal status it has, prostitution leads to a a very high possibility that some sort of abuse or violation of the female could occur? Essentially, you're no longer selling you body, rather giving it up. Would this not present a problem? And if so, even negligibly so, isn't our primary concern here the safety of the woman (most likely the prostitute in question)?

[Dros]

But don't you think that it's reasonable to suggest that despite whatever societal or legal status it has, prostitution leads to a a very high possibility that some sort of abuse or violation of the female could occur?

True under capitalism. Like all occupations, prostitution is exploitative under capitalism.


Essentially, you're no longer selling you body, rather giving it up. Would this not present a problem?

That will be true of all production in a Communist society. You no longer sell anything!

Like all occupations, prostitution is bound up in and associated with the production relations of capitalism. It is harmful and exploitative in capitalism just as all forms for labor are. Under Communism, there is no reason why this necessarily continues.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But don't you think that it's reasonable to suggest that despite whatever societal or legal status it has, prostitution leads to a a very high possibility that some sort of abuse or violation of the female could occur? Essentially, you're no longer selling you body, rather giving it up. Would this not present a problem? And if so, even negligibly so, isn't our primary concern here the safety of the woman (most likely the prostitute in question)?
The problem with that line of reasoning though is that the concern in question does not relate exclusively to sexual intercourse in exchange for money (prostitution), but to the act of sexual intercourse itself. The exchange of money which makes the difference between ordinary consensual sex and prostitution does not create the risk of abuse or violation of the female, and does not necessarily create any new danger to the safety or the security of the woman. Therefore, it would be illogical to apply this reasoning to the occupation of prostitution without also applying it to the act of sex in general. Then you are faced with the proposition of banning or severely restricting private sexual acts in order to protect the woman, something which obviously would not stand to public or academic scrutiny, mainly because the negative aspects of such a law (a severe restriction on the personal liberty of both men and women and legal sanction of such a natural and human act) would outweigh the positive (increased protection of women).

Of course the protection of the woman is, as you pointed out, a very important concern, but the law in this regard should relate to how the exchange should happen, not whether or not it should happen.

[Bud Struggle]

Under Communism, there is no reason why this necessarily continues.

And that answers exactly one half of the equasion of why Prostitution exists. And where in Das Kapital does it say that Communist men won't ever want a little nookie on the side?

Or will Communist women be standing out on street corners giving it away for free?

[Baconator]

Its almost too easy to see the connection with capitalism being responsible for prostitution but then I thought, prostitution has been a factor in human society long before capitalism. Or am I wrong?

All politics aside and granted that prostitution might be aesthetically repulsive (i.e. I don't think any of us here wouldn't be comfortable with our daughters choosing it as a means to earn a living), there is nothing violent about it and therefore, nothing really immoral about it. If it was the initiation of sex with the use/threat of force then it would be rape which is clearly immoral.

[Plagueround]

Its almost too easy to see the connection with capitalism being responsible for prostitution but then I thought, prostitution has been a factor in human society long before capitalism. Or am I wrong?


I don't think it's a direct result of capitalism, historical accounts would indicate otherwise, but it's always been a matter of exchanging sex for something the prostitute needs (money, food, drugs, shelter, protection, goats, batman comic books, etc.) and in that regard, capitalism hasn't helped abolish it and is certainly an ideal system for it. I wouldn't venture to say it's gotten better or worse because I lack any sort of data to support that either way.


All politics aside and granted that prostitution might be aesthetically repulsive (i.e. I don't think any of us here wouldn't be comfortable with our daughters choosing it as a means to earn a living), there is nothing violent about it and therefore, nothing really immoral about it. If it was the initiation of sex with the use/threat of force then it would be rape which is clearly immoral.I don't think prostitution itself is immoral, but the attitudes and behaviors it reinforces in our society is a breeding ground for the degradation of the prostitute. As others have said in this thread, it's probably something you wouldn't see in a communist society because you will have eliminated the primary reason people become prostitutes.


And that answers exactly one half of the equasion of why Prostitution exists. And where in Das Kapital does it say that Communist men won't ever want a little nookie on the side?

Or will Communist women be standing out on street corners giving it away for free?

I don't know about this one Tom. Maybe Marx figured an empowered communist man or woman would be able to find someone willing to have sex with them without coercion or payment? Is this something you have trouble with? ;)

Finally, I find it a bit interesting that thus far most people in this thread have approached prostitution as a female only issue. While I'd be willing to bet the majority of prostitutes are women, there are plenty of men that subject themselves to prostitution (I had a couple of friends that did while living on the streets of Portland, Oregon).

[Mariner's Revenge]

In our society today, I would like to see prostitution legalized and regulated. I would put it in the same category as sex and drugs (I am not against either of those but just using a mainstream example). No matter how hard we try we can not get rid of prostitution just like many right-wingers cannot get rid of drugs and sex. So, by regulating it you can ensure that the woman that choose or forced into the field by market forces can be protected against men with STDs and who may beat them.


In a revolutionary society, assuming no money, I would not know how the prostitutes would be "paid". If there is no monetary or material incentive to become a prostitute I don't know how the system would work unless prostitution became a "communal benefit" and that is their input to the society. If one wanted to just get laid, there would be alternatives.

[apathy maybe]

A question for those people who think that prostitution is inherently immoral, evil or, just generally worse then any other kind of work.

What are the differences between a hair dresser, a masseur, a shop attendant, an athlete, a musician and a prostitute?

Actually, another question, are male prostitutes exploited more, less or about the same as female prostitutes?

Meh, a third question, is prostitution better, worse, or about the same as phone sex, or working in porn?


Basically, what makes prostitution so special compared to other types of work?

[Kropotesta]

And that answers exactly one half of the equasion of why Prostitution exists. And where in Das Kapital does it say that Communist men won't ever want a little nookie on the side?

Or will Communist women be standing out on street corners giving it away for free?
If a women didn't need money as she was fully accomodated for, why would she put her body up for use just because "Communist men" would "want a little nookie on the side"?

[Plagueround]

A question for those people who think that prostitution is inherently immoral, evil or, just generally worse then any other kind of work.

What are the differences between a hair dresser, a masseur, a shop attendant, an athlete, a musician and a prostitute?

Actually, another question, are male prostitutes exploited more, less or about the same as female prostitutes?

Meh, a third question, is prostitution better, worse, or about the same as phone sex, or working in porn?


Basically, what makes prostitution so special compared to other types of work?

It's not the job itself. It's the atmosphere that's inherent to a job that is illegal and generally perceived as taboo. While there are exceptions and probably people that enjoy the job (more so in countries where it's legal I'd imagine), prostitution is more often than not a job of desperation.

[Kropotesta]

A question for those people who think that prostitution is inherently immoral, evil or, just generally worse then any other kind of work.

What are the differences between a hair dresser, a masseur, a shop attendant, an athlete, a musician and a prostitute?

Actually, another question, are male prostitutes exploited more, less or about the same as female prostitutes?

Meh, a third question, is prostitution better, worse, or about the same as phone sex, or working in porn?


Basically, what makes prostitution so special compared to other types of work?
Sex is for enjoyment, reproductive and sesnual purposes. Taking away a natural form enjoyment such as sex would be devastating as the context would be reversed. Whereas stacking selves can't really be looked at being fun in the first place, so therefore that work hasn't tainted any pleasure that could once be found in the process of doing that work.

You could counter this with saying people sell their muscianship, however this is a form talent that is usually willed to be expressed through performance, whereas sex is more personal.

I ask you, how many people do you think would people have sex with random people, whether they found them attractive or not, opposed to how many would willing play their music to others in a moneyless society?
In the terms of prostitution I am speaking on both male and female prostititutes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Off the bat we would automatically decide that prostitution is negative- highly negative. It is one of the worst forms of exploitation, when women are driven by economic conditions to literally sell their bodies to others. This constitutes the majority of prostitution in the modern day.

Erm, I think for a start the English Collective of Prostitutes would probably disagree as with all the other unofficial sex workers unions.

There is always the assumption that prostitution is exploitative or at least more exploitative than other work, but I see no reason why that is the case other than moral positions against using sex as a labour.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Erm, I think for a start the English Collective of Prostitutes would probably disagree as with all the other unofficial sex workers unions.

There is always the assumption that prostitution is exploitative or at least more exploitative than other work, but I see no reason why that is the case other than moral positions against using sex as a labour.
Well if you consider that, under capitalism at least, work is always exploitative and coercive to a degree, then there may be grounds for such an assumption. Prostitution is different to other kinds of work in that, instead of putting her body to a certain use, she is allowing her body to be entered by another in exchange for money. While, of course, this is by no means immoral by leftist standards, it would appear to constitute a more serious breach of the woman's bodily autonomy. Much like rape is considered a more serious offence than assault, if you accept that then I can see why you could accept that prostitution is a more serious form of exploitation or coercion than ordinary work.

Of course, I wouldn't use this as an argument against its legalization. My views as outlined above still very much stand. I was just pointing out that a distinction could be made between prostitution and other forms of work on grounds other than moral ones.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think socialism would render prostitution and by in large, the sex industry irrelevant.

Without a means of capital there would be no motivation for women to follow this trade, and without the alienating effects of the free market a greater level of social stability would ensue.

[Bud Struggle]

Without a means of capital there would be no motivation for women to follow this trade,
That could be true.


and without the alienating effects of the free market a greater level of social stability would ensue.

That would seem like wishful thinking. This is what the Communist men would need:

http://bedford.extension.psu.edu/Agriculture/Images/emasculator%202.jpg

Enjoy! :D

[Marsella]

In a communist society, with the larger amount of free time, I think it probable that most of us will be having a lot more sex, drugs and generally doing whatever the hell we want. :)

[Robert]

error

[Robert]

Without a means of capital there would be no motivation for women to follow this trade.Preposterous.


That could be true.No it couldn't. There will still be goods and services after the revolution, though scarcities of everything save portraits of Dear Leader will be chronic. If I get a carton of rationed cigarettes a week from "Comrade Ulster's Cigarette and Condom Emporium," (just by way of example) there will be a market for those cigarettes and condoms as sure as God made lil' green apples. Some will use more than others. Cigarettes, I mean.

Comrade Constantina leaning on the lamp post over there may want my cigarettes and, money or no money, make me an offer even I can't refuse.

This is assuming I survive the purge(s), no safe assumption, I know.

p.s. Make 'em Jumbo, Ulster.:cool:

[apathy maybe]

p.s. Make 'em Jumbo, Ulster.
Why do you want extra large cigarettes if you aren't even going to smoke them?

Oh, and the rest of your thread shows either a distinct lack of understanding of what most of us actually want, or is just a troll.

I suggest that it could easily be, and probably is, both.

[Robert]

What "most of us want"? Who is "us"? This is Opposing Ideologies, as in "opposed to your ideas," or do you want to control thought here too, my authoritarian friend?

Anyway, at least one member has advocated each one of the positions I criticize in my post: elimination of money, free markets, and prostitution.

If you think I'm a troll, which to you means anyone who doesn't agree with you, get busy banning me. As a "commie club member," you're no doubt an important man.

p.s. I wasn't referring to the cigarettes. Quit reading political treatises all day and get a sense of humor.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, and the rest of your thread shows either a distinct lack of understanding of what most of us actually want, or is just a troll.


Well AM, your profile shows your occupation as "Prostitute." I assumed that was a joke. (No reason to assume it--I just did,) is that indeed what you do? (Not that it's any of my business,) but it would explain the quote above.

And if you are a "prostitute" what is it that you do want? I had assumed, probably mistakenly, mostly money.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Would it be possible that the practice of prostitution would evolve in a new form that would workin with a socialist system? Couldn't a guy or girl would still be willing to have sex with a stranger but just for a different reward, materialistic or social.

Or we might see more Craigslist type sexual encounters?

[apathy maybe]

What "most of us want"? Who is "us"? This is Opposing Ideologies, as in "opposed to your ideas," or do you want to control thought here too, my authoritarian friend?

You were misrepresenting what the majority of members on this board want. I wasn't talking about restricted members. Sorry if that wasn't obvious to you...

You claimed that there would be scarcities, and a "Dear Leader", try reading outside of the cage, fuck all people advocate either thing. And if there is ever "communism", it will be in a post-scarcity society, no shortages or rationing. (Heck, we have the technology right now to be living in a post-scarcity society. I blame the capitalists personally.)

"as sure as God made lil' green apples", basically, your entire post is shit. God doesn't exist, and that is a perfect example of your flawed argument.

Anyway, at least one member has advocated each one of the positions I criticize in my post: elimination of money, free markets, and prostitution.
One does not a majority make.

If you think I'm a troll, which to you means anyone who doesn't agree with you, get busy banning me. As a "commie club member," you're no doubt an important man.
A troll, in this context, is a person who

p.s. I wasn't referring to the cigarettes. Quit reading political treatises all day and get a sense of humor.
I don't read political treatises all day. I also think that perhaps you should get a sense of humour. I was making fun of your lack of being obvious regarding what you wanted a large size of. Again, sorry if that wasn't obvious to you :rolleyes: (mind you, you are a capitalist, so you must be a little bit thick).

Well AM, your profile shows your occupation as "Prostitute." I assumed that was a joke. (No reason to assume it--I just did,) is that indeed what you do? (Not that it's any of my business,) but it would explain the quote above.
I fail to see how it would explain the quote above :confused:. Which quote are you talking about?

As to my occupation, all workers sell their bodies, whether I am literally engaging in sex for money or not is irrelevant.
(Oh, and I've had that as my occupation for months, and it isn't related to this thread.)

And if you are a "prostitute" what is it that you do want? I had assumed, probably mistakenly, mostly money.
Money is what enables people to live in a capitalist society. Very few people manage to live comfortable lives without the stuff. So of course, I want money, everyone does.

What I would prefer is a society where I wasn't forced to do things.

[Bud Struggle]

As to my occupation, all workers sell their bodies, whether I am literally engaging in sex for money or not is irrelevant.
(Oh, and I've had that as my occupation for months, and it isn't related to this thread.)

Fair enough. I just thought you might have been trying to say something specific. :)

[Dros]

And that answers exactly one half of the equasion of why Prostitution exists. And where in Das Kapital does it say that Communist men won't ever want a little nookie on the side?

Or will Communist women be standing out on street corners giving it away for free?

You misunderstand me. I mean to say, there is no reason why the exploitative nature of current prostitution would continue. Prostitution WILL continue under Communism. But to a lesser extent. This is because most prostitution is essentially not voluntary.

[Robert]

So of course, I want money, everyone does. I should probably cry for you, but I won't.


you must be a little bit thickWrong again.


What I would prefer is a society where I wasn't forced to do things.Line forms at the rear, comrade.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well if you consider that, under capitalism at least, work is always exploitative and coercive to a degree, then there may be grounds for such an assumption. Prostitution is different to other kinds of work in that, instead of putting her body to a certain use, she is allowing her body to be entered by another in exchange for money. While, of course, this is by no means immoral by leftist standards, it would appear to constitute a more serious breach of the woman's bodily autonomy. Much like rape is considered a more serious offence than assault, if you accept that then I can see why you could accept that prostitution is a more serious form of exploitation or coercion than ordinary work.

That argument doesn't stand. Putting your penis into a woman's vagina is not a breach of her autonomy unless its done by force. What your saying is predicated on the idea that sex is a coercive dynamic. Making the distinction that she is doing it for money and that this somehow effects her ability to make choices is fallacious. I mean, it doesn't even make sense.

Also, workers put their bodies to a "certain use" every day. I don't know why these distinctions are relevant?


I was just pointing out that a distinction could be made between prostitution and other forms of work on grounds other than moral ones.Actually, I would say that what you're saying is based on morality. Peoples views, or in this case that specific view, distinguishes sex from other kinds of work, purely on the basis that it's sex she is getting paid for. What is the distinction being made between this work and a dustbin mans work? Where does the distinction come from if not from some warped morality?

[Rebelde]

i don't know exactly where i stand with prostitution. but in my opinion that in some situtation's,usually in a capitalist society,men/women will have no choice and be forced to go in to prostituton. usually because of drug's,money,abuse. but then their are the one's who do it for fun,because they like sex. maybe they are addicted to sex,i don't know.
but,if prostitution was abolished would their be a rise in rape?

what if a comrade had no partner,how would he/she fulfill their need's? im sure that after awhile they would get tired of masterbation.

i forsure wouldn't want our comrade to go out an rape another.:(
and if they did,could it have all been diverted by having prostitution?

[Robert]

i don't know exactly where i stand with prostitution.

Well, let's talk about this; how would you answer these questions:

1. Would you ever pay money to a woman or man for sex? I don't mean if you were desperate, just a little horny and liked the person's looks and the price.

2. If someone you didn't really want to have sex with offered you money, would you then agree to have sex? For $100? $1000? $100,000? $1,000,000?

3. How would you feel if your mother, sister, or daughter decided to go into the sex industry? Assume again that they were doing it voluntarily and were not under any economic pressure and liked the idea of offering sex for money?

My answers would be 1) yes; 2) maybe; and 3) badly.

[Rebelde]

1. Would you ever pay money to a woman or man for sex? I don't mean if you were desperate, just a little horny and liked the person's looks and the price.
yes

2. If someone you didn't really want to have sex with offered you money, would you then agree to have sex? For $100? $1000? $100,000? $1,000,000?
maybe

3. How would you feel if your mother, sister, or daughter decided to go into the sex industry? Assume again that they were doing it voluntarily and were not under any economic pressure and liked the idea of offering sex for money?
i wouldn't like it, but i would have too accept it. it would be their own choice.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, let's talk about this; how would you answer these questions:

1. Would you ever pay money to a woman or man for sex? I don't mean if you were desperate, just a little horny and liked the person's looks and the price.

2. If someone you didn't really want to have sex with offered you money, would you then agree to have sex? For $100? $1000? $100,000? $1,000,000?

3. How would you feel if your mother, sister, or daughter decided to go into the sex industry? Assume again that they were doing it voluntarily and were not under any economic pressure and liked the idea of offering sex for money?

1. No.

2. No

3. I'd dislike it intensely.

FWIW, I've only had sex with one person in my entire life--my wife, and only AFTER we were were married.

[Rebelde]

you sound like a religious man TomK. are you?

FWIW?

[Bud Struggle]

you sound like a religious man TomK. are you?

FWIW?

Yea, but that's not why--I just love my wife. :)