Prostitution

15 May 2005

The American Heritage Dictionary defines prostitution as “the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.” This definition may be a little obsolete. First, while people of my generation include such things as oral sex under the term “sex acts,” the term now is often restricted to sexual intercourse. Whether this is the effect of President Clinton’s use, or he was in fact simply very up-to-date, I do not know. But if you look at online solicitations of prostitution, such as on Craig’s List under “erotic services,” you can see that the more restricted use is common. Some ads say “no sex,” while it is clear that oral sex is on offer. I’ll use the term “sex acts” with its old-fashioned meaning, however.

Second, paid sexual activity by actors and actresses involved in making pornographic videos seems to fall under the definition, but is usually not regarded as prostitution, as far as I know. As far as I can tell making such movies and selling or renting them to adults is legal, and in fact a significant factor in the economy of a number of nations and states, including California. Again, I’ll stick with the narrow definition, so that engaging in sex for pay, where the pay comes from the producer of a pornographic video rather than from the other sex partner or partners, doesn’t count as prostitution. A philosopher will immediately ask, “what about the case where the producer of the video is also one of the actors?” but we’ll set that question aside, at least for the time being.

The paradigm act of prostitution is a female performing sexual intercourse with a male, not her husband, in exchange for money. How, as is clear from Craig’s List, there are plenty of opportunities to purchase sex from males, too.

Philosophically, the main issue is presumably the rightness or wrongness of acts of prostitution and the distinct question of whether prostitution should be illegal in some or all of its forms.

On the former there seem to be four main positions, which of course overlap in various ways.

First, there is what I’ll call the moralist position. Prostitution is immoral as a special case of the immorality of adultery. This would be true even if the institution of prostitution, that is, the actual social, economic and marketing practices that surround the activity of prostitution, were not exploitative or in other ways damaging to prostitutes themselves. The moralist tradition is often based on religious principles, like the Ten Commandments, one of which is not to commit adultery, but it need not be.

Second, at what we might call the other extreme, is what I’ll call the Consenting Adults position. Sex acts for hire, between consenting adults, are perfectly moral in and of themselves, although of course it may be wrong to perform them in certain circumstances, say where one or both partners is breaking a promise to others, or in front of children, or traditionally, anywhere it might “scare the horses.” The exchange of money doesn’t change anything.

The third position I’ll call the Exploitative-Institution position agrees that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex acts between consenting adults. However, the socio-economic practices that in fact, and as it seems inevitably, support the practice of prostitution ensure that it is almost invariably damaging to prostitutes, often economically, and also in terms of their self-esteem, opportunities, social position, health and myriad other ways. To be involved in such an institution is wrong. Our guest Debra Satz holds a subtle and well-argued version of this position.

The fourth position seems to me to be the one that underlies “COYOTE,” the San Francisco based prostitutes rights organization (See http://www.bayswan.org/COYOTE.html for links). The acronym stands for “Cast off your old tired ethics”. The fundamental idea is that “sex work,” including prostitution, stripping and other activities, needs to be de-stigmatized and de-criminalized, the role of “third-parties” --- i.e., pimps and other exploiters --- needs to be dealt with legally, and health and psychological services need to be made available.

The difference between the third and fourth positions has to do with the extent to which prostitution is contingently degrading, exploitative, and in other ways damaging to prostitutes. An adherent of the third position need not maintain that prostitution has these causes and effects as a matter of necessity, but may think that the social attitudes and institutions involved are so deeply enmeshed in American society and probably most others, that as a practical matter damage is inevitable and any participation in the institution is wrong. An adherent of the fourth position may feel that prostitution, for some women, is at least potentially, and in some cases actually, a reasonable and attractive if not ideal occupation.

In The Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir provided a classic and influential discussion of prostitution, which is a good place to start reading, especially in chapter XIX, “Prostitutes and Hetairas.” “Hetaira” is Greek for a high-class courtesan or concubine. Hetairas might seem to provide the role-models for those who envisage non-exploitative prostitution, but de Beauvoir doesn’t see it that way. Hetairas are...

...women who treat not only their bodies but their entire personalities as capital to be exploited... The hetaira does not reveal the world, she opens no avenues to human transcendence; on the contrary she tries to captivate the world for her own profit....she does not repudiate that passive femininity which dedicates her to man...

Well, we’ll understand these issues better tomorrow, after our discussion on “Philosophy Talk” with Debra Satz.

SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR
UNLIMITED LISTENING

Comments (21)

Guest

Sunday, May 15, 2005 -- 5:00 PM

This will be an interesting topic. A couple of co

This will be an interesting topic. A couple of comments:
I would be interested in hearing the guest defend what you have termed ?the Exploitative-Institution position? against a particular criticism that I believe would arise from the fourth position.
I am assuming that the guest believes, as described in the blog, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex acts between consenting adults, even if those acts are perfomed in exchange for payment. To the extent then that the evils that an adherent of the Exploitative-Institution position believes surround prostitution are caused by social attitudes and institutions in American society, then is not the answer to work to change these attitudes and institutions rather than to condemn the institution itself?
For instance, to the extent that the speaker believes that the practice of prostitution is invariably damaging to the prostitute economically, because for example the pimp takes a large proportion of the prostitutes earnings, then let?s legalize prostitution, so that there is no need for protection by a pimp. Or, once legalized, we can regulate the amount that a pimp may charge for such protection, and give the prostitute an administrative avenue for redress if the pimp violates this regulation. If the act of prostitution is not in itself intrinsically wrong, then shouldn?t your speaker be helping to educate the public to this fact? Once prostitution is regarded by all as just another profession, then there will be no social stigma attached to it (or at least no more so than any other profession like, for instance, mine -- lawyer -- or yours (just kidding)).
Moreover, we appear to condemn only certain types of narrowly defined prostitution: the exchange of sex acts for money. As the old joke goes: What?s the difference between sex for love and sex for money? Sex for love is more expensive. The woman (or man) who has sex because someone pays him/her a couple of hundred dollars is a prostitute, but one who has sex because someone took him/her to drinks, dinner at an expensive restaurant, and then to a concert is not. The younger, attractive man or woman who consorts with the far older, unattractive, but wealthy person or the older men and women who ?prey? on other lonely, older, and wealthier retirees are all put in different categories than the prostitute, although the only difference would seem to be the directness and honesty of the transaction.
Any comments?

Guest

Sunday, May 15, 2005 -- 5:00 PM

Women mainly want money from men! They are always

Women mainly want money from men! They are always on the prowl for a rich guy. When a woman looks at a man the first thing she is concerned with is how much money he has and how many things he can buy her: a house, a car, etc. When a young man looks at a woman he is mainly concerned with how she looks physically. Is not a woman a prostitute when she primarily cares about how much money a man has? Is not a man an idiot when he only cares about how the woman looks? No wonder there are so many divorces, and the divorce rate is so high. Financial problems do indeed cause many divorces because many relationships are based on money.
The birds and bees are hopefully taught to a son by his parents. I view strip clubs and prostitutes as a place where men are educated in the sad truth of how relationships really work: the man gets money (goes out and hunts and captures animal) and gives it to the woman (cavewoman) who uses it. There is no love in prostitution. Prostitution is sex. Sex is not love. Sex is physical, and love is mental.
Actors and actresses have sex on film for money. Is this not prostitution? What is the difference between sex on film and prostitution? Is not prostitution legal in some parts of the United States like Nevada? Is not modeling a form of prostitution, where women trade their beauty of youth for money. Models, actresses, and prostitutes all have to take care of their bodies and look beautiful.
Is it prostitution when women use their physical beauty to get men to fall in love with them, so that men will buy them objects such as jewelry, gifts, etc., in normal relationships making men go into debt? The majority of women use their physical beauty as a weapon, instead of their minds. Their minds are working on the belief that the only way they will get anything is through the exploitation of men, and that men are only good for one thing-money. Instead of going out and getting something themselves they use men to get it for them. That is why I consider most women money hungry.
Another example would be when a woman meets a dumb man, and her entire goal will be to get this man to impregnate her. Once she is pregnant she will have continuous access to his money, through child support payments, until the child is 18 years old. This is a common goal of many women who are used to living off of the welfare system. Is this not prostitution-creating a baby so that the woman can have access to a man?s money? Then there are women who look for very rich men, have sex with them and then claim the rich man raped them. Then the rich guy has to go to court and is found not guilty. Is this not prostitution, luring a rich man into sex just so that you can get his money? Then there are women who are looking for the rich guy who will take care of them for the rest of their lives, and everyone knows that if he had no money or an average income she would not be with him.
The main thing a man needs to do is get money, and never get a woman pregnant and never marry a woman. The money will attract women, and the prevention of pregnancy and marriage will keep women from getting your money. Sex is always for money, even when it is not blatantly apparent. There should be a scientific test between the relationships of money to sex, or how much money influences relationships. These tests should be similar to how being fat influences whether you get a job or fall in love.