On prostitution

I cannot lie : I can't understand the whole concept of prostitution.

I can't understand why I woman would want to get paid by 2, 3, 6, 10 guys (or gals) a night to make rent. I can't understand how people can use their bodies as a tool or an instrument in that fashion.

I can't understand either why a guy would want to pay for sex. Yes, I know, I've heard about the whole "it's about having control and power and no string attached" spiel. Yet whereas many people see that as an exploitative act that gives men an unlimited amount of power, I see it more as a sign of weakness and even impotence. A guy that has to pay for it can't get it any other way and paying it for it is just part of the thrill.

Yet just because I don't understand the psychological dynamics of prostitution does it mean that it should be outlawed. On the contrary, just as with most drugs, I believe that we should follow Holland's lead and legalize prostitution.

Banning prostitution is not going to make it go away. On the contrary, the allure of breaking the taboo would be even stronger. If women and men want to turn sex into a transaction then, by all means, make it safe and make it fair.

Prostitution should be taxed and considered labor.

Prostitutes should be certified by the board of health.

Prostitution houses ought to be licensed and provide security services, along with health benefits and other labor benefits, to all their workers.

Make prostitution legal all across the nation and do not leave it up to state to decide.

It's labor and labor should be paid, taxed and accounted for.

See also :
The New York Times, An old profession that is new to doing taxes.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bee Square's picture

I agree that prostitution

I agree that prostitution should be decriminalized. But the first part of your article wasn't well thought out.

For instance you claim that the clients of prostitutes are men who can't get sex otherwise. Really? Most experts who have written about the dynamics of sex between men and women seem to agree that the more rich and powerful a man becomes, the easier it is for him to source a woman for sex. Do you really believe that the most powerful man in the state of New York couldn't source sex any other way hence his overture to a prostitute?

Further, the astronomically high prices for the services of the ladies in the ring of which Spitzer was a client, speaks to the nature of these clients. They obviously were rich and powerful men to be able to afford these services. Since rich and powerful men don't need to pay for sex, it's obviously not just the sex that they are paying for.

Maybe they are paying for sex with no strings attached. Maybe they are paying for the ability to completely let themselves go and indulge in fantasies they wouldn't dare do with their wives.

The use of prefessionsls isn't be any means limited to men who just "can't get it" anywhere else. That's a myth.


liza's picture

I think you give men too much credit and power

Paying for it is a form of Viagra; meaning that, if he's not paying for it he most likely can't really get off the way he really wants.

I grew up around men who procured the services of prostitutes, and all of them were mysoginists. Not because they hated women but because, if you really looked closely to their actions, they feared them. Paying for a prostitute gave the sense of control and of power that in their daily lives they felt they hardly had ---and if you think these guys were physical weaklings or ugly, they were not.

Money is the oldest form of Viagra.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1248 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

"Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.

"The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.

"The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S."


— -- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, from the "Detached Memoranda," Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detached Memoranda." William and Mary Quarterly (1946): 554-62.


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify