Objectivism's View of Prostitution

Is there one?

In Post #3 of the thread "Cathouse" on the Movies forum, I wrote,

Actually, I see no evidence in Objectivism that would positively preclude prostitution as irrational or immoral. But Objectivism would say that it pales by comparison to a true romantic relationship, if you can get it. If you can, then why would you prefer something second best, like prostitution? I think that's the argument. But there's no Kantian prohibition against alternative sexualities, if you haven't found the summum bonum.

I think this analysis misses something. I've been doing a little more thinking about this issue, and found myself asking why someone would want to be a prostitute, if she had a better alternative. You have to recognize what's involved in this lifestyle.

The prostitute is having sex with whoever is willing to pay her for it and with people whom she has no feelings for or even any sexual interest in. What does that do to her appreciation of sex as an end itself -- as something that she values for its own sake? Sex becomes a job -- a kind of duty that she performs for money -- not a duty in the Kantian sense, but something that she does, not because she is attracted to and happens to like the person she's having sex with, but because it's a way to make money. That's got to dampen her enthusiasm for it as an end in itself. I should think the same analysis would apply to porn actors and actresses, who are having sex, not for its own sake, but solely for the purpose of public display and the erotic enjoyment of others.

This brings me to the psychology of prostitution. It is difficult for me to believe that a prostitute wouldn't have lost her potential to appreciate sex for what it has to offer. She would have to be someone with a muted capacity for sexual pleasure and romantic love; and that has to be a big sacrifice, because sexual pleasure, especially in the context of romantic love, is one of the most intense pleasures that life has to offer.

Of course, it goes without saying that, according to Objectivism, prostitution should be legal.

- Bill

Post 1

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:20am

The prostitute is having sex with whoever is willing to pay her for it and with people whom she has no feelings for or even any sexual interest in. What does that do to her appreciation of sex as an end itself -- as something that she values for its own sake? Sex becomes a job -- a kind of duty that she performs for money -- not a duty in the Kantian sense, but something that she does, not because she is attracted to and happens to like the person she's having sex with, but because it's a way to make money. That's got to dampen her enthusiasm for it as an end in itself. I should think the same analysis would apply to porn actors and actresses, who are having sex, not for its own sake, but solely for the purpose of public display and the erotic enjoyment of others.

This view, whether noticed or not, is an anti-trader mindset - which would be noticed if any other business or trader concern be used - and which many sex workers would very much disagree with...
why not ask Lady Aster on this, who holds her Salon_Liberty@Yahoo.com ...

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/30, 1:22am)

Post 2

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 4:47am

William,

She would have to be someone with a muted capacity for sexual pleasure and romantic love; and that has to be a big sacrifice, ...

I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, sex outside the context of romantic love, while certainly not unpleasant, is a completely different experience from sex with someone for whom I have deep romantic feelings. The former is (for me) a hollow experience, akin to scratching an itch; feels okay, but is soon forgotten. The latter is (or can be) an intense and lasting physical and emotional experience.  There is no comparison between the two.

It's possible that some prostitutes recognize the difference and are able to compartmentalize.   I think the determining factor is how and why the individual became a prostitute to begin with.   I also think that female prostitutes, assuming that they weren't "forced" into prostitution by financial or other circumstances, would have an easier time keeping their work separate from their personal lives. But I'm basing that on a possibly-flawed presupposition that, in general, sex is somewhat more physical and less emotional for men, lessening the difference between having sex and making love.   I offer your statement, "It is difficult for me to believe that a prostitute wouldn't have lost her potential to appreciate sex for what it has to offer. " as evidence of this.

As for what Objectivism's view of prostitution is (or should be), I think the question itself is meaningless.  To my mind (such at it is), the issue would be why the individual has chosen a particular career path, and not the career path itself.

Regards,

Summer

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 11/30, 5:03am)

Post 3

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:07am

"That's got to dampen her enthusiasm for it as an end in itself."

"It is difficult for me to believe that a prostitute wouldn't have lost her potential to appreciate sex for what it has to offer."

Why?

I develop software and have for years; as a contractor undoubtedly some would say I whore myself out even. I still enjoy computers and creating software widgets in my free time. In general, people I've known who enjoy their work maintain an outside interest in its subject matter as well. I fail to see why a sex professional would be different, somehow having to lose outside interest in sex. If anything I see them also possibly having the benefit of being less prone to mistake sex for love than most people are.

Post 4

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 9:59am

I wrote,

The prostitute is having sex with whoever is willing to pay her for it and with people whom she has no feelings for or even any sexual interest in. What does that do to her appreciation of sex as an end itself -- as something that she values for its own sake? Sex becomes a job -- a kind of duty that she performs for money -- not a duty in the Kantian sense, but something that she does, not because she is attracted to and happens to like the person she's having sex with, but because it's a way to make money. That's got to dampen her enthusiasm for it as an end in itself. I should think the same analysis would apply to porn actors and actresses, who are having sex, not for its own sake, but solely for the purpose of public display and the erotic enjoyment of others.

Robert Malcom replied,

This view, whether noticed or not, is an anti-trader mindset - which would be noticed if any other business or trader concern be used - and which many sex workers would very much disagree with ... why not ask Lady Aster on this, who holds her Salon_Liberty@Yahoo.com ...

It's not an anti-trader mindset. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy your job or that what you do must either be for love or for money. Ideally, what you do for money should be something you love. Clearly, Howard Roark loved architecture and he loved making money at it. What he didn't love was designing buildings that didn't fit his style, just because someone was willing to pay him for it. He preferred to work in a rock quarry instead. In other words, Roark refused to prostitute himself by selling out his architectural principles, because it would have devalued what he loved about the profession -- designing his own buildings in his own way, according to his own vision. In the same way, the sexual prostitute is engaged in a practice -- having sex with people she doesn't like and isn't attracted to -- that cannot but devalue her appreciation of sex as an end in itself.

How many prostitutes or sex workers do you think have fulfilling romantic relationships?

- Bill

Post 5

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 12:19pm

the sexual prostitute is engaged in a practice -- having sex with people she doesn't like and isn't attracted to -- that cannot but devalue her appreciation of sex as an end in itself.

How do you know that - and what presumes you to know that? just as I would not sell my paintings to any and all comers, only to those who appreciate them - so too the serious sex worker, who would trade with those of approval, not anyone.....

Post 6

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:15pm

I have a d/b/a that I have not used. I live in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, in the Huron River basin. Thus, I formed
Washtenaw Huron OutReach for Entrepreneurship:
If You're in Business, You're a WHORE.

I see nothing wrong with selling sex. I sell writing and I have not lost my passion for it. I am passionate about everything I sell.

I understand the "exploitative" issues, and it is tragic, or can be, but then, I have stood on the mezzanine of a General Motors engine plant and looked out over the production floor with its miasma of hopelessness hanging over it -- even though I myself was Objectivisitically enjoying my opportunity to participate in the industrial revolution.

Back in 1980 there was an early "reality TV" show called Real People. We watched it waiting for their interview of Kurt Saxon (author of The Poor Man's James Bond, The Poor Man's Armorer, Granddad's Explosives, etc.). One of the intro clips had a woman who said: My boyfriend didn't understand me, so I turned professional. Later, she said:

"A lot of housewives hate me because they can't do what I do good enough to get paid for it."

Michael
"Have keyboard. Will travel."

Post 7

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 3:02pm

Yeah - Kurt Saxon wrote some very interesting books - have most of them, from waaaaaaaaaaaay back...

But, to keep to the thread, it is true that sex is more than 'getting it off' , and thus a skill to develop - one which is marketable - indeed, if highly developed, very highly marketable...

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/30, 3:05pm)

Post 8

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 3:12pm

I personally think that 99% of the time the three pathways into prostitution are: childhoodsexual victimization, running away, and drug use.
These people need rehabilitation more than anything.
Romantic love is only for healthy minds .

Ciro

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/30, 3:27pm)

Post 9

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 5:09pm

I'm curious about the opinions of the group on regulation of prostitution. If it were legal, would Objectivism allow for required health inspections and such, to avoid the spread of STDs?

And would a pimp be required to employ a quota of ugly prostitutes? Okay, the 2nd question is a joke, but I'm serious about the first.

Post 10

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:29pm

I'm curious about the opinions of the group on regulation of prostitution. If it were legal, would Objectivism allow for required health inspections and such, to avoid the spread of STDs?

John: "Do you have any STD's?"
Hooker: "Uh..why no! Of course not!"
John: "Got any proof?"
Hooker: "Uuuuuh...Proof?"
John: "Yeah, something current from a doctor saying you're STD free?"
Hooker: "My dog ate it. I have a bowl of colorful condoms over there, though. Isn't that enough?"
John: "Nope. Sorry."

See, it's all about the government letting people be responsible for themselves, even when engaging in seemingly unsavory activities. The hooker could just as easily ask her customers for the very same proof, which would be very wise.

Responsible hookers will make the most money, while the irresponsible ones, and their customers, represent the bottom of the evolutionary barrel.

Before there was an FDA, there were thousands of dining establishments serving good, safe, wholesome food. Owners set their own strict standards to keep customers coming in and spending money.

There's a Free Baptist church close to my house that used to host the best barbeques on Thursdays during the warmer months. An old guy at the church loved to cook, and would set up his huge grill in the parking lot every week, selling the best ribs and chicken I've ever tasted. A half of a chicken for $4.00!! It was great. The only problem was, the government didn't think he was smart enough not to kill people with food poisoning. I'm sure he's been feeding people with food he's cooked for over 50 years, but he doesn't know what he's doing. He needs to "follow the rules," pay the fees, buy the right equipment, etc., etc.

Same with prostitution. Whores aren't any dumber than cooks, right?

Despite what the government thinks, (and made through it's policies) people are very smart and want to survive. People are also very good natured and don't like to see others suffer for the sake of making a buck.

Post 11

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 7:02pm

I always encourage prostitution in women and homosexuality in men. Both of these policies mean more women available for me and that is Objectivity applied. More woman and fewer customers keeps prices reasonable and reason is always my watchword.

Post 12

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 11:08am

...and reason is always my watchword.

My watchword is cannoli.

Not quite sure how that applies to this topic. Guess I'm just hungry...

Post 13

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 1:50pm

I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Mot because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and to important. -- Ayn Rand, in her interview with Alvin Toffler, Playboy Magazine, March 1964.

It would appear, from this quote, that Objectivism does have a position on prostitution and that morally, that position is one of disapproval. Whatever else it does, indiscriminate sexual indulgence would seem to lessen the value of sex with one's significant other, which is I why I'd be surprised if prostitutes have romantic relationships.

In Post #4, I wrote, "The sexual prostitute is engaged in a practice -- having sex with people she doesn't like and isn't attracted to -- that cannot but devalue her appreciation of sex as an end in itself." In Post #5, Robert Malcom replied,

How do you know that - and what presumes you to know that? just as I would not sell my paintings to any and all comers, only to those who appreciate them - so too the serious sex worker, who would trade with those of approval, not anyone.....

If someone were willing to buy your paintings at the asking price, presumably he or she would appreciate them. The more pertinent question is, would you do whatever paintings someone were willing to pay you for, even if it were the trashiest modern art? Would you prostitute your art for a buck? If you were a novelist, like Ayn Rand, would you write naturalistic pulp fiction just to put food on the table? You say that the serious sex worker could restrict her clientele to those she found attractive. If she did that, do you think she'd have enough customers to sustain her business? How many of the men who typically patronize a prostitute are the kind she'd want to have sex with free of charge? I'd say that, even for an otherwise promiscuous woman, it's a pretty small number.

John Howard wrote,

I always encourage prostitution in women and homosexuality in men. Both of these policies mean more women available for me and that is Objectivity applied. More woman and fewer customers keeps prices reasonable and reason is always my watchword.

Uh, John, when you say that encouraging prostitution in women means more women available for you, I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't it mean fewer women available for you, unless the women you're looking for are prostitutes? If they're not, then the more women that are prostitutes, the fewer (desirable) women will be available for you.

Teresa, now you're talking like an economist, because your reply is exactly how an economist would respond: supply and demand. The customers would demand safe sex, and hookers would supply it.

- Bill

Post 14

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 2:13pm

>If you were a novelist, like Ayn Rand, would you write naturalistic pulp fiction just to put food on the table?

Hmm, let's see, Ayn Rand hang around Hollywood studios and was an extra in who-knows what movies; she read whatever movie scripts and wrote synopsis for studio bosses; she also worked at wardrobe department for many many years. Yep, she did all that just to put food on the table.

Post 15

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 2:49pm

What I mean is, she wouldn't have written fiction she despised simply to make a buck!

- Bill

Post 16

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 3:05pm

>...she wouldn't have written fiction she despised simply to make a buck!

Would she be able to do that even if she wanted to? I would think that a fiction needs to be somewhat good in order to make money. Could anyone write good fictions when he hates what he writes?

Post 17

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 4:49pm

There's naturalistic fiction that sells, such as by Sinclair Lewis and John O'Hara (both of whom Rand admired for their literary talent), but it is not something that Rand would ever have written, even though she had the talent to pull it off, if she chose to. And there is well-written, trashy pulp fiction that's popular, such as by Jackie Collins, which Rand certainly could have written, if she had wanted to. But she would never have sullied her reputation by doing so, even if it would have made her rich. Like her hero, Howard Roark, she had too much pride, too much integrity, to prostitute her art and sell out her esthetic principles for money.

- Bill

P.S. Hong is right about popular fiction needing to be well-done in order to sell. It doesn't have to be great fiction or even anything that you'd necessarily want to read, but regardless of the reader's esthetic values or literary taste, it does have to be well-crafted in order to appeal to a mass market.
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 12/01, 6:41pm)

Post 18

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 6:14pm

I'm with Ayn Rand.

What I find overlooked in this discussion of prostitution is the habituated depersonalization and emotional detachment that must be required to engage in the most intimate physical acts with people whom one loathes or, at least, regards with utter indifference.

The sheer cynicism with which one must necessarily approach such apathetic and often-demeaning encounters -- and the emotional self-alienation to which habitually meaningless or distasteful sex with people you don't like must lead -- are psychological states that must be unavoidable to the prostitute. And, in fact, aren't prostitutes commonly described as hardened and cynical? What else could be expected from anonymous sex -- i.e., intimacy without individuality or identity?

To regard both oneself and one's partners as anonymous slabs of meat engaging in meaningless physical releases, is to diminish sexuality from the human to animal level.

In any case, of all the ways to describe prostitution, "man as a heroic being" are not words that immediately leap to mind.

Post 19

Friday, December 1, 2006 - 7:17pm