Prostitution
Prostitution
By Punkerslut
I must say that the practice of prostitution has been given a
very bad name. Yet, I see it everywhere. Men who pay for sex are
simply either pre-occupied or too lazy. If they wanted to save
some cash, they could simply spend 15 minutes everyday grooming
themselves, and then hitting up the clubs every night. Sure
sure, they would be spending about $20 to $40 on drinks and
maybe three or four hours of hitting on a girl, but they would
still get sex. And, honestly, what is the difference between
simply paying a woman to have sex, and looking nice and buying
them drinks to have sex? I can extend this analogy even further.
What if someone decides, in fact, to spend several hours every
day or week in courtship, for weeks or months, until marriage?
In such a case, they would have achieved the required social
steps for sex. In that case, they are still just giving in a
certain amount of time and effort to satisfy their sexual
libido. If a man spends hours laboring at his profession, is
paid, and then spends this money on a prostitute, how does this
differ from a man spending hours hitting on a woman and then her
finally accepting the sexual proposal? I cannot find one
difference in any of these circumstances that would make
prostitution immoral or unethical.
Yes, there is the difference that in one of these cases, money
is specifically offered for the action of sex. I am not denying
this at all. The only thing I am denying is that the exchange of
money for sex matters. Whether sex was paid for or whether it
was obtained through that clever game of sexual selection and
competition, it is all irrelevant. Just because sex was paid for
in one instance, I do not think that it ought to be outlawed or
even condemned. As humane and rational men, the source of our
ethical imperatives comes from one idea. It is the idea that our
actions improve, better, and aid the lives of those around us.
This can be done in a number of ways. If our actions can be
judged as increasing the pleasure of others, and decreasing the
misery of others, then it ought to be said that our actions are
ethical, that they have done some good, that they have decreased
misery and increased happines. With this ethical ideal
understood, there can be no argument against prostitution. The
system of buying and selling sex has been and will continue to
be a means of mutual satisfaction: the cash for the prostitute,
and the pleasure for the customer.
In all honesty, I believe the greatest amount of opposition to
prostitution that comes today is simply an animosity against the
sex act in general. Those same individuals who oppose
prostitution probably support the law of statutory rape. They
believed that if a consenting 18 year old had sex with a
consenting 17 year old, that it was a tragic act, that it
permanently scarred the 17 year old and that the heart of the 18
year old was stone cold. The same people who oppose legalizing
prostitution also oppose distribution of contraceptive devices,
arguing that "if sex is safe, then more sex will be committed."
These people would rather that disease infest and destroy the
bodies of young people than allow them to take happiness in the
warmth of each others' bodies. The puritanical spirit is still
among our society, unfortunately, and it is the people who are
paying for it. Venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy effects
all ages, all races. By doing all that we can to eliminate these
social ills, we are elevating the spirit of humanity, the creed
of kinship, the bond that may be called our experience together.
Among the primary arguments of those who oppose prostitution,
there is the purity argument. It is not a question of the
disease spread by illegal prostitutes, or of the criminal
element associated with it, but rather, it is a matter of
purity. By allowing people to exchange sex for cash, we are
allowing people to engage in impure acts, which are destructive
towards themselves. My response to this is simple: irrelevant.
It is irrelevant whether an action is judged to be pure or
impure. Personally, I believe that allowing children to live in
poverty, allowing armies of unemployed to starve, and
restricting the flow of information is impure. It is impure to
build palaces when there are still men and women without homes.
If it was impure to feed the poor and homeless, should we make
it illegal? If it was pure to murder and rape, should we make it
legal? Of course not. The terms "pure" and "impure" are
meaningless. If conservatives are simply going to apply it
without any purpose, then it is with complete disregard for
morality and the goodness of mankind.
A real question that I would like to ask these conservative
thinkers is this: by what standard can you define anything as
pure or impure? What is the scale? And, once this is decided,
how is it relevant to anything? If it happens that murder is
impure, that holds no relevance over whether it is legal or
illegal. Murder is illegal because it causes suffering and
misery, and so is the same reason why rape or assault are
illegal. It it happens that helping the innocent escape an evil
fate is pure, it has nothing to do with the law. It is legal to
help innocent people because it eliminates misery and suffering.
So, when we decide to judge something like prostitution, and if
it weighs out to being impure, why should this even aid in our
decision? After all, prostitution, much like the sex act alone,
creates happiness and pleasure for many. It is a mutually
benefiting relationship. That is why it must be legalized.
There are still some other considerations to think about. For
example, what about those prostitutes who are not willingly
prostitutes? What of those prostitutes who engage in the
practice for the sake of obtaining food and not for the sake of
choosing it as a profession? Some will argue, very rightly too,
that prostitution allows people to sell their bodies, even
though the practice scars their mind. I admit, this is very
true. Yet, it cannot be denied that every profession contains
people who are scarred by their labor. Consider the Mexican
laborers, whose rights are violated daily as they are forced to
work 14 hours a day. Consider the American laborer who lives in
a closet and works 10 hours a day so he can have nothing. The
decades and decades of their lives spent living in such poverty
and misery, inflicted on the lives of hundreds of millions, if
not billions, of people. There is no doubt that professions all
over the world have allowed for so much misery, so much pain, so
much cruelty. They exist solely because of the exploitive,
oppressive relationships that are allowed to flourish in
society. The problem is not prostitution. The problem is the
poverty of a Capitalist economy. If the scarring of
prostitution, or any other profession, is to be eliminated, we
need Socialism on our law books. It is the only savior of the
proletariat.
Before ending, there is one other matter that ought to be
discussed. It is the matter of the rights of women, of Feminism,
of sexism versus sexuality. Feminists will argue that
prostitution will only make women seem more like objects and
less like individuals with interests and emotions. First, there
is a double standard. There are gigolos, or male prostitutes,
and one might inquire how this impacts the image that women have
of men. Some might agree, and believe that both institutions
should be abolished. Yet, such an action would be too hasty and
too reckless. Sex, whether paid for or not, is usually about
satisfying an urge. A Feminist might as well say that men and
women shouldn't have sex with each other at all, to prevent them
from having sexual thoughts about each other, or from developing
ideas about the other gender. No doubt, everyone will disagree
with such a social plan. Eliminating sex will perhaps cause the
greatest misery in society. And, the fact that nobody wants to
eliminate sex, is fair and good evidence that the spirit of
Puritanism is slowly but surely dying. Whether or not
prostitution will put a prejudice in the mind of men is not
something that can be battled by prohibiting prostitution, but
only by a real and honest education given to all people, so that
they can appreciate the relationships they have with each other.
If society were to accept prostitution as a valid form of
pleasure, entertainment, and employment, then the ills commonly
associated with it would become nonexistent. The disease that is
spread through unprotected sex would become extremely limited
and restricted. With regulatory law, these sex workers would be
required to have protected sex. And, with safe sex, those who
purchased the services of these employees would be safe. There
is no doubt that prostitution should be legalized. For some
time, casual sex without commitment was a matter of law. It was
illegal. But today, we are smart enough to understand and
believe that what two consenting people do behind closed doors
is their business and their business only. It is not a crime to
make awkward artwork or read obscure literature, but for a long
time it was illegal, punished with death and torture. Yet as
time has worn on, we have become more humane, more rational,
more passionate about the rights of the people and the liberties
of the individual. It is no longer a crime to read banned books,
it is no longer a crime to revel in obscure artworks, it is no
longer a crime to have consensual sex. Yet... It is still a
matter of law when it comes to exchanging sex for cash. As the
spirit of progress is guided by the flame of reason, we must
change these laws.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut