My spider sense is telling me that the most vocal objectors to prostitution (legal or otherwise) are folks who consider nonmarital sex a moral pollutant. Something about the idea of a consenting adult selling his or her sexual services to another consenting adult obviously makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. But I have to wonder why, really.
I can remember growing up and being taught that sex was something men wanted and women had to parcel out, in exchange for something else. It wasn't that my mother wanted me to grow up and become a hooker; to the contrary, she wanted me to grow up and enter into a traditional marriage. But I have to ask, as I asked when I was a teen: what's the difference?
If traditional marriage has anything to do with handing over sexual access to a woman in exchange for material security (and I'd argue that it does, on a very basic level), what is the substantial difference between marriage and prostitution? Is it the length of time involved? Is it a different intent? Is it a supposed level of commitment not found in a casual exchange? If so, how does that really change anything?
I think we commodify sex in far more contexts that we're willing to admit. Marketing, beauty contests, marriage, maybe even art, I don't know... maybe one of the reasons prostitution is so offensive is because it's so blatant and so upfront about it. It's a simple transaction: sex for money.
Honestly, I'd find that a far less humiliating exchange than a lot of other things I've done for money, or a lot of other situations where I've offered sex. A couple of folks have mentioned how humiliating it is to work in retail, for instance, and I can vouch for that. I can also think of times when I've offered sex, usually for love, and received nothing but abuse in return. If I'd gotten some cash, at least there would've been some benefit to myself in those situations, in cold, hard, materialistic terms.
I'm kind of rambling here, hopped up on cold meds, but it's all just food for thought.
