I think that in better societies, governments should take measures to
limit third-party profits from facilitating sexual contacts, while
avoiding a stigmatization of the exchange between material values and sexual
gratifications.
But in current, under-sexualized societies, measures against
prostitution per se would go into the wrong direction, as they would further
desexualize societies, or rather, lead to a further replacement of genuine
sexual conduct by substitutes that are easier to sell to unsatisfied
consumers, from movie entertainment to status symbols.
I have no adverse feelings against prostitutes, Neither those operating
in current societies, nor those that will do business in future, better
societies. While I think that becoming an prostitute is a poor
professional choice in current societies, and will be in future societies, I
understand that in current societies, whether in the First World or the
Third World, a prostitute can earn in a day what the average woman earns
in a month. If they manage their money wisely, they can later buy a
house or start a business… options that would be out of reach if they were
to work in factories). While in future, sexually better societies, the
income gap between prostitutes and other women may not be as wide, it
will probably still be there to some extent.
I think that becoming a prostitute is a poor professional choice
because over-utilizing the sexual apparatus (which includes the mind) will
diminish the sexual excitement which one can feel. Satisfaction is better
when sexual conduct is undertaken only when there is desire, and not
randomly for economic purposes.
But please note: “being a prostitute” is sensibly defined not as merely
expecting and deriving material benefits from sexual contacts. “Being a
prostitute” means having sexual contact for material benefits under
additional conditions: in a highly random (unselective of sexual partners)
and high-frequency manner, and without an element of sexual desire.
Girls who select boyfriends with a view on potential material benefits are
not prostitutes because they are selective (not anybody qualifies as
long as he has money), and their sexual contacts do not happen at high
frequency (it’s still a boyfriend they are looking for, and not a new
customer every few hours).
Furthermore, women who have many partners because they enjoy
promiscuity, whether they derive material benefits or not, are not prostitutes
because sexual desire is part of the motivation (and thus their attitude
is also selective).
I understand that most customers of prostitutes are men with a low
sexual market value, who are given the chance for sexual conduct
unselectively (with respect to their sexual market value), and based purely on
their ability to pay a certain amount of money for access during a
certain period of time. To provide the service may not be pleasant for the
prostitute, but the level to which it is unpleasant certainly can be
managed.
Other kinds of work are also not pleasant (having to deal with elderly
people who soil themselves; working in garbage collection), and are
paid less well.
No wonder many First World countries very officially import nurses and
garbage collectors from Third World countries.
Prostitutes often come illegally. If they come on their own choice,
governments should be lenient.
Whether prostitutes are local women, or whether they are immigrants,
governments should do as much as they can to protect their, and their
customers’, health from diseases, as well as unwanted pregnancies.
I obviously recommend the protection from sexually transmitted diseases
not only for prostitutes and their customers, but for all members of
societies. Actually, one of the reasons why I am in favor of strong
governments is their potential ability to practically eradicate all
suffering from sexually transmitted diseases.
To create and maintain a world practically free of sexually transmitted
diseases is an important part of the “mode of production” which will
form the basis of a new general ideology: one that is much more in favor
of promiscuous sexual conduct, and more conducive to a personal value
system that centers on optimal sexual experience, and after that, a
gentle death.
Reactionaries, whether they are religious lunatics or feminazis, have
absolutely no interest in the containment of sexually transmitted
diseases as sexual freedom (the freedom to satisfy sexual desires) would be
counterproductive to their agenda of keeping people in misery, either
because they want them to hope for a better afterlife (the motivation of
religious lunatics) or because it serves their master plan of revenge
against men (feminazis).
Because our ideas, including our morals, depend so much on the
technologies with which we control our environment and the way it benefits us
(our “modes of production”), a reverse application of a social analysis
based on dialectical materialism is our safest bet in providing
obstetric services for better, sexually more satisfying societies.
In practical terms, this means: if we eradicate sexually transmitted
diseases, we do not have to preach sexually open morals. If there is less
danger from sexually transmitted diseases, people will, all by
themselves, arrive at the conclusion that more promiscuity (and more sexual
satisfaction) is morally appropriate.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the US would ever have been as
dedicated to the curing of AIDS as they have been to putting a man on the
moon, AIDS would by now not just be a disease that can be contained,
but one that can be cured.
My interests are more than just analyzing the world. I want to change
it. For this reason, I always think of practical consequences from the
conclusions I have arrived at. And because a genuine cure, or medical
prophylaxis, for AIDS is both, instrumental for a sexually more liberated
society and an unsuspicious cause to support, I do call on extremely
rich people who want to support sexually liberated societies but
safeguard their bourgeois reputation, to set up foundations that sponsor
medical research directed at finding a cure for AIDS.
***
In current societies, in which female sexual desire is suppressed for
cultural reasons and as a result of a lack of safety, there is a
striking imbalance between the society-wide accumulated male sexual desire and
either the society-wide accumulated female sexual desire, or the
society-wide accumulated female sexual desire that is allowed to express
itself.
Many people (even scientists, especially evolutionary biologists) think
that this imbalance is a biological fact that cannot be changed. But
even if there may be a genetic basis for this imbalance, there certainly
is a lot that can be done in human societies to reduce its wideness.
Increasing the safety from violence as well as the social safety for
women can go a long way to reduce this gap. Perceived dangers, whether
from physical violence or from suffering adverse social situations, makes
women seek monogamous relationships, even if they result in sexual
boredom (which, allegedly, women can tolerate more easily than men).
Allowing women to be economically more independent, too, will likely
let women focus to a higher degree on the rewards of sexual adventures.
And last not least, educating both males and females equally in matters
of self-cognition will make both sexes realize that optimal sexual
experience, followed by a gentle death, are the only personal values in
life that stand the test of logic.
But until the imbalances of male and female sexual desires are leveled
in future societies, allowing prostitution is less pathological than
forcing sexual desires to express themselves in consumerism, or random
violence.
