Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An Objectivist society and Prostitution

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have encountered a contradiction of sorts that I believe I may have managed to solve- whether or not, on principle, an Objectivist-like, rational society would allow or, (if not restricted) have this kind of trade at all.

Considering that sex is the celebration of the recognition of values, is it moral for persons to seek it for its own sake, excluding concern for the actual individual which one pays for the act? Likewise, is it right for the prostitute themselves to do this solely for profit?

After all some would argue, it is a fair trade, and outlawing prostitution would indeed be a violation of individual rights and a threat to pure laissez-faire. Yet I came to see that the precise reasons for which it is outlawed, are almost the same as those for which it exists, and is in fact, sellable.

Furthermore I have concluded- that in a rational society, prostitution will not need to be outlawed- because it will not be sought. This is because persons who understand the honor of the act- similiarly there would be no one willing to sell it.

Prostitution is the product of a society which refuses to accept human sexuality, just as readily as it denounces the physical world. Thus the satisfaction of one's desires must be transacted by underhanded, shameful means, and only by those 'low' enough to perform them.

Note how 'platonic' love and chastity are traditionally exalted - in short the denial of one's body- while carnal desires and acts are condemned. Just as Adam and Eve were made to feel ashamed for their sex, that same shame arises in men and women present-day and I believe it is in fact the driving force which not only places them in the gutter, but creates it.

It also agrees with the concept that the act becomes an expression of mutual contempt.

The acknowledgment of the body and the willingness to use it as a device for one's own desires while living on and celebrating the world. Yet the widely held belief is that the act is sinful, one of shame. And this is the exact explanation for why prostitution present-day is condemned yet has such a large amount of customers.

While it is wrong for any government to outlaw this, I believe that the exchange would not even exist in a society founded on realistic, objectivist principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that what is immoral should ALWAYS be made illegal. This is not true. It's immoral for me to lie to you under normal situations but it is not and SHOULD NOT be illegal. Ergo, NO CONTRADICTION.

Also, you are making an assumption that prostitution must AWAYS be immoral without context. This is also not true. You ever read We the Living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that what is immoral should ALWAYS be made illegal. This is not true. It's immoral for me to lie to you under normal situations but it is not and SHOULD NOT be illegal. Ergo, NO CONTRADICTION.

Quite. The actions illegal in a rational society, would be those that violate the rights of an individual. Therefore, prostitution would be legal; forcing someone into prostitution would not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that sex is the celebration of the recognition of values, is it moral for persons to seek it for its own sake, excluding concern for the actual individual which one pays for the act

Why would it be immoral at all to pay for sexual intercourse? You are not excluding concern for the prostitue, you are paying her for her service. With prostituion it would be a recognition of values by both people, the money exchanged represents the value. With casual sex outside of relationships, or even inside relationships, if you don't really know the person, and not caring about what value the other gets out of it, then I'd consider that to be immoral. For example a woman who thinks the man really values who she is as a person while the man was just lying to get into bed with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same reason it would be immoral to pay for "winning" a contest.

I am just not understanding the analogy. There is no contest involved. I was searching through the forums to see if I could find a thread examining it but can't. I can't see the reasoning for it myself either. I see sex as being neither moral nor immoral, simply the reasons for having sex. One party be it male or female agreeing to sell the service to another as being within their rights to do so. I'd like to be able to understand the reasoning why this would not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it be immoral at all to pay for sexual intercourse?
It's this part: "Considering that sex is the celebration of the recognition of values". Prostitution isn't that. Winning a footrace means that you were the fastest person in the race, so paying one of the runners -- who can actually run much faster than you -- to run at half-speed contradicts what it means to "win a race". It is falsifying reality, misrepresenting what is (pretending that you are the fastest when in fact you are not the fastest). Or, pretending that you have mastered the woman of your dreams who worships you in a particular way, when in fact that is not what you are doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's this part: "Considering that sex is the celebration of the recognition of values". Prostitution isn't that. Winning a footrace means that you were the fastest person in the race, so paying one of the runners -- who can actually run much faster than you -- to run at half-speed contradicts what it means to "win a race". It is falsifying reality, misrepresenting what is (pretending that you are the fastest when in fact you are not the fastest). Or, pretending that you have mastered the woman of your dreams who worships you in a particular way, when in fact that is not what you are doing.

Ok, I'm just not getting it. I understand the race point, and I agree with it. Maybe I should ask why does sex have to be raised up to a higher standard. It's a physical act, like paying a massuese to massage your back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I should ask why does sex have to be raised up to a higher standard. It's a physical act, like paying a massuese to massage your back.
Seen as such, it would be more like pointlessly wasting money. Unless you're paralyzed, you can get the same simple physical act for free in the privacy of your own room. Since I've never hired a hoe, I don't understand the psychology of the business, but I suspect that in the rent-a-date business, the guy is really looking for more than a simple physical act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen as such, it would be more like pointlessly wasting money. Unless you're paralyzed, you can get the same simple physical act for free in the privacy of your own room. Since I've never hired a hoe, I don't understand the psychology of the business, but I suspect that in the rent-a-date business, the guy is really looking for more than a simple physical act.

I agree. In the end though, sex is simply a physical act. Sex with emotional attachment is another story. Paying someone to pretend to love you would be wrong. I highly doubt you would ever see prostitution go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen as such, it would be more like pointlessly wasting money. Unless you're paralyzed, you can get the same simple physical act for free in the privacy of your own room.

I would disagree with this. Masturbation and sex (even sex deviod of emotional contact) are not the same, even if they are both responses to the same impulse. And I don't see why it would be wasting money any more than paying to play pool or ride bumper cars. All three are acts that one could potentially derive pleasure from, and while you might be able to make the case that sex has the potential for much greater pleasure when coupled with an equally strong emotional attraction, there's no reason it has to be. Some people like to play pool or watch TV to unwind, others may like to have unattached sex. One doesn't seem inherently more justified, nor is one inherently a waste of time or money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but one is activities involving inatimate objects and one is an activitity involving another concious human being involving complex biochemical and phycho-epistemological interactions. I suppose that if you drop that context then they are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but one is activities involving inatimate objects and one is an activitity involving another concious human being involving complex biochemical and phycho-epistemological interactions. I suppose that if you drop that context then they are the same.

What difference does that make? It's true that sex is a more complicated act, but that just increases the potential for improper use, it doesn't necessitate it. I'm sure that many people look to prostitues for reasons that are immoral, but there's nothing in the act that requires immorality. Is this not so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not "so" in MOST cases because sex in its proper form but a whole complex system of values and judgements that lead to the act in its proper form. Which is why males should be males. Females should be females. And that homosexuality is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not "so" in MOST cases because sex in its proper form but a whole complex system of values and judgements that lead to the act in its proper form. Which is why males should be males. Females should be females. And that homosexuality is immoral.

So you believe it is impossible to derive net pleasure from sex without it incorporating this complex system of values? If so, why? Why do you believe it impossible to divorce the emotional from the biological in this case? Or, maybe a better question, what makes sex essentially different from other human interaction that people pay for, such as the massage mentioned earlier? Value is traded for value, and as long as no illusions are maintained, it seems kosher to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not impossible to derive pleasure but SIMPLY deriving pleasure from sex in not the proper function of sex in a romantic relationship that is proper to man qua man. One has pleasure during the act but that is not the only or even the MAIN reason for the proper engagement in sexual activities. The ultimate celebration of shared valued in another is.

You don't have to share immense values with your massuse (or however you spell it) or your car mechanic for the trade to be proper to your life qua man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not impossible to derive pleasure but SIMPLY deriving pleasure from sex in not the proper function of sex in a romantic relationship that is proper to man qua man. One has pleasure during the act but that is not the only or even the MAIN reason for the proper engagement in sexual activities. The ultimate celebration of shared valued in another is.

I agree with the first sentence, except that we're not dealing with a romantic relationship here. And I would even agree that the simple satisfaction of primal urges is not the primary reason for having sex. Far from it. But I would say again, the fact that someone is not using sex to its fullest potential doesn't make the use immoral. It may be less good to have purely physical sex, but that doesn't make it bad. There are many sources of pleasure and value, and they can all be enjoyed to various extents. Not maximizing a particular value or pleasure doesn't make any use of it wrong. Sex is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't have special status in the world in this regard. Do you feel there's a reason why it should be treated differently than other values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree with this. Masturbation and sex (even sex deviod of emotional contact) are not the same, even if they are both responses to the same impulse. And I don't see why it would be wasting money any more than paying to play pool or ride bumper cars. All three are acts that one could potentially derive pleasure from, and while you might be able to make the case that sex has the potential for much greater pleasure when coupled with an equally strong emotional attraction, there's no reason it has to be.

I would say that the question of whether unattached sex is enjoyable is slightly different from whether prostitution is enjoyable. The problem with prostitution is that you know you havent conquered your partner in any significant way - they are just with you because you are paying them. In a sense, its an expression of your own powerlessness; an admission that you can only gain this person via something external to you rather than through any essential part of your character*. In contrast, even if you were just having meaningless (non-commercial) sex with a one night stand, the person you were with would still want to be with you - maybe she just saw you at the bar and thought you were hot or whatever, but she still wants you, rather than just the $100 youre giving her at the end. In my opinion, unattached sex can still have the elements which make sex fun, whereas prostitution generally cant, hence the 2 things need to be considered seperately.

edit: talking about sex without the mental parts/conquest isnt like talking about bumper cars or pool, because youre removing the element which actually creates most of the enjoyment in the first place. To use a somewhat dubious analogy, its like the difference between playing poker for money, and playing for matchsticks. Sure, its possible to just use matchsticks, but really - whats the point? Once youve removed the part of the game which actually generates the excitement - the idea of winning/losing something tangible - youve defeated the purpose of playing and you'd be better off just having a game of chess instead. A perhaps even more dubious example would be playing through a computer game using "God" mode, or some other kind of cheat which gives you infinite health - sure, you get to finish the game, but is there going to be any real feeling of satisifaction here?

* the obvious counterargument to this is that a person's earnings are an aspect of their character, and that prostitution can actually be framed in the language of conquest - the prostitute user is showing that because of their ability to generate wealth, they are able to sleep with women who they could not otherwise obtain. And this is admittedly an expression of power. You could also argue that a women being attracted to you mainly because of your physical appearence wouldnt involve anything 'essential' about you either, but this seems more dubious.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading some more about this subject and from I can gather the main argument against sex as just a physical act would be that it is simply man giving into an instinctive reaction without thought behind it and therefor put him back on the same level as animals that can only follow instinct. Would this be about the sum of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read We the Living, and it appears to me that, at least in Andrei's case, the favors were those of a relationship, not a business exchange. Kira was the only one who was motivated solely by the money she was attaining; Andrei gave it to her because he was in love with her and thought she needed it for herself and family to survive. This is not prostitution, because both parties were NOT making a conscious decision to have intercourse based on profit, as they would in typical prostitution. Also it must also be remembered that Andrei was good friend's with Kira before they slept together, and demonstrated a willingness to help her and her family even before their affair.

I do not believe Kira's actions are morally questionable and thus they are not comparable with the question I am raising.

I've been reading some more about this subject and from I can gather the main argument against sex as just a physical act would be that it is simply man giving into an instinctive reaction without thought behind it and therefor put him back on the same level as animals that can only follow instinct. Would this be about the sum of it?

I agree completely and this is what I mean to argue- that the mindless performance of sex for no sake but itself, even when done so for profit, degrades man and his higher levels of thought, and undermines the standards he looks for in other human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely and this is what I mean to argue- that the mindless performance of sex for no sake but itself, even when done so for profit, degrades man and his higher levels of thought, and undermines the standards he looks for in other human beings.

So then it would follow that sex only for sex would neither be moral or immoral, but giving into instictive action without regard to thought and reason would be immoral in itself. To have prostitution, one could not say it was only about the sex itself, since there is a value being given to it in the form of money and would no longer be a mindless, instinctive act and would have to be judged morally. I can see where this would lead to viewing prostitution as immoral and in a totally rational society, then no one would be willing to offer the service, not really that no one would partake in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see the metaphysical significance that is being given to sex (and is given in Ayn Rand's work as well). For a race of rational volitional beings who reproduce by division, there would be no sex and yet Objectivism is as valid for them as it is for us. Sex can trigger strong emotional responses, sex is historically treated as something of high metaphysical significance, I have yet to see an rational argument as to why it is so.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see the metaphysical significance that is being given to sex (and is given in Ayn Rand's work as well). For a race of rational volitional beings who reproduce by division, there would be no sex and yet Objectivism is as valid for them as it is for us. Sex can trigger strong emotional responses, sex is historically treated as something of high metaphysical significance, I have yet to see an rational argument as to why it is so.

mrocktor

If we were asexual and reproduced by division, there would be no concept of prostitution or sex. I do not put the great significance on sex that Rand does, it can have all that and be all that, but does not have to as far as I'm concerned. Is not searching for simple physical pleasure considered to be a vice, giving in to only instinctive motives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read We the Living, and it appears to me that, at least in Andrei's case, the favors were those of a relationship, not a business exchange. Kira was the only one who was motivated solely by the money she was attaining; Andrei gave it to her because he was in love with her and thought she needed it for herself and family to survive. This is not prostitution, because both parties were NOT making a conscious decision to have intercourse based on profit, as they would in typical prostitution. Also it must also be remembered that Andrei was good friend's with Kira before they slept together, and demonstrated a willingness to help her and her family even before their affair.

Alright! Ashley that was a great reply!

I have yet to find anyone here, besides you(now), that agrees that what had happened between Kira and Andrei was not an act of prostitution, and that you cannot call Kira a prostitute.

Welcome to the forum!!

I had started a post on the forum previously in regards to this: Kira and Andrei.

It initially developed from another topic that I had started: Why Does Kira lie to Leo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had started a post on the forum previously in regards to this: Kira and Andrei.

It initially developed from another topic that I had started: Why Does Kira lie to Leo?

And I almost forgot to include the one in which it all started initially from: We The Living

*edited to say that this one should be read first, since this is the one that started it all...

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...