By Serge Kreutz

Limiting the stigmatization of the exchange between material values and sexual gratifications could contribute to less violent societies.

I have no adverse feelings against prostitutes. While I think that becoming an prostitute is a poor professional choice, I understand that in current societies, whether in the First World or theThird 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. [1] [2] [3]

On the negative side, engaging in sexual acts without desire diminishes 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.

“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. [4] [5] [6] 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).

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. 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. [7] [8]

No wonder many First World countries very officially import nurses and garbage collectors from Third World countries.[9]

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.

To create and maintain a world practically free of sexually transmitted diseases is an important part of the “mode of production” which is the basis of Kreutz Ideology: To be concerned about a comfortable death, and before that, during one’s lifetime, optimal sex.

Fanatic Christians (youtube video see here) and sex-negative feminists (youtube video see here) have absolutely no interest in the containment of sexually transmitted diseases as sexual freedom (the freedom to satisfy sexual desires) is counterproductive to their agenda of restricting female sexuality.

Because ideas, including morals, depend so much on the technologies with which humans control the environment, [10] [11] [12] including disease (the “modes of production”), an eradication of sexually transmitted diseases makes preaching lenient sexual morals superfluous. 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.

In societies, in which female sexuality is suppressed and its supply restricted, there is a striking imbalance between the society-wide accumulated male sexual desire and either the society-wide accumulated female sexual desire.

Some evolutionary biologists think that this imbalance is a biological fact that cannot be changed. But it’s a logical consequence of sexual economics, and in fact easy to modify.

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). [13] [14]

Allowing women to be economically more independent, too, will likely let women focus to a higher degree on the rewards of sexual adventures.

And 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, allowing prostitution is less pathological than forcing sexual desires to express themselves in consumerism, or random violence. 

A dialectical view of morals

References:

1 Mark Grough and Toby Goldbach, Relationship Between Pimps and Prostitutes
2 Brian Palmer, How Do Prostitutes Pay Their Taxes?
3 Allison Schrager, The economics of high-end prostitutes
4 Rosemary Hennessy & Chrys Ingraham, Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women’s Lives
5 Cheryl M. Toth, The Definition and Facts of Prostitution
6 The Crown Prosecution Service, Prostitution and Exploitation of Prostitution
7 Job Description Garbage Truck Helper
8 Victoria Smith and Brian Halpin, Low-wage Work Uncertainty often Traps Low-wage Workers
9 Martin Rama, Globalization and Workers in Developing Countries
10 Sullins, John, Information Technology and Moral Values
11 Eric Gossett, Technology and Control under (Moral) Uncertainty
12 Dmytro Taranovsky, An Essay about Sex
13 Carol Vlassoffcorresponding, Gender Differences in Determinants and Consequences of Health and Illness
14 Linda L. Carli, Gender and Social Influence