Prostitution, an act between consenting adults

We had an interesting discussion about prostitution at last night's Ideas Cafe.

We were not so much discussing the legality of prostitution but more about the source of stigma society associate with prostitution and the origin of some of our attitudes towards sex.

Both Shula and Rafi felt sex is no different than other bodily needs like the need for food.  We can have sex with someone we love and that would be like having a meal and good conversation with someone you love.  This will be quite different than the experience of getting a fast food meal just to satisfy hunger.  People should be able to have the same choice with sex as they do with food.

Bruce said that while we talked about consenting adults, prostitution inevitably involved unsavory elements like pimps who draw underage girls into the business with drugs.  These girls get to hate their customers and yet have to demean themselves to keep servicing these customers.

Shula felt that this is the result of the criminal element much like what is happening to illegal drugs. Where prostitution is legal and protected, it should be no different than other jobs where some workers also do not like their customers.

Bob said that he had heard people in prostitution saying their profession being not that different than stay at home housewives years ago before it became common for both spouses to go out to work.

Christiana said that she is taking a course in developmental psychology now and that women's behaviour by definition has to be shaped by the need for eighteen years of child raising when having sex for procreation. She was brought up by conservative parents who told her to not let go of her virginity easily as it is a precious thing.

Christiana also mentioned that she knows someone who is a stripper who enjoys the attraction she gets and the easy living she can make compared to other jobs. It fits the high school career days message of do what you like as a career.

Bruce also brought up the point that as social animals, we need intimacy and also can only handle a limited number of social connections without feeling the lack of intimacy in large groups.  Shula and Rafi said that having multiple sex partners are still within the limited social connections described.  It is no different than having a family of ten or more siblings in the older days and the siblings still relate to each other compared to the typical two per family today.

Rafi's final argument is that we should not be setting laws just to protect a small number of people at the margins while infringing the freedom of the masses.  

I can see Shula and Rafi's arguments but I can also see the difficulty of changing long established social norms and the complications that this new attitude towards sex will bring. However, our attitude towards gender differences, sexual orientation, and even our acceptance of gambling casinos continues to change.

The discussion brought out the fundamental change in the function of sex for procreation to sex for recreation. Decades after the birth control pill, we are still dealing with the adjustments. Shula and Rafi's point is that being parents and being sex partners are two different things.

Can our society make that change?