If there are two groups of people and one group has babies, and the other group doesn’t, how can they be said to be "equal"? What would need to be true for this to be a meaningful statement?

>We know we are empowered because now we can buy men like they buy women.

Hmm. Men can’t “buy women”. A prostitute is not selling “herself”. No property right in her results from the transaction. The customer has no right of exclusive possession, no right to lease, mortage or alienate her person, or any other non-consensual act. In fact, equity will not even recognise a legally enforceable right to personal performance of the contract.

A prostitute is not selling herself, she’s selling a service. It is true that she needs the use of her body to perform the service, but so do doctors, dentists and waiters, but no-one ever says that they are selling “themselves”. Employment is in fact not the same thing as slavery, albeit it sometimes feels that way!

So similarly, women buying the sexual or companionable services of a man aren’t “buying a man”. They are not buying “flesh” – an absurd moral horror and hypocrisy about sexuality that should have ided out with the sex-hating creed of the monks of the dark ages, w@nking into their cassocks.

The reason buying the sexual services of prostitutes is predominantly male is not because women can’t or shouldn’t do it. It’s because they generally don’t want to. The author’s starting proposition is not correct. The sexes are not equal, and one of the main ways they are not equal is that men have far more interest in having casual sex with members of the opposite sex on a few seconds’ acquaintance, whereas women aren’t. There is no female equivalent of the phenomenon of men buying casual sex with women, but if there were, it would be for ‘boyfriend experience’, not casual sex. It would be for a nice man to be kind, gentle, considerate, good-humoured and to give the women a relaxing, stimulating, exciting time, with or even without sex.

The consensuality of these acts provides a complete answer to any moral issue. It is not those who engage in consensual acts who violate any worthwhile ethical norms of sexuality, but those who seek to impose their sexual or moral values on, and to exploit the services of others by the use of force or threats, which includes the use rape, as well as the use of the state for compulsory child support, sole parents’ pensions, anti-discrimination laws intended to violate the human right of freedom of association, and in fact a large part of the platform of political feminism.

Our full humanity is rarely, if ever, realised in any transaction. As a buyer of groceries I have made transactions with many people of both sexes although predominantly female in supermarket checkout counters. In none of those encounters was the full humanity of either participant recognised.

I am happily married. However, I really don't satisfy my wife's full humanity nor does she satisfy mine. As different human beings we have different interests. One simple example is that she watches crime shows on TV, and I don't care for that sort of thing.

Why should full humanity be demanded in a sexual transaction when it is rarely, if ever, realised in other transactions?

Sexually objectify us males all you want,gals, just give it to us. Open up.Lets hear what you have.

socratease

I like it.

Man uses female prostitute: Man exploiting woman.
Women uses male prostitute: Man exploiting woman.

I am surprised that their is still a market for paid prostitution. Secularist have got their way and their seems to be no end of 'respectable' girls willing to give themselves away very cheaply indeed.Plenty of men have been willing to dump their wives and kids as they know nothing of commitment. This has led to bucket loads of women desperate enough to take anyone. We have reaped what we have sown by listening to the social engineers who have championed moral relativism. Thankfully the a number of the younger generation are a bit smarter than the engineers as they can see the rotten fruit produced by feminist and emasculated males.

MTR while these things are happening as you describe, I don't think it means that boys and men are less tender or considerate than previously. In fact I find males nowadays generally more tender and considerate. My daughters' peers certainly more egalitarian than their predecessors in many respects.

I agree with the premise of your argument that prostitution is the capitalising of sex and whether it be female or male objectification it is a bad thing. Trouble is in a free society people are free to sell their sexual favours no matter what you and I might think.

Prostitution has been around for a long time. We can always hope that one day 'egalitarian' will pertain to equal respect for each other rather than equal access to paid sex which is more often than not fuelled by drug addiction and in some cases illegal sex trafficking.

I agree Pelican.

We are indeed beings focused very much on sex. While I deplore anyone being objectified and humiliated, I agree young people have a far more tolerant and egalitarian attitude towards each other than when I was a teen. While I do believe prostitution will remain a profession well into the future of humankind, perhaps it will evolve as an aid for good health rather than exploitation by the powerful.

It is only the anachronistic whose rigid world view is threatened by expressive sexuality - be they the religious or the misanthropic.

Peter Hume is absolutely correct- the whole 'objectification' of prostitutes is BULL and I don't even feel need to provide much further elaboration from his comprehensive explanation, save a few tidbits.

In fact, a person paying a prostitute is 'objectifying' her LESS in many ways- because both parties enter an open agreement to exchange a set rate of money in exchange for permission to have sex with the other with the added effort to make it pleasurable to the party with cash.

You only 'objectify' anyone when you use them or manipulate them against consideration of their own feelings- such as an individual tricking another into a one-night stand when they wanted a relationship, or a former party animal trying to mooch off a stable person- THAT is objectifying.

An open agreement both very willingly participated in is NOT.

The ONLY exception is the various dubiously less transparent reasons for illegal prostitutes or sex-slaves- which is less a problem in Australia as prostitution is a legal business that must adhere to strict government regulations to be allowed to operate- and such people are illegal for licensed premises to accept.

Good points Hazza, in a mutually consenting 'transaction' where there are no other variables as you say like slave trade etc, it is very much a contract or agreement between two adults.

There is also a big difference between high class prostitutes paying their way through uni (as happens in the US) working in relatively opulent and safe surroundings; and those who are only participants purely through drug addiction or debt (eg. illegal immigrants) often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions including back alley ways.

Another rambling and vacuous article from MTR.

To sum it up, all prostitution is bad because it is sex without feeling.

Yawn!

Indeed Pelican, which reminds me of a very interesting study about job satisfaction taken by one of the papers.
Ranking at the very bottom of job satisfaction (hate their job most) were prostitutes in dubious circumstances that you described (doing it for drug addiction or forced into the job).
At the very TOP end of the spectrum and highly satisfied with their job, were prostitutes working in legitimate establishments.

And pretty much Shadow- what I find funny about the oh-so BAD things about prostitution in general is that there really isn't anything stopping these from carrying over to more 'socially acceptable' partnering (especially the sex without emotion part- not that many want to admit that as true).

<< It is not those who engage in consensual acts who violate any worthwhile ethical norms of sexuality, but those who seek to impose their sexual or moral values on, and to exploit the services of others by the use of force or threats, which includes the use rape, as well as the use of the state for compulsory child support, sole parents’ pensions, anti-discrimination laws intended to violate the human right of freedom of association, and in fact a large part of the platform of political feminism.>>
Is this a candidate for the record as the longest sentence on OLO?

Throughout the third world, millions of women and girls are forced into prostitution as a result of poverty or even enslavement.
Prostitution in the developed world is largely through choice or unfortunate circumstance.
What use then parroting on about the democratisation of objectification when one could be raising awareness of the plight of real victims, not the largely constructed feminist victims?

I like it.

Man uses female prostitute: Man exploiting woman.
Women uses male prostitute: Man exploiting woman.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 14 May 2010 6:01:46 PM

Try respecting yourself Houellebecq; life may improve for you.

Houellebecq,

<<I like it.
Man uses female prostitute: Man exploiting woman.
Women uses male prostitute: Man exploiting woman.>>

Well pointed out!
You obviously failed at Victimology 101.

Severin

"It is only the anachronistic whose rigid world view is threatened by expressive sexuality - be they the religious or the misanthropic."

I'm sure that the next footballer who gets in trouble because of his sex life will be able to use that line and all will be forgiven.

Surely the real issue hear isn't sexuality, but consumerism. It's a joke to go on blaming men for all the sexual degradations women are subjected to. Prostitution and the porn industry and all the other commercialisation of sex, women are engaged in willingly, in the true entrepreneurial spirit. As PH suggests, it is women who exploit men's dependency on sex to make a buck, a good match or some kind of power merger, though each of these is conflated with vacuous declarations of transcendent love and faithfulness; crap crap crap. If women are really so idealistic about love, why do they need their garish cosmetics and fatuous fashions, and all the other commodified allure they use to procure attention. It's about time women owned up to their complicity in the whole damn mess. It's the capitalist system that's the villain, exploiting the demands of both sexes while we play one against the other.

'I do have some sympathy, however, with the argument that women cannot find men they want to be with intimately. In our pornified culture we are raising men who are callous and insensitive to the needs and desires of women.'

Now, let's antiseptic-ise that one...

'I do have some sympathy, however, with the argument that men cannot find women they want to be with intimately. In our feminist entitlement culture we are raising women who are callous and insensitive to the needs and desires of men.'

Peas in a pod!

Seriously though, it's a good thesis that women are seeing prostitutes because men aren't good enough, and it's obviously all because of some failing of the men in the world.

Seeing as how many more men appear to be visiting prostitutes than women, it is a bit of a back handed insult to women if you take that logic to apply the other way around as well. If not, then in summary we have; men visit prostitutes because of the shortcomings of men, and women visit prostitutes because of the shortcomings of men.

we are unique,

Not sure what you're talking about. You don't know the slightest thing about me or my life to make such a ridiculous statement.

Well said Houellebecq!
Dangerous to let sensible thought get in the way of a good winge though...safer to nod and say "yes dear". :-)
What a silly article!

'unsanitary conditions including back alley ways.'

Woops. I missed that pelican. Too funny.

But with the right apparatus to prepare, perhaps a condom and a bit of lube...

Houlley

If you pick out a phrase out of context it may well appear to be "too funny".

Well pelican,

If you'd meant 'back alleyways' I'm sure you'd have written that. But you said 'back alley ways', which obviously means a 'way' of having sex using one's 'back alley'.

Oops...sorry Houlley it is funny when you put it like that.

I thought you were having a go at me. I did mean back alleyways. Blush!

LOL! It must be so frustrating being a feminist, trying to turn night into day! and day into night! No wonder they become so bitter and nasty. Every female is born with the equipment to be a prostitute! Easy money for what comes naturally. Like sitting on a pot of gold! LOL! And if you love sex, the word work, doesn't come into it. Men are the givers! and women are the takers! end of story. Don't like it! go live on a nother plant. Be happy with what you have and make the most of what you have! Hetrosexuality 100% pure and natural, the way nature intended! I love it!

What a horendous philosophy, Petersen; if that's the macho attitude I'll take feminism anyday.

Houellebecq's play on words is very funny, and good on you for seeing the funny side, Pelican.

Mitchell! It's got nothing to do with macho!and every thing to do with the law of nature. If you can't get your head around that simple fact! Then you're already a Mad Cow! (feminist)lol! Please seek medical attention. There is help out there! Don't be shy, will you!