Serious Professor Walter Block In Support of Legalizing Prostitution (Red pills inside)

[Ascent God]

This a chapter taken from Prof. Walter Block's Book: Defending The Undefendable (1976) - in support for the legalisation of prostitution.
You can download the whole book legally for free from the official Mises Institute website.
Audiobook download link: https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable-1
PDF Book download link: https://mises.org/files/defending-undefendable2pdf/download?token=m83KuMw0

Subject to ceaseless harassment by blue laws, church groups, chambers of commerce, etc., prostitutes nevertheless continue to trade with the public. The value of their service is proven by the fact that people continue to seek them out, despite legal and civic opposition.

A prostitute may be defined as one who engages in the voluntary trade of sexual services for a fee. The essential part of the definition, however, is “voluntary trade.” A magazine cover by Norman Rockwell some time ago illustrated the essence of prostitution, if not the specifics. It portrayed a milkman and a pieman standing near their trucks, each busily eating a pie and drinking milk. Both obviously pleased with their “voluntary trade.”

Those lacking sufficient imagination will see no connection between the prostitute entertaining her customer and the aforementioned milk and pie episode. But in both cases, two people have come together on a voluntary basis, in an attempt to mutually gain satisfaction. In neither case is force or fraud applied. Of course, the customer of the prostitute may later decide that the services he received were not worth the money he paid. The prostitute may feel that the money she was paid did not fully compensate her for the services she provided. Similar dissatisfactions could also occur in the milk-pie trade. The milk could have been sour or the pie underbaked. But both regrets would be after the fact and would not alter the description of these trades as “voluntary.” If all the participants were not willing, the trades would not have taken place.

There are those, women’s liberationists among them, who lament the plight of the poor downtrodden prostitute, and who think of her life as demeaning and exploitative. But the prostitute does not look upon the sale of sex as demeaning. After considering the good features (short hours, high remuneration), with the drawbacks (harassment by the police, enforced commissions to her pimp, uninspiring working conditions), the prostitute obviously prefers her work, otherwise she would not continue it.

There are of course many negative aspects experienced by prostitutes which belie the “happy hooker” image. There are prostitutes who are drug addicts, prostitutes who are beaten by pimps, and prostitutes who are held in brothels against their will. But these sordid aspects have little to do with the intrinsic career of prostitution. There are nurses and doctors who are kidnapped and forced to perform for fugitives from justice; there are carpenters who are drug addicts; there are bookkeepers who are beaten by muggers. We would hardly conclude that any of these professions or vocations are suspect, demeaning, or exploitative. The life of the prostitute is as good or as bad as she wishes it to be. She enters it voluntarily, qua prostitute, and is free to leave at any time.

Why then the harassment and prohibitions against prostitution? The momentum does not come from the customer; he is a willing participant. If the customer decides that patronization of a prostitute is not to his advantage, he can stop. Nor does the move toward prohibition of prostitution come from the prostitutes themselves. They have volunteered for their tasks, and can almost always quit if they change their minds about the relative benefits.

The impetus for the prohibition of prostitution is initiated by “third parties” not directly involved in the trades. Their reasons vary from group to group, from area to area, and from year to year. What they have in common is the fact that they are outside parties. They have neither stake nor standing in the matter, and should be ignored. To allow them to decide this matter is as absurd as allowing an outsider to decide about the trade between the milkman and the pieman. Why then are the two cases treated differently? Imagine a league called the “decent eaters,” organized to espouse the doctrine that eating pie together with milk is evil. Even if it could be demonstrated that the league against pie-and-milk and the league against prostitution had identical intellectual merit— namely, none—the reaction to the two would still be different. The attempt to prohibit pie and milk would evoke only laughter but there would be a more tolerant attitude toward the attempt to prohibit prostitution. There is something in operation which staunchly resists an intellectual penetration of the prostitution question. Why has prostitution not been legalized? Though the arguments against this legalization are without merit, they have never been clearly assailed by the intellectual community as specious.

The difference between sexual trades such as the ones that take place in prostitution, and other trades, such as the pie-milk trade, seems to be based on, or at least connected to, the shame we feel, or are made to feel, at the prospect of having to “buy sex.” One is hardly “really a man,” nor in any way to be confused with an attractive woman, if one pays for sex. The following well-known joke illustrates this point. A good looking man asks an attractive and “virtuous” woman if she will go to bed with him for $100,000.00. She is appalled by the offer. However, after some reflection she concludes that as evil as prostitution is, she could use the proceeds of the offer for charity and good works. The man seems charming, not at all dangerous or repugnant. She shyly says, “Yes.” The man then asks: “How about for $20.00?” The woman indignantly replies, “How dare you, what kind of woman do you think I am!” as she slaps his face. “Well we’ve already established what kind of woman you are. Now, we’re trying to establish the price,” he replies. The degree to which the man’s reply strikes a telling blow against the woman is a small measure of the scorn heaped upon individuals involved in this kind of endeavor.

There are two approaches which might combat the attitude that paying for sex is degrading. There is the frontal attack which simply denies that it is a wrong to pay for sex. This, however, would hardly convince those who think of prostitution as an evil. The other possibility would be to show that we are always paying for sex—all of us, all the time—and, therefore, we should not cavil at the arrangements between a professional prostitute and a customer.

In what sense can it be said that we all engage in trade and payments when we engage in sexual activity? At the very least, we have to offer something to our prospective partners before they will consent to have sex with us. With explicit prostitution, the offer is in terms of cash. In other cases, the trade is not so obvious. Many dating patterns clearly conform to the prostitutional model. The male is expected to pay for the movies, dinners, flowers, etc., and the female is expected to reciprocate with sexual services. The marriages in which the husband provides the financial elements, and the wife the sexual and housekeeping functions, also conforms clearly enough to the model.

In fact, all voluntary human relationships, from love relationships to intellectual relationships, are trades. In the case of romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness, etc. The trade may be a happy one, and the partners may find joy in the giving. But it is still a trade. It is clear that unless affection, kindness, etc., or something is given, it will not be reciprocated. In the same way, if two “non mercenary” poets did not “get anything” from each other, their relationship too would terminate.

If there are trades, there are also payments. Where there are payments for relationships which include sexual congress such as marriage and in some dating patterns—there is prostitution—according to the definition of that term. Several social commentators have correctly likened marriage to prostitution. But all relationships where trade takes place, those which include sex as well as those which do not, are a form of prostitution. Instead of condemning all such relationships because of their similarity to prostitution, prostitution should be viewed as just one kind of interaction in which all human beings participate. Objections should not be raised to any of them—not to marriage, not to friendship, not to prostitution.

Cliffs:

*Prostitution has value as a service proven by the fact that people continue to seek it out.
*It's a voluntary agreement between to consenting adults.
*The prostitute obviously prefers her work, otherwise she would not continue it.
*The impetus for the prohibition of prostitution is initiated by “third parties” not directly involved in the trades; they have neither stake nor standing in the matter, and should be ignored.
*The difference between sexual trades and other trades seems to be connected to, the shame we feel, or are made to feel, at the prospect of having to “buy sex.”
*One is hardly “really a man,” nor in any way to be confused with an attractive woman, if one pays for sex.
*We are always paying for sex—all of us, all the time—and, therefore, we should not cavil at the arrangements between a professional prostitute and a customer.
*We have to offer something to our prospective partners before they will consent to have sex with us.
*Many dating patterns clearly conform to the prostitutional model. The male is expected to pay for the movies, dinners, flowers, etc., and the female is expected to reciprocate with sexual services.
*The marriages in which the husband provides the financial elements, and the wife the sexual and housekeeping functions, also conforms clearly enough to the model.
*All voluntary human relationships, from love relationships to intellectual relationships, are trades.
*In the case of romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness, etc. The trade may be a happy one, and the partners may find joy in the giving. But it is still a trade.
*Where there are payments for relationships which include sexual congress such as marriage and in some dating patterns—there is prostitution—according to the definition of that term.

 

[this is hell]

hes right but chad doesnt pay for the date to fuck, the foid pays for him and then he nuts in her mouth, wipes his dick on the curtains and leaves

 

[Moustachcel]

hes right but chad doesnt pay for the date to fuck, the foid pays for him and then he nuts in her mouth, wipes his dick on the curtains and leaves

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

hes right but chad doesnt pay for the date to fuck, the foid pays for him and then he nuts in her mouth, wipes his dick on the curtains and leaves

LMAO

 

[Ascent God]

hes right but chad doesnt pay for the date to fuck, the foid pays for him and then he nuts in her mouth, wipes his dick on the curtains and leaves

"*In the case of romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness, etc. The trade may be a happy one, and the partners may find joy in the giving. But it is still a trade. "