Hi Mitchell,
Didn't know you were on this list -- welcome! Since you've posted this here, I've added a few more remarks and questions for you interspersed below, along with a few of my previous remarks from when you sent me a version of this letter a few weeks back...
My response to Starchild:
A KISS IS STILL A KISS (for what it's worth)
Indeed a kiss is still a kiss, whether it is part of a commercial transaction or not. Whether it affectionate, and whether it is given in exchange for money or other considerations or not, are separate questions. In a Venn Diagram, those would be overlapping but by no means congruent circles.
A recurrent problem I've observed, both as a libertarian and simply as an observer of the passing scene, is that many people fail to grasp how differences that can be measured in averages across groups are not translatable into meaningful judgments about individuals, or individual acts.
If one were somehow able to conduct a study that measured the average amount of affection in kisses that took place as part of commercial transactions, and compared it to the average amount of affection in kisses that took place in non-commercial transactions, might one find a higher average level of affection in the latter group? That certainly seems possible. Does this mean that non-commercial kisses are inherently non-affectionate, or that all non-commercial kisses are more affectionate than all commercial kisses? No!
Bottom line: Higher or lower than average levels of __________ among items in Set X (or persons in Group X) doesn't mean that everything/everyone in Set/Group X is _________, or that Set/Group X as a whole can be fairly characterized as __________.
Starchild writes ["For an Honest Price Beats Not at All," Oct. 29], "Let's not forget this is the 'oldest profession' we are talking about. Any commodification involved cannot be dismissed as the byproduct of a materialist modern society with screwed-up priorities."
Conversely, I'd maintain that prostitution (indeed, as the oldest profession) is the very prototype for alienation and commodification. As I've written elsewhere, "All of our professions -- right down to the very newest -- are continually subjected to the reality of the oldest -- where, after all, the very idea of 'virtual' was invented, in order to transform the priceless into product, so that it can be given a price."
But in which situation does more alienation really occur?
(A) When a person engages in sex that s/he doesn't really want to have
(B) When a person is unable to have sex with anyone s/he finds desirable because it is neither freely given nor available for money
(C) When a person provides sex that s/he would not have had otherwise in exchange for money, and is able to feel good about it because it is meeting a need, as is true of other professions
While the answer may not be immediately obvious, I think one would be very hard-pressed to conclusively say that the answer is C.
I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on how the "idea of 'virtual' was invented". For instance, isn't an infant sucking its thumb as a substitute for food or a breast, an example of "virtual" that likely preceded prostitution or any other form of commodification? Also, considering (B) above, if masturbation can be termed "virtual sex", isn't it possible that prostitution is making sex less virtual, not more? And a question begged by these examples -- does "virtual" = "bad" in your view? If so, why?
Priceless? Sex (between two people) is a form of communication: it's life touching life, and in the process, sharing that simultaneous experience as pleasure. For sex to be inseparable from affection (and intimacy with one partner in a given encounter) is the very core of my sexual orientation -- more so, perhaps, than whether that partner is male or female (even though I've gravitated toward males). I cannot conceive of true empathy being regulated by contract.
Is it your view then, that hospices, support groups, adoptions, and all other institutions or practices in society in which true empathy is desirable, should never in any way be regulated by contract?
Also, given that it's clearly possible to derive sexual pleasure from masturbation without simultaneously feeling affection toward someone else, and we as a society see nothing wrong with this, why shouldn't we take a similarly benevolent attitude toward two (or more) people deriving sexual pleasure from an encounter, without feeling affection toward each other? I'm not saying that's more desirable than having sex where one does feel affection toward one's partner(s), just asking why, if masturbation without affection is not bad, then why should mutually enjoyable partnered sex without affection be seen as bad?
And (as I previously wrote), if you "cannot conceive of true empathy being regulated by contract", is this also an implicit denunciation of the idea of the Social Contract? Or do you (like me) reject the notion of the Social Contract? Or do you embrace it, but feel that it need not involve any true empathy?
Making sexuality the object of commerce corrupts sexuality itself, much as payment corrupts speech -- unless, of course, one believes that money is a form of speech. We all know where that leads -- and the corruption doesn't just apply to politics. It's for good reason that in general, we speak disparagingly of any need to prostitute oneself.
There's something to what you say here. But I'm not comfortable with how you frame it. Yes, I do think the phrase "prostituting oneself" has a legitimate meaning when used disparagingly, but the term "selling out" can be used to capture this sense without unfairly disparaging a particular profession.
Does payment corrupt speech? Again it feels like there's something to this -- behavior changes when incentives such as money are introduced -- yet it is a problematic notion because there's no clear line where it stops. If you substitute "reward" for "payment", you can begin to see the problem. For example, we might phrase what we say with the aim of getting a particular reaction. The sought-after reaction might just be a smile, or a friendly word -- but the prospect of that "reward" can nevertheless influence ("corrupt") what we say. How do you respond to this?
Finally, I'm not sure it's technically accurate to say that money is a form of speech. But I do think that the use of it for political ends should be protected for similar reasons. Both speaking (in all its manifestations, which often involve spending money, e.g. paying for the materials to make a protest sign), and spending money, are manifestations of intent. And in general it seems to me that the right to express one's intent using whatever honestly acquired tools or possessions one has at one's disposal, is an important civil liberty that should be upheld as long as it does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
Nonetheless, Starchild promotes that very ethos: in doing so, he merely demonstrates that for some (who may call themselves libertarians) there's no difference between love and prostitution.
Here, for the benefit of our additional readers, is my previous response on this point:
"I do find your comment about libertarians not perceiving the difference between love and prostitution very amusing, probably because there is some kernel of truth in it! 
But perhaps not too much more than a kernel. Sex workers may be a bit more libertarian on average than the general population, but even among this population I'm pretty sure those whom a politically knowledgeable person would classify as libertarians are a minority, and I expect this also holds true among those erotic service providers who seek genuine interactions with their clients. Even when it comes to one like myself who can fairly be called a hardcore libertarian, I'm not saying there's no difference between love and prostitution, any more than I would say a love of cooking is the same thing as being a professional chef! As with that analogy, I would rather say that the traits complement the respective professions."
In that regard, he writes, "We should stop pretending that relationships outside the world of sex work are necessarily purer or less affected than those contracted for by the hour, or that they aren't similarly impacted by issues of class and disparities of wealth, power, and physical desire."
Sex as work is not a solution; it merely entrenches the problem -- for both parties, colonizing the most intimate aspects of our very being -- reducing affection to affectation.
The word "colonizing" is pretty loaded. It suggests a permanent occupation of "the most intimate aspects of our very being". But if you hire an erotic service provider, that's a temporary transaction. Each person feels what they feel, which may be more affection, or more affectation, depending on the particular circumstances and the individuals involved. But it is clearly not true that sex work universally and consistently reduces affection to affectation (see my first comments above about "a kiss is still a kiss"), and the choice of how to feel and respond in a particular set of circumstances is always ultimately up to each person involved.
For me, at least, liberation is about putting an end to that. In today's reality, that means unapologetically seeking and being able to find, in shared intimacy, a haven in a heartless world -- and in that context, to forge (or restore) the bond between sexuality and self-esteem -- and between two selves, who share ownership in that very project and all it touches, body and soul. How's that as a counter-prototype?
Well it sounds good, but as per the criticism I voiced in my op-ed, it also sounds vague and mushy. Can you say more about how this would look in practice, and why you think it can't work when there's an explicit monetary transaction involved?
That's my two cents. To each his own, I guess.
Mitchell Halberstadt
'Twas ever thus -- but hopefully there can be some meeting of the minds (and hearts) as well. Hope you (and everyone reading) have a good Thanksgiving!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
“I would say love is the extra effort that we make in our dealings with those whom we cannot like. And if you don’t agree with that, then I’m really worried, because you are the generation who wanted to redistribute the wealth of the world, and half of the world’s wealth is its love. And if you give your love to the brave and the beautiful, they will become the millionaires of love. What then, will happen to love’s paupers? So, if you’re going to give more of your time, your money, your effort, your interest foolishly to one person rather than another, it must be given to the unlovable.”
- Quentin Crisp, 85, in Index magazine (2000?)