How refreshing to read a critic of sex work ["Virtual love, real life," Guest Opinion, September 10] who does not advocate criminalization as the solution to what he perceives as a problem.
What libertarian can fail to appreciate someone with enough tolerance in his heart to say, "Even though I don't approve of this, I will not seek to have people fined or thrown in jail for it, and will instead rely on civil dialogue and non-coercive persuasion to make my case?"
Mitch Halberstadt's unusual critique deserves a response from erotic service providers in defense of our profession. Very well then �" we can agree that sex work is work, and should be legal. This leaves the more philosophically interesting question of how society should regard it.
Halberstadt suggests that sex work is a "colonization of intimacy" that involves commodifying what should not be commodified. Is he right? Or does prostitution deserve to be seen as an honorable, legitimate profession? I say it does.
Prostitution is no more a threat to real intimacy than gay marriage is a threat to marriage. In many cases sex work creates a space where intimacy can occur. Seeing a sex worker can be an opportunity to have an intimate conversation with someone in a setting of client-professional confidentiality and share things you don't feel comfortable sharing with others in your life. Maybe you're recently single or widowed and feel unready for the demands of a new relationship or trying to meet someone for a tryst, but unwilling to forego intimacy altogether. Maybe you're in a long-term relationship that's lost its spark, but have other reasons not to split up, and feel safer with a "no strings attached" outlet. Or maybe you just want to feel sexual again, without any pressure to perform yourself. In such circumstances and many others is it unreasonable to turn to sex workers for intimacy?
Is prostitution to sexuality what fast food is to food, as Halberstadt provocatively jibes? Hardly, when as he points out, one can easily pay hundreds of dollars to enjoy the "meal" in question. A "tantalizing Rentboy" worthy of the trade is more like a dinner served up by a skilled chef at an upscale restaurant. Sure, unless you're loaded you probably don't want to go there every time you're feeling hungry, but it's nice to enjoy now and then.
And 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. Sex work predates modern consumerism and its endless capacity to commodify by thousands, if not millions, of years.
As a rentboy (I prefer the term companion, or sacred intimate as better embodying the spirit of my work), it may surprise some to hear me say that a world of free love would be wonderful. I would welcome a society with sex, affection, and intimacy abundant enough for everyone to satisfy his or her desires, even if it put me out of business. While I may be somewhat exceptional in this, my profession is not as inimical to the hippie ideal as it might seem at first blush.
If those of you who find men desirable are honest with yourselves �" and of course similar dynamics exist for other vectors of desire, but in keeping with the rentboy topic I'll stick with men here �" many of you will acknowledge that when it comes to spending quality romantic time with someone, you would prefer a partner who looks like Brad Pitt over one who looks like Danny DeVito (no offense to DeVito, who is a talented actor and no doubt possesses other admirable qualities).
Halberstadt writes of growing up and embracing "complex commitments" in a world where we don't all "share the same romantic vision." But this language isn't just "nuanced," it's vague and mushy. Let's get down to brass tacks: Free love cannot work as a social model so long as we remain picky about who we choose to allow ourselves to see as "sexually attractive," and open to physical intimacy only with those whose looks meet our "standards."
While a sex worker may require payment, he is usually willing to take virtually all comers. How many others in society are doing as much to step outside the dominant dating paradigm?
In foreswearing rent boys, has Halberstadt turned to the "pudgy 55-year-olds," or 65-year-olds, of whom he writes, to meet their needs for physical intimacy and sex along with his own? And not just one such individual in a sexually exclusive pair-bond, but many? Only those who are themselves prepared to step up and satisfy the sexual and romantic needs of the horny or lonely for no compensation have a right to complain about the commodification of sex. In this context, commodification helps meet the needs of some of those who fall through the cracks of objectification or lookism �" and vice-versa, as many sexy, but financially struggling, rent boys can attest.
Reading Halberstadt's story of adopting a kitten as a substitute for tantalizing rent boys ("real affection, all night, for 50 cents' worth of cat food"), I am reminded of an almost certainly apocryphal but nevertheless amusing and illustrative anecdote about Winston Churchill and a certain lady.
Encountering the beauty at a party, Churchill inquired whether she would sleep with him for £1 million sterling. Clearly flattered by the generous offer, after some blushing coyness, she indicated that she would.
"Then will you sleep with me for £5?" he asked.
"Certainly not!" she snapped at him angrily. "What kind of woman do you take me for?"
"Madame," replied Churchill stoically, "we've already established that. Now we are merely negotiating the price."
Whether one obtains affection for 50 cents' worth of cat food, or a $5,000 wedding ring, it doesn't change the fact that a material inducement is being offered in exchange for emotional and/or physical companionship. To imagine otherwise is to delude ourselves. (Though anyone who knows cats must surely be laughing at the idea of guaranteeing oneself "real affection, all night" for any amount of cat food!)
None of this means real love and honest affection can't exist. But it's a myth that these things can only be present when there are no material considerations involved. 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.
Starchild is a libertarian activist and erotic service provider in San Francisco.