What's wrong with paying for sex ?!!
' ' OXFAM DENIES COVER-UP IN PAID-FOR-SEX ACCUSATIONS IN HAITI ', ran a headline on the CNN the other day. The cover-up charges against Oxfam are based on the ' wrong ' of having paid for sex by some Oxfam officials, which Oxfam is alleged to have connived at. Nevertheless, the reason this news piece interested me is the fact that paying for sex is viewed as wrong by the capitalist world. This intriguing fact— I find it most intriguing because the capitalist mode of production is the production of commodities ( goods & services meant for sale )— made me feel like writing an essay on this topic. One reason why I believe humanity still happens to be way too uncivilised is humanity's attitude towards prostitution and matrimony— the former really doesn't deserve the disrespect it's treated with while matrimony doesn't deserve the respect it receives from humanity.
the right view of prostitution
Contrary to what many believe, prostitution is NOT primitive. The truth is prostitution is as old as matrimony. Both these institutions originated together during barbarism, the last prehistoric epoch, preceding civilisation that began with both of them. In all ancient works including Bible, RigVeda, Mahabharat, Arthashastra by Chanakya, History by Herodotus, etc, you'll run across prostitution. Since their first appearance in man's prehistory, both matrimony and prostitution have existed side by side in all ages and in all parts of the world. They were in ancient Greece, Athens, Mesopotamia, the Roman empire, the Byzantium, and the Mauryan empire. Christianity is not, nor is Hinduism, opposed to prostitution. And Islam, as far as I know, is dead against prostitution but approves of muta', a sort of temporary marriage of 3 hours' to 3 days' duration. Nobody knows what harm prostitution did and is doing to civilisation. But I know prostitution is, unlike matrimony, an honest and society-friendly trade.
In prostitution, sexual pleasure, a sort of commodity, is exchanged for money. Prostitutes sell the pleasure and receive the money while the men that part with their money receive the pleasure. It's as simple as this and as honest a trade as the practice of a professional lawyer or medic. And I view it as society-friendly because, unlike matrimony, it doesn't add to the vulgar population and the army of the antisocial, and so prostitution doesn't, unlike matrimony, pollute society. For these reasons, it's wrong to view prostitution as ' a necessary evil ' because it's not in the least an evil. Humanity truly needs prostitution not only to check population explosion but to bring down the global population of the antisocial and the vulgar that procreate the antisocial elements. As I see it, heavily populous countries like China and India ought not to have deprived prostitution of its due recognition and respect and thus discouraged the vulgar to visit brothels for sex.
The fact that prostitution has existed as a licit trade throughout history almost all over the globe and the fact that it's still licit in France ( the French approve of selling sex but punish buying sex ), Germany, the UK, parts of the USA, Tel Aviv ( world's Brothel Capital ), Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, the Netherlands, etc incontestably prove that prostitution is NOT harmful NOR criminal. It's to be noted that we know of no civilisations that recognised ever before or recognise now acts like theft, robbery, counterfeiting, etc as licit.
the morality question
It's ridiculous, and disgusting too, that the same people that find nothing wrong with the vulgar millions' indulgence in the luxury of, truly, sheer travesties in the name of matrimony view selling and buying sex as outright amoral. Their morality falls into deep slumber when you refer to the blazing truth, the brute and naked fact that world's manhood, bar the few that belong to the 1%, is devoid of the calibre and capacity needed to make a worthy hubby. And their inner voice fails to make itself heard when it's brought to their notice that bracketing silly travesties of marriages of the 99% with marriages of the 1% means recognising a poor and penniless guy as capable of making as much worthy a hubby as a billionaire is. Their inner voice keeps mum as well when they're awakened to the most disturbing and distressing fact that in vulgar marriages, it's an innocent lot ( the poor guy's wife and children ) who have no choice but to suffer poverty and privation for no faults of theirs but for all failings and failure of the guy.
the dignity of womanhood
Many a moralist voices their opposition to prostitution on the grounds that they believe it's an affront to the womanhood. Nevertheless, none have ever heard them utter a word against matrimony that is fundamentally antifeminine* or about the brute fact that world's womanhood has got nothing truly meaningful to derive from matrimony.
* Feminine freedom clashes with the very basic purpose of matrimony, i.e. to ensure the paternity of children, just because a free woman is accessible to any men, which fact shows the true matrimony truly means the imprisonment of women. The antifeminine character of matrimony is evident.