Is the commodification of sex really that bad a thing?

I don't think so. But then I think we commodify just about everything (though not always in directly fiscal terms). As with everything else we commodify: stealing is bad.

What about the people that can't get sex?

What about it? If the commodification of sex is bad then the charitization of sex doesn't seem any better.

Is prostitution really that bad a thing if it's regulated and all parties consent?

I don't think so. Though I don't think it should be regulated either. Anybody should be able to hang out a shingle, so to speak, without seeking state permission.

Is the fact that sex sells not due largely in part to the fact that humans are sexual beings and that's what we like seeing?

I think that is obvious. If we didn't like seeing it, sex wouldn't sell. The more probing question is whether the such commodification, particularly in presenting the easier forms of sexuality (nudity, casual sex) rather than the more complex (but equally satisfying, if not more so) forms of sexuality, skews the ways in which we express our sexuality and whether this is for good or bad.

When does it become a degradation of women?

There is an important distinction. Can something be degrading to women in general without being degrading to the specific woman in charge? For example, I could argue that rape fantasy porn that suggests all women want is to be forced would not necessarily be degrading to the specific women involved (assuming they are consensual participants) but is degrading to women in general.

Can each woman choose whether or not it degrades her?

Yes, each individual woman will determine what they feels degrades them individually. But each individual woman (and man) will also make a determination as to what they feel degrades women generally. The two may not be identical (a woman may see no problem with anal sex but personally wouldn't do it; she may enjoy acting out rape fantasies but doesn't think public exhibition of them is ok).

All of this applies to men as well, as far as I'm concerned.

A man named Adam Smith once wrote a book (two actually) about this. He gained some fame for it.

If that were remotely true, then entire shelves of the bookstore would disappear as would most afternoon TV.

As far as the legitimacy of stripping or fetish-videos-that-are-not-quite-screwing-on-film goes, I haven't seen any of these people on Higglytown Heroes, notwithstanding their apparent necessity. I think the test for how we feel about any job is to ask whether you'd be proud if your child came home and told you he or she was doing it. If you can say "That's wonderful, honey," because your daughter will have an easier time helping pay for college by getting gangbanged at bachelor parties rather than slinging pizza, then you have a true appreciation for the dignity of all work.

I disagree. I see nothing wrong with being a stripper. Does that mean I would be proud of my daughter if she did it? No.

As Alex pointed out, many people distinguish between what is acceptable (or degrading) to the public at large and what is acceptable (or degrading) to each of us individually.

After all, I wouldn't be very proud if my daughter came home and told me that she was a Republican either.

I wouldn't be happy if my son* came home and told me he was going to work at McDonald's but that doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with adults working at McDonald's.

There are reasons I wouldn't be pleased to have a child working in most areas of the sex industry but none of them have to do with objection to the sex itself. And in some areas I wouldn't be much bothered at all (except to the degree that we don't like to think about our close relatives having sex).

But I agree that a lot of people do things that make no actual sense. That doesn't mean a process of commodification isn't happening but people make bad deals all of the time ("I thought he would change," "when he isn't drunk he is really a wonderful person," "if I'm easy, he'll like me" are still examples of performing commodification, just with stupid valuations).

* I wouldn't be happy if my son came home (because I wouldn't be happy about having a son), but that is a different pathology.

Yes, as my mother used to say when she thought I was being exceedingly egalitarian, "Somebody has to take away the garbage; that doesn't mean it has to be you." (There was even a Seinfeld episode to that effect.) So God bless the dead animal guy, and the Mexican kid he had to do the really tough jobs in the high heat, but . . .

It's a documented fact that the naked girls pretending to be lesbians at spring break and in Girls Gone Wild videos are all Republicans.

There are plenty of people that do supposedly degrading things for money, many of which have nothing to do with sex. Working a low-paid office job where you take irrational orders all day from a jerk of a boss with no hope of advancement is just as self-destructive as working as a prostitute because you're completely desperate for cash, IMHO. All of the various underlings of working society are comparable.

If my child came home and said they got a good job in any industry, and I could tell it was a good position with good people, where they feel good about themselves doing something they enjoy, and they seemed happy and healthy in mind and body, then I'd be all for it. I'd say that's hard to come by in any world of work.

Bad jobs and bad treatment are bad. However, you can't seriously tell me that when you see an unhappy office worker, you feel as bad for him/her as for some tackily dressed hooker yelling at cars on a street corner in a bad neighborhood in the rain or for some drug addict on a web site blowing a horse.

No, but the reasons don't have to do with the sex.

I also don't assume that the woman blowing a horse on a web site is a drug addict. I know enough people to know that isn't the only reason someone would do such a thing.

wow, another subject I know nothing about.


I think I'll go post in the Political thread.