Wait, so, unless it's shameful and nasty and extramarital, it's not prostitution?

While this particular client would mostly be paying the lady for her discretion, I'm sure there are plenty of situations where the client pays for the sex. Just that. Isn't that what prostitution means?

Didn't prehistoric peoples have religions and burying rituals and what not? Why wouldn't they have prostitution too? Whether sex is shameful or not, some women are hot. Hot women can get free food/services/bone needles by offering themselves to ugly men. How is that not prostitution?

Thanks for your comment, Willie. I wanted to call attention to the fact that the market for prostitution is created and sustained by the cultural shame attached to casual sex, thus making it a relatively scarce commodity. Another thing I wanted to do in this post is call attention to the overly vague definition of prostitution we seem to have accepted. What is prostitution? You seem to suggest that if a hot woman has sex with an ugly man, and ends up receiving food or something else, then it's prostitution. First, who decides who's "hot" and "ugly?" What if the food, bone needles and so on were gifts given by a grateful or simply generous man? What if he gave her the gifts before the sex? What if he's "ugly" but funny, smart, exceptionally good in the hammock, or attractive in some other way? What if both people live in a society in which food, bone needles and such are commonly shared with or without sex? Much of the anti-legalization argument claims that prostitutes are by definition being exploited. While that's certainly true of children or women tricked or sold into the sex trade, is it true of the woman Spitzer was with? Isn't there a vast difference between the Nepali girl sold to a brothel in Mumbai and the 22 year-old woman who freely chooses when, where, how, and with whom she'll share an hour, gaining more money than the Nepali girl will earn in a lifetime? So, to be honest, I'm not even really sure what prostitution is, in many cases. I don't think most other people are, either -- other than in it's most extreme and clear-cut manifestations. Classic Darwinian theory posits that the female of most mammalian species trade sexual fidelity for various things the male can offer: protection, status, meat, and so on. So, if we accept the basic assumptions of sexual selection theory, aren't pretty much ALL female mammals prostitutes?

Hello,
I'm a journalist in Manhattan writing a story on prostitution. I'm sure you've had this enquiry a million times in the last week, but I'd love to talk to you briefly over the phone at some point to answer some simple questions.

You can email me at ravisomaiya at hotmail.com.

Many Thanks,

Ravi

You seem to be making an assumption that prostitutes are single women - why make that assumption?

Where there is a culture of male control of female fertility, as there is in numerous tribes, cultures and religions even today, males may trade their wife's favours for goods or status.

If a man has a particularly attractive wife he might offer her to men with which he wants to earn favour or status. Pregnancy in such an environment would be anonymous - the couple would not be bale to determine who the father was but cultural or religious beliefs may dictate that only the husband could be the father.

Thus there is plenty of scope for married or committed couples to be the source of sexual favours. Indeed, I'm sure many cultures, particularly tribal cultures, would frown upon single or uncommitted females sharing their favours.

Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

Am I making that assumption, Robert? (Thanks for stopping in, by the way). Speaking of contemporary western societies, that would probably be true, though certainly not universally so. But in terms of prehistoric societies, I'm not making that assumption at all, in that I don't accept the prevailing notion that "marriage" was a standard social construction before agriculture. Long term partnerships? Maybe. Some degree of sexual jealousy? Probably. "Marriage" resembling our definition of that word? Doubtful. I think you're right that there are many examples of contemporary cultures and religions where male control of female fertility is absolute, but how many truly pre-agricultural societies can you think of in which that's true? To my knowledge, the vast majority of the truly pre-ag societies that have been studied showed far greater female sexual autonomy than is typical of horticultural or agricultural societies.

"aren't pretty much ALL female mammals prostitutes?"

Well... yeah. Kinda.

I should probably mention at some point that I'm from a country where prostitution isn't illegal, and I don't believe it should be. I believe abuse and the exploitation of women should be illegal. Like, duh.

I take your point though, there's a spectrum, really. I can think of cases where the standard 'I buy you dinner - I get to touch your boobies' felt a lot like prostitution, even though I'm sure HE thought it was just part of 'dating'. Hm.

Agreed. The crime should be defined as the harm done, not the impossible-to-define exchange of a certain kind of value for a certain kind of erotic experience (buying phone sex isn't illegal, though many people feel that words can often touch more deeply than anything bodily can).

The points being made are impossible to argued. In pre-history to engage or not engage in sex activity was not always a case of consent. Once consent enters in to the dynamic, sex can only then be viewed as a commodity. Once a commodity, then prostitution can occur. The question as to "when did sex become a commodity" varied in the anthropological record. The conclusion one must make is that the case for prostitution in pre-history is likely varied. What is most fascinating in the discussion thus far is the blatant heterosexism contained in the postings. Sex activity in pre-history was likely on the same continuum evident today between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Therefore, prostitution would have existed, as it does today, in both hetero- and homosexual forms. Which begs another question: Is it abuse or exploitation when a man is the prostitute?

The truth is that it has an undeniable sense logical relationship of prostitution (sexuality) with prehistory, but I assume that you are aware that most people neither want nor can accept, because it would acknowledge that there have been deceived throughout his life, very few people want to see the brave

Ahh yes, another assumption from yet another person who gets most of their information from TV.

Let me school you a bit on prostitution:

A prostitute is someone who makes a profit off sexual intercourse, and YES humans in Prehistoric times used prostitution as a means to gain "goods", whether those goods be food, tools, shelter, or protection.

It is a Known fact by anyone that studies prehistoric humans that most females gain their male partners after "sexual selection".

Sex was rampant in prehistoric times and is documented on many cave walls throughout the caucus Mountains of Europe and parts of Africa and Ancient Egypt.

Im a prostitute and have been for 5 years and my clients rance from average looking men to gorgeous knock-outs. What we shouldn't do is assume a reason why men see prostitutes, each have their own reasons.

And NO...Im not single, abused, on drugs, or came from a broken home!