In the beginning there was prostitution, “the oldest profession.” From there arose tribalism consisting of various units of polygamy, and “free agents” of both sexes who may have continued this commerce, married upon puberty, or remained celibate, depending on their positions in the hierarchy.
Generally speaking hierarchical authoritarian patriarchal systems result in more societal advancement over socialist matriarchal systems. The former tends to invade the latter or the latter self-implodes into regressive, self-destructive behavior over time.
While I understand that many female prostitutes believe that the state and its police ought to act as their pimp or protector against poor outcomes, however, I tend to support more patriarchal notions of prostitution, similar to polygamy. Specifically, one bordello owner/manager can police the goings-on to include male employees who balance the need for good relations with customers with the needs of the prostitutes themselves. A good business manager seeks to keep all parties happy about the relationship and I’ve never seen a woman do a better job in this respect than a man. This sort of relationship significantly unburdens the taxpayers in terms of overly aggressive or poorly protected prostitutes who encourage poor behavior in the neighborhood by serving as a magnet toward male miscreants while driving away productive citizens. It would seem that a manager is in a better position to keep his stable indoors, keeping the peace, while simultaneously promoting the business within community guidelines. Win/Win.
In a sense, this arrangement is like a polygamous marriage except that it is a given that the “wives” will have sex for money with others. There is no religious prohibition of this arrangement to my knowledge; therefore, the only “shaming” engine comes from women who don’t like to compete with the prostitutes in terms of the attentions of their husbands and prospective husbands, and this “shaming” engine is perpetuated by various churches as a means of keeping the peace. After all, it is far too easy for a charismatic spiritual leader to collect “wives” in either sense of the word. If it benefits a community or religion to keep spiritual and sexual commerce separate, then it might easily come to pass that a church leader might decide that instituting a monogamy rule and banning prostitution might keep himself from getting tarred and feathered or driven out of town by jealous men. At the same time, in order to ensure that his income comes in he needs the support of the wives in terms of maintaining their social position and social power a.k.a. gynocentrism.
In this way, monogamy can ensure the stability of the church, as well as the stability of government and commerce. However, “stability” in these institutions can well take out a measure of stability in the economy, families, and relationships. Effectively not allowing sex for marginal men and marginal women has downstream deleterious effects. Allowing multiple wives and the keeping of prostitutes provides a place for those who would not otherwise be able to sustain monogamy. Meanwhile, it is quite likely, albeit hotly debated, that monogamy isn’t “natural” anyway.
Therefore, although I support the legalization of both prostitution and polygamy, there is more than one way to “legalize” anything. Most people have a hard time differentiating between morality and law and therefore the actual method of legalization or government aegis is highly debatable.
If the social power of women is conflated as “morality” by society and the church, this adds even more confusion. If women think that racism for example is unacceptable but yet demand protection from outside marauders, this is a conflict. Men are always going to be wary of outsiders in their duties to protect their women—as wives, daughters, siblings, or employees. Therefore, hamstringing the methods of their protection to not allow “profiling” is absurd.
Meanwhile no religion that I know of prohibits birth control, racism, slavery, prostitution, or ownership of women as chattel. So how did it come that “morality” came to be what women felt as the least amount of effort for the greatest possible choices of outcome to be guaranteed by the state? How can that be morality? I say that it was and is more in the interest of the church and megalomaniacal monopolists to prohibit these things, in terms of cementing the power of a few over the many with no hope of revolution or redress when leadership becomes tyrannical.
I think that monogamy has been the downfall of society in so many ways. Sure, it started out as an engine which aided megalomania, but eventually devolves into gynocentrism which, despite what so many angry MGTOWs believe doesn’t actually benefit either women or men except for the most shallow, regressive, and power-hungry.
Those who know how to pick a spouse, marry, and reproduce healthy productive citizens ought to be encouraged to do so; but those who fail time and time again, over generations, really ought to consider either side of the prostitution exchange. Just my opinion. At the same time, plenty of prostitute/john relationships eventually end in marriage, and that’s OK too. I just think there would be a lot fewer rushed foolhardy born-to-fail marriages with damaged children in their wake if there was another option in terms of providing unmarriagable women some security ideally through a pimp or brothel such that they are buying into an effective insurance policy against obsolescence, and men are getting a sexual outlet outside of either marriage, rape, or disingenuous seduction. Or reverse the sexes. Whatever works.
I suppose when two “clients” or “prostitutes” meet each other and want to have sex then it’s a barter exchange. That’s apparently legal but imagine all the miscues and recriminations that result when it turns out that a party had differing expectations or was otherwise not operating from a position of parity (which is always). Arguably, a man who operates with an overfixation on women and his mother has one sort of vulnerability, whereas a smaller-brained woman who is less capable of logic and rationality operates from another sort of vulnerability.
Propaganda, consumerism, and even fairy-tale notions of “romance” all increase these vulnerabilities in those who were the least well parented, creating more vulnerable babies over generations, and making slaves of us all.