so the other day i said something about how i was surprised that in the 1920s american prostitutes most often chose prostitution out of fear of starvation, while in the 2000s, american prostitutes most often chose prostitution to support an addiction to recreational narcotics.
so as to head off anyone suggesting that this is related to my perception, and not indeed a reality, here are some statistics:
"between june and december, 1919, the new york city police department arrested 6,579 prostitutes. upon release, 23% of them were determined to have familial, spousal, or legal occupational support, to avail themselves of the basic requirements for survival. the rest were confined to half-way houses." ~ kandall, women and prostitution in the united states, 1850-1920
as opposed to 1999, when a study by phillips-plummer (drug use and prostitution) based on interviews with 1208 prostitutes arrested in new york city found that 87% of them used illicit narcotics other than marijuana, that 59% of them used over a hundred dollars of crack cocaine a week, and that 31% of them had a household income between 15,000 and 24,999.
so how much do you have to raise someone's standard of living before they'll stop selling themselves to pay for more? is it possible to reach a star-trek like utopia where everyone has enough to live happily, and only works to better themselves and society? or would, even then, we still have legions of prostitutes wanting a bit more?
an interesting figure (though an irrelevant one, i think) is that prostitution arrests by the nypd in 1999 were 5,582. less than the number in 1919, yet the population has to have grown tremendously since then. does this indicate tacit approval of prostitution in nyc?
I vote for legions of prostitutes wanting a bit more.
First off, not all prostitutes do it for the drugs. This seems to primarily be a problem of the lower strata. The rest have their own reasons, some not related to financial status, and those reasons may still be around a few centuries from now.
This is all rather tangental though. It may be more enlightening to determine why many streetwalkers took up drugs in the first place. For many it's a form of escapism from a reality they hate. You could argue that this reality is poverty, and for some it may be, but then why do quite a few rich people have drug issues as well?
"Cocaine is nature's way of telling you you have too much money."
An interesting observation is that the amount of happiness a person experiences is, on average, constant. The stinking rich aren't happier than the rest of us; the rich also perceive their own problems. Witness some people throwing themselves out of windows on Black Tuesday. As long as basic needs are met, which most Western societies do, other reasons for unhappiness intrude. Some may be entirely perspective, but they seem real to the person anyway.
Utopia doesn't exist, and probably can't exist. I doubt even a society with unlimited resources will actually have significant influence on our happiness.
>>1
may I humbly suggest to you a short, but excellent read?
Studs Terkel: "Working". New Press NYC, 1974: Book Two "A Pecking Order", Chapter 5 "Roberta Victor, hooker", pg57-66.
If you can, read it some time; it's a (real) account of a hooker on her downspiral from top-notch callgirl to a needle-hole riddled junkie, offering surprisingly clear insight on how she slid into drug-addiction.
If you don't feel like it, I'll sum it up for you in five words: Everyone will always want more. (eq. >>2)
>does this indicate tacit approval of prostitution in nyc?
Could be that, but I'd bet other factors play a larger part; namely, premarital sex is far more accepted by society. Men who want to get laid tonight can just go to a bar and spit some game nowadays, and therefore get it free and legal.
> so how much do you have to raise someone's standard of living before they'll stop selling themselves to pay for more? is it possible to reach a star-trek like utopia where everyone has enough to live happily, and only works to better themselves and society? or would, even then, we still have legions of prostitutes wanting a bit more?
Star Trek is hardly a good example of a utopia, but they've got one interesting detail: No money. A society without money would find it hard to sustain prostitution, too.
Personally, I don't think you can find any kind of utopia as long as you have money, because, as the saying goes, money implies poverty. However, money's not going away before scarcity does, and even then, people will fight it tooth and nail (witness the current state of the music industry).
I think Star Trek is just plain wrong there. What else is new?
As I see it, money is merely a formalization of barter. Instead of going up to some fellow and offering him a cow in return for some services, you offer him some money. It scales a whole lot better than selling cows, for sure, and makes accounting considerably easier. Why throw out something that works?
I doubt even a moneyless system will get rid of prostitution. Men want sex, and some women are willing to trade sex in return for something else. Maybe it might not be called prostitution, but it's the same thing.
You miss the point, which is: scarcity. There's only need to barter if there is not enough to go around for everyone. This has traditionally always been the case, but there's no guarantee this will always be the case. As I mentioned, it is no longer true for the music industry. There is no longer a need to count the number of copies of a song that exist - anybody can make more with no significant cost. All of society is built around scarcity, and with it gone, the music industry is about to collapse.
...So, in Star Trek, everyone is constantly getting laid for free?
> ...so, in star trek, everyone is constantly getting laid for free?
isn't that what the holodeck is for?
But the holosuite is not free.
A holosuite is a smaller version of the standard holodeck. It provides the same services as a holodeck, but is intended for individual usage.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Holosuite
Federation officers have to pay for drinks and for holosuite usage in Quark's bar (DS9).
http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Money
wait a minute!
i just saw first contact again the other day, and picard tells the black lady who works with the guy who invited warp drive that they don't have money any more, that they work exclusively to better themselves.
so what do they pay quark with?
>>7
Scarcity is relative. I believe you'd only achieve such a system if you had infinite resources. As long as resources are finite, there exists the potential for those who have, and those who have more. I'm not aware of a system that can distribute resources equally to everyone and sustain itself.
And besides, as long as there are a limited number of human beings, there is a limited number of services available. You could have all the material goods in the world, but might fuck for something less substantial. Prostitution used to occur for food. Now it's for drugs. Who knows what the next object of perceived value will be.
>>11
The Federation is offering a sum of 1,500,000 Federation credits for the Barzan wormhole (TNG: "The Price").
When interacting with alien cultures, Federation citizens simply inform the aliens that they will be "paying" in Federation credits and the aliens get their true compensation through trade agreements between the two governments.
Beverly Crusher buys a roll of cloth, and has her account on the Enterprise billed (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint").
from the same http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Money
From what I gather, the Federation is very proud "to have rejected money", and will scorn and scoff at anybody saying otherwise. But in reality they use money after all, virtual money (credits) backed up by goods, and most likely a big pile of stashed alien money like that latinium currency.
> Scarcity is relative. I believe you'd only achieve such a system if you had infinite resources. As long as resources are finite, there exists the potential for those who have, and those who have more. I'm not aware of a system that can distribute resources equally to everyone and sustain itself.
I'd say it's quite probable that there's some upper limit where your resource might as well be infinite, because you can't really tell the difference anymore. Human perception and experience is limited - there's no real point in owning more than you can comprehend.
> And besides, as long as there are a limited number of human beings, there is a limited number of services available. You could have all the material goods in the world, but might fuck for something less substantial.
We already have that. I think that's called a "relationship". <-- Not actual bitterness, just pointing out that you can only stretch the definition so far before it breaks.
> get their true compensation through trade agreements between the two governments
communist governments can not last when they import goods and knick-knacks like that! self-sufficiency is necessary. the federation is going to have a recession, and everyone will be dirt poor!
of course it doesn't matter, because they make everything out of pure energy, and they get energy from... everything?
the economics of the 24th century confuse and frighten me.
> that's called a "relationship"
i think waha has a point. if you're having sex with someone for something non-material, like a promotion or security, i think prostitution is no longer a fitting term for your activities.
the definition breaks, i guess you could say... it would grow to encompass a very wide range of human activity, negating the ethical distinction between a street walker and an ambitious person in upper management.
...or perhaps the distinction between a prostitute and an ambitious manager is candor? maybe if the ambitious manager said to his boss "i'll sux y00 off for a raise!", rather than going to the trouble of seducing him to a steamy, life-affirming homosexual affair, he'd be just as much a prostitute?
maybe all this time the reason why ladies act coy even though it confuses straight men to the point of insanity is because otherwise straight men would realize that they're just trading x for sex, and that it'd be cheaper if all the particulars were realized and discussed?
but of course, that's probably far too cynical.
Boy, some of you people really should read up on economics before posting.
But then again, even most economists don't know what they are talking about. So I don't blame you.
Money is simply coined or printed property. Property is the base requirement for any economy. It's a legal title that gives you the right to perform basic economic operations with it, like buying, selling, impawning, renting, raising mortgages, leasing, etc.
Thus, money is not a medium of exchange. There has never been, in all history, any occurence of money being used as a form of exchange, like >>6 implies.
Marxism-Leninism abolished property (though it pretended to only abolish "private property") and thus took away all base for any kind of economy, effectively ruining the existing wealth of any society.
Scarcity of ressources isn't the basic drive behind an economy, either, like >>7 said. A good example here is to compare Russia and Japan. The former has always had a tremendous ammount of natural ressources but has never managed to do anything with it. Japan, with almost no natural ressources, has grown to become one of the top industrial forces on the globe.
The basic drive behind any economy, that is to say: any society that works based on economical principles, is interest which is generated by issuing credits. The need to pay back a certain ammount of property units in a certain ammount of time + x is what generates the continuous accumulation of property by almost all members of said societies.
I don't think you understood the use of the word "scarcity" here - I did not mean "scarce resource", I meant "finite resources". No country has ever come even close to what I was describing - a state where additional property can be obtained at virtually no cost. This is entirely a fictional construct, except for the limited example of the music industry today.
The basis of economy is that there are finite resources, and thus people need to trade. If everybody could have whatever they needed or wanted at no cost, there would be no need for an economy, no?
> The basis of economy is that there are finite resources, and thus people need to trade.
The thing is that they do not trade, in the common sense of the word.
> If everybody could have whatever they needed or wanted at no cost, there would be no need for an economy, no?
If everybody could have whatever they needed or wanted, there would be no human activity whatsoever - given enough time to pass for everybody to fulfill all of their wishes. The general metaphysical disposition of man to exist in a substantial state of lack has nothing to do with economics.
> The thing is that they do not trade, in the common sense of the word.
And yet, take away the underlying trade, and your economy will either disappear, or turn into nothing but a game.
> If everybody could have whatever they needed or wanted, there would be no human activity whatsoever
Make that anything material - or anything that is now scarce or finite. I am sure people would be able to find things withing the realm of human experience that they lack that could only be obtained through personal effort, no matter how many sports cars they could have for free.
> And yet, take away the underlying trade, and your economy will either disappear, or turn into nothing but a game.
There is no underlying trade - or you mean trade as in basic exchange of something which is true for virtually any kind of process on earth, economic or not.
> Make that anything material
Uh oh, a dualist.
> There is no underlying trade
Goods have prices, no? If you removed those, do you think there would still be an economy?
> Uh oh, a dualist.
You can pick option #2 if you prefer - "anything that is now scarce or finite".
> Goods have prices, no?
Yes, because they are property. And only because of that they can be senseful and meaningful put into the economic system with certain values and certain roles assigned to them. In Marxism-Leninism, this was not the case. Money to them was merely an order of the government's dictate. There was no trade either.
> You can pick option #2 if you prefer - "anything that is now scarce or finite".
The mind is always scarce, too. Or so I have learned.
WAHARBL!
I'm not certain where the line between prostitution ends and other forms of relationship begin. I could argue that it's an explicit understanding that sex is in trade for something else, but then what are bedroom politics?
> We already have that. I think that's called a "relationship".
I actually meant something like sex for ideas (you never know), or sleeping your way up the social heirarchy.
I doubt a society with no scarcity is any more feasible than a society with infinite resources. Take a look at what we have today - and what cavemen had. Large difference, but we're not satisfied. I don't think we'll ever be satisfied.
you're being difficult.
> The general metaphysical disposition of man to exist in a substantial state of lack has nothing to do with economics.
where i studied, we always gave our opponents the benefit of the doubt. you're disagreeing with him on semantic issues, rather than graciously allowing him to use different terminology than you. the purpose of language is communication, if precision is necessary, clarify it later.
semantics are fine of course; they're the skeleton of many irresolvable arguments. but we're still hacking at the meat here.
waha is simply saying that there are things that are not purchaseable. if i want michael jordan in his 20s to be my lover, and enthusiastically have hot gay sex with me, given infinite resources i could probably do it. but of his own volition? well, thats probably beyond plausibility.
liberty is a wonderful thing. its why the vast majority of people prefer sex to masturbation, and why love is so sought after. you literally cannot buy happiness.
>>23
But those prices are only assigned because there is a supply of these "properties", and there is a specific demand for them.
I received money in return for my services or some items I sold, and now I use that money to obtain some services or item. It may not be a trade in the classic sense, but since money carries an agreed value, it's certainly some form of trade.
Without trade, property can't change ownership. Therefore money has no meaning.
> you're disagreeing with him on semantic issues
Nope, sorry, that's not it. Try again.
> but of his own volition? well, thats probably beyond plausibility.
What the fuck are you discussing then? I wish you'd take your nonsense out of here sometimes.
oops, never mind then, i'm not talking to you anymore. i come here for civil discussion, not to be berated by the rude and the sarcastic. you can't even be bothered to explain your points, you simply shower other's with blanket condemnations. you're not debating. you're not discussing. you're just being annoying.
maybe you're smart. you certainly seem to think so. i hope that is working out well for you; because your personality is deplorable.
> you can't even be bothered to explain your points
I did, you just chose to ignore that.
if you can be polite, and refrain from the ad hominems, i'd love to hear you explain it again. i didn't ignore a word you said, i just clearly misunderstood you.
I think the value of money is what is relative. My ancestor was considered rich because when she left Poland in the 1890's she had 4 dresses.