|
In my article dated December 15, 2007 entitled,
“Feminism, Beauty Pageants, and the Environment,” I pointed out
that the feminist contention that beauty pageants treat women or
their beauty as commodities lacked force when directed at Ms. Earth
contestants. I explore that argument in this article to deal with
the more controversial issue of treating women’s bodies or sex as
commodities in the world’s oldest profession of prostitution.
A few days ago, I ended up (not
by design, mind you) in the fortuitous circumstance of interviewing,
in a family-oriented videoke bar, five stunningly pretty teen-age
call girls enrolled in reputable Philippine universities, such as
UST or Lyceum.
Always the curious one, I asked
(discreetly of course) why they decided to pursue such a trade. They
answered that they needed money for their college education.
I later found out that Glum (not
her real name as are the other names to be mentioned) had a
boyfriend who tolerated her trade. Upon suggesting that a sugar
daddy, one who would finance her education in exchange for exclusive
sexual intimacy, might be preferable, she replied that one had
already propositioned her but her boyfriend objected. Later on, I
found out that she would not refuse a sugar daddy’s offer so long
as she could learn to love him.
On the other hand, Sensible, who
was brought to and picked up from the bar by her boyfriend,
apparently had one who did not object.
After further prodding, I learned
that they would be willing to pursue the less morally objectionable
calling of being a Playboy pin-up or a Hollywood model. The latter
suggestion was not made hypothetically. A high school friend
informed me that some talent agencies, whom he had access to, were
interested in Filipina beauties.
Bubbles—the most fun-loving of
the five, belting out song after song and readily dancing immodestly
to entertain her appreciative male audience—responded
affirmatively to my suggestions.
At that point, my messianic
complex took over me and I imagined myself as their rescuing angel
who would provide them a more respectable source of income. I was
quickly brought down to earth when one of my companions confided:
“Of course, they would accept. That would jack up their price as
call girls.”
In my December article, I argued
that the sale of beauty in certain contexts is morally permissible.
This brings me to the central issue of this article: “Given that
the sale of beauty and the sale of sex are not exactly equivalent,
is there anything so anathematic about the latter, which renders it,
unlike the former, morally unacceptable?”
The pragmatic feminist answers in
the negative. She approves of beauty pageants because their
prohibition would deprive many women a means of livelihood, an
opportunity for advancement and an avenue of empowerment. Exactly
the same point can be made about prostitution.
Still, it is pointed out that
some things are not just meant for sale; they are, in the language
of the law, outside the commerce of man. Prostitution is just as
anathematic as slavery.
Various arguments can be made to
support this point. According to conservative Catholics, sex should
not be sold because it was meant exclusively for marriage. Yet,
social scientists maintain that prostitution actually saves
marriages. Many men are content to stay married so long as they can
have extramarital commercial sex as well.
According to romanticists, sex
should be experienced only by those in love. Granting the
superiority of loving to loveless sex, various plausible responses
can still be supplied. Some would advance that sex can be fulfilling
and pleasurable even without love. Others would maintain that loving
sex is a personal ideal which should not be imposed on others.
Still others would insist that it
would be better to enjoy both loving and loveless sex. A person who
enjoyed sex as part of loving relationships but was completely
incapable of enjoying plain sex would seem to be missing out on
something.
Feminist arguments are based on
prostitution’s degradation of women. According to some feminists,
prostitution degrades because a woman is used as a means by the
client. That is not necessarily true. The transaction between them
is actually a calculated exchange of goods, wherein the client may
exhibit respect for the woman so long as the transaction is free
from coercion or fraud.
According to others, performing
something so intimate as a sex act with a complete stranger and for
money is particularly degrading. And yet, society finds nothing
wrong with nurses whose job it is to take care of the intimate
hygiene of disabled patients.
Finally, some feminists argue
that the prostitute sells, not a service, but herself. This
distinction is more a matter of attitude than of reality. A woman
can dissociate herself from the sexual act and rationalize that what
she is doing is simply a job that needs to be done, just as others
work in jobs they do not enjoy. Such work need not define one’s
personhood.
If the above analysis is sound,
there is therefore nothing intrinsically objectionable about the
sale of sex.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
