I didn't expect you to turn up on this thread so late - had I known I never would have claimed to have the last word, heh.

You'll forgive me if I don't address all your points - in most cases it is simply because I can find no fault with your reasoning.

However, in the second part of your argument, you drift back to considering the act of prostitution itself as an isolated phenomenon rather than the massive change in social attitudes about sex that de-stigmatizing it would require. So at the risk of appearing obstinate, I will attempt to map these out.

Remember, we are talking not about legalization, but widespread social acceptance. Right now, illegality is probably far from the first reason that most women would give if asked why they don't prostitute themselves. But what is often overlooked is that the case is much the same with men. Despite the standard caricatures, most men I know who are of a certain educational level and liberal outlook would be fairly averse to the idea of getting a prostitute: the reasons they would likely give is that it is "skeezy", "degrading", and would make them feel pathetic, as if they couldn't get companionship without paying for it. I was in Amsterdam with a group of friends last summer. As we walked through the redlight district, we joked about it (only 30 euros!), but none of us seriously considered it.

So what would be the consequences of jettisoning all of our 'Victorian' hangups, decoupling sex from intimacy, and viewing it as merely the rubbing of organs? First of all, there would be absolutely no reason for any moderately attractive woman not to engage in prostitution, whether full-time or on the side. Secondly, there would be absolutely no reason for men not to purchase sex. In light of this, I don't see how sex could maintain its status as an intimate act within a relationship. I also don't see how it wouldn't lead to infidelity on a mass scale.

Soon, sex would become merely a mechanical act that bears no relation to romantic attachment. I suppose one might view this as a positive thing, as it would enable the emergence of what Foucault calls "new relational possibilities". There would be many more possibilities and configurations of what constitutes a 'relationship' if it were not necessarily linked to sex. Sounds good, right? Except I tend to think that society cannot function without some sort of exclusionary or restrictive norms and structures.

I also think that in the long run, we would be forced to confront the question of fundamental differences between the sexes. Prostitution exists right now because there is more unsatisfied demand for sex among men than there is among women. Some have suggested that this is due to a fundamental difference in sex drive, which most feminists are always quick to pounce on and deny. If the feminists are right and the current differences are only attributable to cultural conditioning, then the destigmatization of sex would ultimately lead to the general collapse of the prostitution market (except perhaps in isolated communities suffering from gender imbalance), since the demand for sex would be equal on both sides, undeterred by stigma. If, however, there are actual biological differences in sex drive, it would lead to an unsustainable imbalance of power among the sexes and a further breakdown in gender relations.

Finally, I cannot avoid putting the Marxist spin on this - a widespread acceptance of prostitution would signal to me the ultimate triumph of capitalism. How long before absolutely everything is commodified in a similar fashion? Why not sell children as pet-like companions? Charge fees for friendship? Trade personal qualities like stock value? To those who predictably counter that all of these things happen already, I ask, why would you want to encourage it? If it's inevitable then it's going to happen whether or not we approve. Doesn't mean we have to like it.

Your assertion that "humans are the same across time and cultures" (philosophical heresy!) shows the contradictory nature of your stance. As you have acknowledged earlier, cultures all over the world have regulated and restricted sexual activity. Thus, by your own statement, I could argue that this restriction of sex represents an essential and intrinsic human quality that will not change with history.

Essentialism of any sort is a mistake. Humans are whatever they collectively decide and want to be - otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. So your assertion that humans are just beasts who are made of meat and governed by meat is no more or less true than the view that humans have some inherent moral dignity. It is a matter of which of these precepts we decide matters more, since clearly there is an inclination in society towards both. My question to you is why you think the 'meat' view is preferable. Again, you fall back upon examples of trophy wives and people who marry for status. My question is why you think these are things to be emulated rather than overcome. Why not instead take as an example equal relationships based on love and mutual respect, which, believe it or not, also occur in today's society?