Suggesting that abuse is the ONLY way one can come to the conclusion that sex can be used for anything other than an expression of intimacy within a monogamous relationship is pretty absurd. There are (depending on where you live) sizable segments of the community who are perfectly able to engage in sex for fun outside the context of a romantic relationship.
To me, the problem with pornography and prostitution isn’t that it’s somehow shameful or cheapens the institution of sex; it’s that the way the industry works in this (and most) countries is extremely exploitative. It takes people on the margins of society who have very few choices in life and creates situations in which the balance of power prevents these people from taking charge of their lives or their work.
However, with the internet, the easing of laws and other factors, there is an increasing number of sex workers who set out on their own and make the educated decision to enter the industry. Aspects of the “mainstream” industry are also much less exploitative, as evidenced by the fact that there are big name porn stars these days who make a very good living acting essentially as independent contractors. Maybe some of these are more well-to-do types who were abused, but I think it’s equally likely that they’re just people who have come to the conclusion that sex can be fun (and profitable) outside of a monogamous romantic relationship.
So, IMHO, you need to make a distinction between the two aspects of the sex industry (not that there’s no grey area there). I would strongly suspect that you would see a great deal more abuse in the history of people who are being exploited by the sex industry than those who work on a somewhat fair basis. Any porn “star” who is likely to be interviewed (like astro mentioned) is almost undoubtedly in the latter category. People get to be big names usually not because they’re particularly good “actors”-- it’s because they’re savvy businesspeople.
I strongly suspect that if the statistics cited upthread were adjusted for socio-economic factors, the difference between sex industry workers and the general public would even out. Poverty, abuse (both physical, mental and sexual) and generally poor home lives all contribute to make people who are hopeless and helpless and have few prospects in life. This makes them far more prone to being exploited by anyone, the sex industry (be it pimp or sleaze producer) included. It’s the same factors that lead to people becoming criminals.
I think the evidence is clear that there’s a very strong link between abuse and becoming a sex worker of some sort. But is there any evidence that, occasionally, a woman (or man) doesn’t simply look at their job skills and their need for money and say, “Well, hooking is my best option”?
I think economic distress, and drug addiction can drive them to do it, i.e. desperation for money, but no, I don’t believe that normal healthy women with no pressing econmic urgency don’t just decide to become prostitutes for the great income and benefits.
I highly doubt it. It’s great money. Most are just girls who realized that they could charge an hourly rate higher than that of a lawyer who busted her ass for 7+ years of law school and went hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and all they have to do is lie there. (yeah of course there are a lot of risks/dangers associated with it and they’re only a desirable commodity for a limited period of their lives, but they still earn insane amounts of money)
Do they really, though? People say this and I’m sure there are a few high price call girls who do but it doesn’t sound like it’s all that easy to earn lots of money that way. Plus it’s something you can only do for a fairly short period of time, as opposed to law, without any real security.
$200-300 an hour is a pretty standard rate for your typical hooker (and often the quoted hourly rate doesn’t end up being a full hour, but they still charge the full price :p). For the “high end” ones the sky is the limit… $500-1000/hr and up is not unheard of. And those latter rates are also comparable to the average porn shoot, with really in-demand actresses of course commanding much higher wages. And trust me, they have no problems booking appointments/shoots one right after the other. I know all this from… uh, a book I read.
It has to be acknowledged there is quite a large slice of fugly, wouldn’t touch them with ten foot pole, street hookers out there who charge whatever the local market will bear and that might pretty slim picking at times. These are the ones you see on COPS and in the Smoking Gun lineups. Most have severe drug issues. Having said this most can still make more doing that than almost anything else they are capable of doing (which probably isn’t much).
I think you’re on to something. Is there ANYONE who grew up in the US and went to public schools that didn’t, at one point or another, have the “K-I-S-S-I-N-G” song sung about them? One could argue that the song implies that the “couple” are going to have sex, and therefore the song is sexual, and that the song can be sung abusively. But very few people would treat someone singing the song as a sexual abuser as the term is commonly understood and in need of punishment, or would consider the person receiving the “abuse” to be in need of therapy to get over the event.
Numbers for the sex trade have always been difficult to come by. The high end prostitutes of the past would have been very cautious about revealing their identities or providing useful information. The countable prostitutes would have been dispropotionately represented by street walkers who’s profession would often be a symptom of other problems. Even today with more relaxed attitudes I find all such studies to be questionable, akin to surveys asking teens about their sexual activity or drug usage.
Additional note: Prostitution can’t be the world’s oldest profession. The guy had to make the money to pay for it somehow.
IANAP (I am not a psychologist…). I even think that most psychologists don’t have a clue how people’s minds really work. However - the largest sex organ in the human body is the mind. Millions of years of evolution have intimately tied human behaviour to sex and reproduction. Men may have an easier time dissociating sex from relationships, but for women the whole evolutionary pressure is about finding a provider for her children. To some extend the man is usually driven to provide for his own offspring.
You can see this in terms of people who become sickly obsessive about relationships, activities like stalking, without even engaging in sex. It has to be confusing for the thought processes, especially for women, to be abused when too young to understand what is going on or too young to adjust their perceptions.
The advantage of intelligence is that we can train ourselves to do something other than instinctual - we can resist urges that make us obese or give us cirrohsis of the liver, we can get ourselves to work even when we don’t feel like it to eb sure we have food in a week or two, etc. We can tell ourselves to ignore or supress problems that we can’t deal with, or soemtimes overcome them.
However, sex is not sacred but it is not usually “nothing”. It might (or might not) have serious impact on our personality. This is the main reason why we discourage sex at younger ages and we make sex with those too young a crime. It’s simpler and kinder than dealing with the fall-out from unrestrained activity.
Back to the original post, one of the reasons I recall reading for the stitstics was that childhood abuse lowers self-esteem; and that those with lower self-esteem are more likely to be pliant and submissive to what others tell them to do.
I also question the stats about prevelance. I read once a stat about how many women had been sexually harrassed at work (well over 50%), until I read the fine print and found any crude comments or dirty jokes were included, even if not aimed at the victim. Similarly, does CSH include standard grade 8 adolescent behaviour? (old enough to want to, too young to have learned yet that it is EMPHATICALLY not allowed) Every high school guy who says crude things to get a reaction out of the girls?
What would be more interesting would be to find how many were subjected to a repeated serious CSH experience.