The taint of money
Posted by aogTuesday, 26 August 2003 at 16:57 TrackBack Ping URL

Junkyard Blog and Blogospherics have some posts concerning a semi-recent article on teen prostitution. I’m not going to address the under age aspects of this, as the posts cited above do a fine job.

What intrigues me is the portrait of “Stacy”, who is a 17 year old prostitute doing tricks at the mall:
“Potentially good sex is a small price to pay for the freedom to spend money on what I want,” says 17-year-old Stacey [not her real name], who liked to hang out after school at the Mall of America, Minnesota’s vast shopping megaplex
I think it’s clear that this kind of attitude is part and parcel of the sexual revolution. At least in my state, 17 is the age of consent so legally Stacy could have sex with anyone she chooses. In terms of the cultural zeitgeist there would seem to be little to prohibit it on moral grounds — is it not just assumed that most 17 year girls are sexually active? On what basis, then, in the modern liberal view of the world, can Stacy be faulted for charging for it? If sex is natural and guilt free, why shouldn’t some one be able to do it for pay? I enjoy programming yet I charge money for it. Why is this different? As far as I can tell, there wouldn’t be a problem if she were not receiving cash remuneration. It seems odd how the taint of money makes this big news while without cash it wouldn’t even rate a back page mention.

Now, for those who object to fornication as well, then they can consistently object to prostitution as well. But to say that any sex is ok except when money changes hand strikes me as a very bizarre point of view.