The Thin Line Between Prostitutes And Other Women
Okay, so a prostitute is a woman who offers sexual or affectionate services in exchange for money. How many clients should a woman have before you can categorize her as prostitute? A hundred a month, two a day, or one for a lifetime?
And how much money does she need to earn before you can call her a prostitute? 5,000 a month? 50 bucks a day? Or would you consider three pints of lager and a bag of crisps as payment?
Is the beautiful girl who marries a 95 year old multi-millionaire a prostitute or not?
There is joke about a millionaire who meets a beautiful woman at a party. He asks her, “Would you have sex with me for one dollar?”
“One dollar?!?” she says. “What do you think I am?”
“I know exactly what you are,” replies the millionaire, “we just need to come to an agreement about the price.”
Some professional football players are plain ugly, and pretty thick too. Yet they earn a lot of money, and there are always beautiful girls hanging out in the places they frequent. This is called groupie culture. Our plain ugly football player will have no difficulty in finding himself an absolutely stunning woman. So clearly it’s not the physical attraction that is motivating her to share his bed and possibly become his partner. She was there for a reason, even before she met him. She is one of so many one-client prostitutes, and it’s premeditated prostitution.
Generally one could say that it’s a form of prostitution if the prospect of wealth was there before any other attraction, or, to put it differently, that the attraction is a result of the prospect of wealth.
The Thin Line Between Moral and Immoral Behaviour
Most of us know this emotion: you’re reading a book or watching a movie, and the subject is a perfect crime. Some people rob a bank or a train, they manage to get millions of pounds, no-one gets hurt, and in the end they get away with it, living the life of Brian in a warm country. To many people this brings a smile to their faces.
Recently, in 2009, we have seen bank managers and dodgy investors do the same thing, only this time it were billions, not millions, and people got hurt, because their actions had (and still have) severe consequences for the economy. Surely this doesn’t bring a smile to people’s faces.
The main difference is that the bank robbers are considered to be criminals, and I won’t deny that they are, while the bank managers who managed to secure their billions are considered to be respected businessmen. That doesn’t seem to be right.
Many “decent” people think that prostitution is immoral. Many “decent” people think that people who do not think that prostitution is immoral, can’t be decent people. I do not agree with them.
Most prostitutes I have talked with are decent, loving, caring people, although they have been hurt and their perspective of men in general is coloured by that. That’s why they feel safe with homosexual men, because their stories are rather similar. Many homosexual men, especially the more feminine ones, also have a history of abuse, of not being accepted by the communities they come from. Many homosexual men with such a history came to Amsterdam, where they found that they were completely accepted in the Red Light District, especially by the women.
The thin line between moral and immoral behaviour seems to be defined by the law and the Bible. But, as I have explained before, people in the Red Light District have their own “laws”. The laws and the Bible of the “decent” people are not theirs. First of all, they experience day in, day out that the so called “decent” people aren’t that decent at all. Second, the so called “decent” people were the ones who put them into institutions when they were innocent children, dragged them away from their parents, tried to indoctrinate them with their laws and their bibles, and then fucked them when they were most fragile.
The only reason why people in the Red Light District might behave as law abiding citizens, is that they’re not keen to go to prison. They had enough of that. But it’s certainly not because they accept the laws of the “decent” people. How can these laws be right when bank managers and other financial tycoons get away with stealing billions, while others are sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread?
Some years ago I had a conversation with a judge about the motives of the court to send juvenile delinquents home, or not.
He said, “Well, first of all it’s about prevention. If a juvenile delinquent has a nice home to come to, with decent, caring parents, living in a decent neighbourhood, the chances that this juvenile delinquent, if you can call him that, will be properly spoken to, are quite realistic. If, however, the juvenile delinquent would be returning to a home or a neighbourhood in which criminal activities are the order of the day, it’s realistic to suggest that he would only be told off for being so stupid to get nicked, so in that case it would be a wise decision to send him to prison.”
I asked him about the danger that such a juvenile delinquent might learn a lot in prison about committing crimes and not getting nicked, and that by sending him to prison, and letting the kid from a “better” background walk free, his ideas about justice probably become distorted, and rightfully so.
“Let’s not forget,” the judge replied, “that applying the law is also about retribution. When a crime is committed, people want the court to satisfy the public by punishing the criminal.”
“So why not punish the juvenile delinquent with the “better” background?” I asked. “Would the public in the “better” neighbourhood not want to see a criminal in their midst to be temporarily taken away from that neighbourhood and spend time in prison?”
“When I’m saying retribution, I’m not just talking about retribution to the juvenile delinquent personally, but also to the community he is part of, the community that obviously tolerates criminal activities, to let them know that we will not accept criminal behaviour,” said the judge.
So the people in the Red Light District are probably right when they think that it’s all about “us”, the “decent” people, the establishment, against “them”, the scum.
“Do you think you’re a decent person?” I asked the judge. He looked bewildered. “Yes, I think I am,” he replied. “I hope I am. It’s not for me to judge.”
It’s not for me to judge. This is not exactly an existentialist point of view. The Biblical idea of “it’s not for me to judge” means that you will be judged (by God) when you die, so you will be punished for whatever you’ve done wrong while you were alive. Boy, that’s an easy way out! So while you’re alive there’s no need to doubt the justness of your thoughts or your actions. As long as you stick to the law and the Bible, you’re safe.
Life is so much more difficult if you have a conscience…