THE SOCIOLOGY OF PROSTITUTION

We  cannot,  however,  define human  prostitution  simply  as  the  use  of  sexual responses for an ulterior purpose. This  would  include a great portion  of  all  social  behavior,  especially  that  of  women.  It  would  include  marriage, for  example,  wherein  women  trade  their  sexual  favors  for  an  economic and social status supplied by men.9 It would include the employment  of  pretty  girls  in  stores,  cafes,  charity  drives,  advertisements.  It  would include all the feminine arts that  women use in pursuing ends that  require men  as  intermediaries,  arts  that  permeate  daily  life,  and,  while  not generally involving actual intercourse, contain and utilize erotic stimulation.

But looking at the subject in this way  reveals one thing. The  basic element  in  what  we  actually  call  prostitution the  employment  of  sex  for  non-sexual ends within  a competitive-authoritative  system-characterizes  not simply prostitution  itself  but  all of our institutions  in which sex is involved,  notably  courtship  and wedlock.  Prostitution  therefore resembles,  from one  point  of  view,  behavior  found in  our most  respectable  institutions. It  is one  end  of  a long sequence or gradation of  essentially  similar  phenomena that  stretches  at  the  other  end  to such  approved patterns  as  engagement and marriage. What, then, is the difference between  prostitution and these other institutions  involving sex?

The  difference  rests  at  bottom  upon  the  functional  relation  between  society  and sexual institutions.  It  is through these institutions  that  erotic  gratification is made dependent on, and subservient to, certain co-operative  performances inherently  necessary  to  societal  continuity.  The  sexual  institutions  are distinguished by the fact that  though they  all provide gratification, they  do not  all tie it to the same social functions. (…) This  explains  why they  are differently evaluated  in the  eyes  of the mores.

The  institutional  control of sex follows three  correlative lines.  First,  it  permits,  encourages, or  forces various  degrees of sexual  intimacy  within  specific  customary  relations,  such  as  courtship,  concubinage,  and  marriage.  Second, to  bolster this  positive  control,  it  discourages sexual  intimacy in all other situations,  e.g., when the persons are not potential mates  or when they are already mated to other persons." Finally, in what is really  a  peculiar  category  of  the  negative  rules,  it  absolutely  prohibits  sexual  relations  in  certain specified situations.  This  last  form  of  control  refers  almost exclusively to incest taboos,  which  reinforce the first-named (positive)  control by banishing the disruptive forces of sexual competition from  the  family  group.

These  lines  of  control  are present  no  matter  what  the  specific kind  of  institutional system. There may be monogram,  polygyny,  or concubinage;  wife exchange or religious prostitution;  premarital chastity  or unchastity.  The important point is not the particular kind of concrete institution,  but  the  fact that  without  the  positive  and negative  norms there  could be no  institutions  at  all.  Since social  functions  can  be  performed only  through  institutional patterns, the  controls are indispensable to the  continuance of  a  given  social system.

In THE  SOCIOLOGY OF  PROSTITUTION

Read all the text here