prostitution in the Trek Universe?

[sonak]

Prostitutes don't wear uniforms or anything else at all so it could be impossible to prosecute or prove except through the transfer of funds evidence or what have you by computer which makes it even more exclusive as well during Trek's time.

What I'm interested in is if you're allowed to have holographic or robot spouses like the EMH Doctor or Data? That raises a whole bunch of cans of worms. You could have a harum of holograms or robots who are prostitutes by night and criminals by day. They would probably be very expensive too, assuming that they are working for the equivelent of money in Star Trek's time, or for power or information, manipulation, domination, etc., etc.. Vogayer's EMH was getting married in 'End Game' and Data dated.

Why bother marrying your sex fantasy hologram? Just get a holodeck built into your home or something, and spend your off time with the hologram.

If the hologram was a mistress, wouldn't it/she get jealous? And the wife angry at what amounts to internet porn except that you've programmed the hologram to look like Jessica Simpson.

hmmm. Yeah, I wonder how that would work with spouses. You'd wonder why folks would get married at all when they can have their own custom-made sex fantasy holograms. Of course, in the Trek future, people are so "evolved" that they don't go for stuff like that apparently, but realistically I'd think you'd see some issues from that.

 

[Deckerd]

hmmm. Yeah, I wonder how that would work with spouses. You'd wonder why folks would get married at all when they can have their own custom-made sex fantasy holograms. Of course, in the Trek future, people are so "evolved" that they don't go for stuff like that apparently, but realistically I'd think you'd see some issues from that.

It would certainly be an out for all those sad lonely geeks living in their parents' basement. This would have the unintentional benefit of ensuring they never pass anything on to the gene pool.

 

[xortex]

The Orian Sydicate seems to have the whole grean animal slave woman drive all sown up. They are irresistable - and probably take venus drugs or something and guys and planets will give them anything they want including power, money, dilithium crystals, whole planets, etc.. So they are predatorial sirens being used as weapons.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I just saw TNG's Redemption last weekend. I could have sworn that Gowron tried to dismiss Torol of the Duras clan as being the product of his father's visit to a brothel.

Yep. Gowron says "Where did you find him, Lursa? In a harlot's bedchamber?"

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Harlot doesn't necessarily mean prostitute. In the case of the Klingons family line was everything so any breeding outside of that would be viewed badly.

 

[Yevetha]

Why bother marrying your sex fantasy hologram? Just get a holodeck built into your home or something, and spend your off time with the hologram.

If the hologram was a mistress, wouldn't it/she get jealous? And the wife angry at what amounts to internet porn except that you've programmed the hologram to look like Jessica Simpson.

hmmm. Yeah, I wonder how that would work with spouses. You'd wonder why folks would get married at all when they can have their own custom-made sex fantasy holograms. Of course, in the Trek future, people are so "evolved" that they don't go for stuff like that apparently, but realistically I'd think you'd see some issues from that.

Did we ever see 2 women fighting over a man in Trek?

 

[xortex]

We saw two men fighting for a woman robot - Reyna Capec from 'Requim for Methuselah'.

 

[The Castellan]

And we all saw how Harry ended up...

The sad part about pimping..there's no retirement plan..

Naw, he's the ho, now.

 

[CoveTom]

I am sure someone else has already said this but Harry Mudd once had three lovelies he brought with him to the Enterprise in the OS episode "Mudd's Women."
He intended to leave them on a nearby world as wives and mates for some rather sad and lonely men.

Would this be considered prostitution in the modern sense of the word, though? He wasn't just selling these women for sex, he was selling them for marriage. And, really, is it clear if he's actually selling them, as in they are some kind of property, or if he's just collecting a fee for arranging the marriage?

 

[sonak]

I am sure someone else has already said this but Harry Mudd once had three lovelies he brought with him to the Enterprise in the OS episode "Mudd's Women."
He intended to leave them on a nearby world as wives and mates for some rather sad and lonely men.

Would this be considered prostitution in the modern sense of the word, though? He wasn't just selling these women for sex, he was selling them for marriage. And, really, is it clear if he's actually selling them, as in they are some kind of property, or if he's just collecting a fee for arranging the marriage?

The whole issue would turn on whether the women involved were doing it voluntarily.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Theory--- If the Federation is as libertarian as I think it is, they may have changed the definition of prostitution entirely anyway.

There is no 'prostitution'.

They may consider selling sex for money no different than selling a shuttle for money, it's just a business transaction. Just a wild theory.

Funny but are the Risans charging for sex? Do the tourists pay first to visit a resort and then 'enjoy' the freaky horga'hn, or is everything free?

Or do they pay for the horga'hn only-- or are these waitresses seriously having sex with total strangers right off the bat for absolutely nothing because---it's their job???

 

[T'Girl]

In terms of Risa, when you arrange your vacation package, there is travel, food, lodging and a standard prostitution fee. Or you would make the arrangement through your hotel concierge service, like renting a car, except you're renting a person.

When Riker asked Picard to buy him a horga'hn statue (in Captain's Holiday), the hotel worker who spotted Picard with it assumed that Picard had just paid for prostitution, the statue being basically a token ... maybe like a all day pass at Disney World.

If the Federation is as libertarian as I think it is

The modern day Libertarian Party does supports the legalization of prostitution, but not completely laissez-faire. There would still be sensible laws and other restrictions against underage and involuntary prostitution.

A libertarian Federation may hold the same positions.

")

 

[YARN]

The modern day Libertarian Party does supports the legalization of prostitution, but not completely laissez-faire. There would still be sensible laws and other restrictions against underage and involuntary prostitution.

A libertarian Federation may hold the same positions.

")

How "voluntary" prostitution really would be is more complicated than you might think.

EX 1. Workin' in a Coal Mine: A poor man living in a coal mining town needs to support his family. He cannot afford to move and job opportunities are severely limited. He works in the mine and dies in a horrible accident or shall we imagine dies a horrible slow, painful, and bankrupting death from respiratory disease.

Do we waggle our finger at him and tell him that he was perfectly free not to work in the mine (i.e., he was "free" to let his family starve)? Does the coal mine get to abdicate responsibility for safety conditions on the grounds that all employees freely choose to work there.

EX 2. Loyalty Cards: In case you haven't heard, the age of consumer privacy is over. Any time you use a credit card or "loyalty card" at a store, information about you is tagged, tracked, aggregated, and sold off to various interests. If you want privacy, YES you can "freely" opt out of "loyalty" programs. The problem is, to get the best prices (coupon deals) you must enroll in these programs. Anonymous shoppers who pay cash must do so at a considerably higher rate than those who do not do so. Private shoppers pay a penalty, a penalty which subsidizes the cost-savings of others.

No big deal? What if those who believed in "Allah," or voted Independent, had to pay more for products than those who did not? If you are poor, you have to play the loyalty card game and give up privacy. Even if you don't care about privacy, the fact that those who value their privacy are economically punished and that the poor are coerced into yielding all information is troubling.

NEWSFLASH!

The vast majority of people who accept pay for sex are not Julia Roberts-types who are just waiting to be whisked away by Richard Gere. The libertarian notion sounds great and all. Why shouldn't you do what you want to do with your own body? Then again, how many kids do you know who ever said, "When I grow up, I want strange men to put their penises in my mouth for cash!" The vast majority of prostitutes are pushed into this life. Legalizing prostitution would basically affirm that this variety of economic coercion is OK.

If it is, as Kant argues, beneath the dignity of the human person to sell oneself as a sex-receptacle, then there is no rational basis for entering into prostitution. The "choice" to enter into this contract is the result of a human person being degraded to the status of an object. And denying the fundamental humanity of any person takes away the grounds on which freedom matters in the first place. It is the dignity of the human person which makes their freedom worth fighting for. Without it, freedom is not a value, but is merely a condition (some people have it, some don't) which makes no demands on how we structure our societies.

If the Libertarian really thinks about it, the question of prostitution is not as easy requiring that prostitutes be over the age of 18.

 

[xortex]

I don't think murder or prostitution becomes more of a crime if the purpetrayer enjoys it or not.

 

[sonak]

The modern day Libertarian Party does supports the legalization of prostitution, but not completely laissez-faire. There would still be sensible laws and other restrictions against underage and involuntary prostitution.

A libertarian Federation may hold the same positions.

")

How "voluntary" prostitution really would be is more complicated than you might think.

EX 1. Workin' in a Coal Mine: A poor man living in a coal mining town needs to support his family. He cannot afford to move and job opportunities are severely limited. He works in the mine and dies in a horrible accident or shall we imagine dies a horrible slow, painful, and bankrupting death from respiratory disease.

Do we waggle our finger at him and tell him that he was perfectly free not to work in the mine (i.e., he was "free" to let his family starve)? Does the coal mine get to abdicate responsibility for safety conditions on the grounds that all employees freely choose to work there.

EX 2. Loyalty Cards: In case you haven't heard, the age of consumer privacy is over. Any time you use a credit card or "loyalty card" at a store, information about you is tagged, tracked, aggregated, and sold off to various interests. If you want privacy, YES you can "freely" opt out of "loyalty" programs. The problem is, to get the best prices (coupon deals) you must enroll in these programs. Anonymous shoppers who pay cash must do so at a considerably higher rate than those who do not do so. Private shoppers pay a penalty, a penalty which subsidizes the cost-savings of others.

No big deal? What if those who believed in "Allah," or voted Independent, had to pay more for products than those who did not? If you are poor, you have to play the loyalty card game and give up privacy. Even if you don't care about privacy, the fact that those who value their privacy are economically punished and that the poor are coerced into yielding all information is troubling.

NEWSFLASH!

The vast majority of people who accept pay for sex are not Julia Roberts-types who are just waiting to be whisked away by Richard Gere. The libertarian notion sounds great and all. Why shouldn't you do what you want to do with your own body? Then again, how many kids do you know who ever said, "When I grow up, I want strange men to put their penises in my mouth for cash!" The vast majority of prostitutes are pushed into this life. Legalizing prostitution would basically affirm that this variety of economic coercion is OK.

If it is, as Kant argues, beneath the dignity of the human person to sell oneself as a sex-receptacle, then there is no rational basis for entering into prostitution. The "choice" to enter into this contract is the result of a human person being degraded to the status of an object. And denying the fundamental humanity of any person takes away the grounds on which freedom matters in the first place. It is the dignity of the human person which makes their freedom worth fighting for. Without it, freedom is not a value, but is merely a condition (some people have it, some don't) which makes no demands on how we structure our societies.

If the Libertarian really thinks about it, the question of prostitution is not as easy requiring that prostitutes be over the age of 18.

by your argument, all jobs taken by those who aren't independently wealth are "coerced." Your post reads like a critique of capitalism and wage slavery, not prostitution.

Voluntary prostitutes are as much and as little coerced as any other unhappy worker in a capitalist economy.

 

[xortex]

Forced into prostitution by the economy doesn't wash. But if starvation was your only other option, would that make you a slave to money. Does survival trump morality?

 

[YARN]

by your argument, all jobs taken by those who aren't independently wealth are "coerced."

Uhh, NO.....

1. Voluntariness

Did you take the job out of broad rational self-interest or did you take the job, because there was no other way to feed you family (narrow rational self-interest/survival)?

Did you take the job contrary to your deeply held beliefs, orbecause there was no other job to take?

In a free employment situation, the person is free to make decisions which accord with their values and in alignment with their broad rational self-interests (i.e., long-term survival and benefit vs. immediate need). That is, the person actually has an open market to turn to. The poor coal mining does not have an open horizon for choice in terms of broad rational self-interest and personal values. Some people have had little to no choice but work in highly dangerous situations which result in long-term health disadvantages.

So no, by this criterion, not all people who take jobs who are not independently wealthy are coerced.

2. The Continuum of Choice.

It is not a question of purely free vs. totally coerced, but rather a matter of looking at situations that fall along a spectrum. It is widely accepted truism that if you don't work, you don't eat. There is, therefore, a fair or just amount of coercion in the world if you accept this truism. This much, however, is consistent with respecting human persons as persons. To respect persons as persons means keeping an eye on their responsibilities to themselves and others. You have a responsibility to treat your self as a valuable end (and thus to labor to benefit yourself) and to treat others primarily as ends and not as means (yes, Mr. Scrooge could totally put the screws to his employees, and deny them, but respecting them as humans means that he should consider his employees as something more than just a means to turn a profit).

When on the continuum of diminishing choice and increasing coercion, however, we find that a person's narrow self-interests (the lowest levels of Maslow's hierarchy) result in them debasing themselves - engaging in them allowing themselves to strictly be used as a means to an end - to be an object out of abject necessity, something has gone wrong.

The more coercive a situation is, the more problematic it becomes. My argument is that prostitution, even from a libertarian perspective, is more complicated than a simple declaration that anything goes.

Your post reads like a critique of capitalism and wage slavery, not prostitution.

My post reads like a critique of the "anything goes" approach to the treatment of human beings (pure instrumentalism). If your definition of capitalism has no regard for human persons, if it valorizes slavery, then I suppose it is a critique of capitalism -- but not the variety Adam Smith had in mind.

Voluntary prostitutes are as much and as little coerced as any other unhappy worker in a capitalist economy.

I am convinced that you cannot read or that you cannot reason. If you think that the poor coal miner is no more coerced than the teenager who gripes about working at The Gap, then you must also think that the child laborer working in the diamond mine is free, you must think that poor women in England who suffered from fossy jaw were free, because they ALL could have quit (and then starved) if they hated their jobs so much. Indeed, the homeless must be the freest of all!

No doubt you would squeal about the coercion of unions, but see no coercion in the situations I describe.

 

[sonak]

by your argument, all jobs taken by those who aren't independently wealth are "coerced."

Uhh, NO.....

1. Voluntariness

Did you take the job out of broad rational self-interest or did you take the job, because there was no other way to feed you family (narrow rational self-interest/survival)?

Did you take the job contrary to your deeply held beliefs, orbecause there was no other job to take?

In a free employment situation, the person is free to make decisions which accord with their values and in alignment with their broad rational self-interests (i.e., long-term survival and benefit vs. immediate need). That is, the person actually has an open market to turn to. The poor coal mining does not have an open horizon for choice in terms of broad rational self-interest and personal values. Some people have had little to no choice but work in highly dangerous situations which result in long-term health disadvantages.

So no, by this criterion, not all people who take jobs who are not independently wealthy are coerced.

2. The Continuum of Choice.

It is not a question of purely free vs. totally coerced, but rather a matter of looking at situations that fall along a spectrum. It is widely accepted truism that if you don't work, you don't eat. There is, therefore, a fair or just amount of coercion in the world if you accept this truism. This much, however, is consistent with respecting human persons as persons. To respect persons as persons means keeping an eye on their responsibilities to themselves and others. You have a responsibility to treat your self as a valuable end (and thus to labor to benefit yourself) and to treat others primarily as ends and not as means (yes, Mr. Scrooge could totally put the screws to his employees, and deny them, but respecting them as humans means that he should consider his employees as something more than just a means to turn a profit).

When on the continuum of diminishing choice and increasing coercion, however, we find that a person's narrow self-interests (the lowest levels of Maslow's hierarchy) result in them debasing themselves - engaging in them allowing themselves to strictly be used as a means to an end - to be an object out of abject necessity, something has gone wrong.

The more coercive a situation is, the more problematic it becomes. My argument is that prostitution, even from a libertarian perspective, is more complicated than a simple declaration that anything goes.

Your post reads like a critique of capitalism and wage slavery, not prostitution.

My post reads like a critique of the "anything goes" approach to the treatment of human beings (pure instrumentalism). If your definition of capitalism has no regard for human persons, if it valorizes slavery, then I suppose it is a critique of capitalism -- but not the variety Adam Smith had in mind.

Voluntary prostitutes are as much and as little coerced as any other unhappy worker in a capitalist economy.

I am convinced that you cannot read or that you cannot reason. If you think that the poor coal miner is no more coerced than the teenager who gripes about working at The Gap, then you must also think that the child laborer working in the diamond mine is free, you must think that poor women in England who suffered from fossy jaw were free, because they ALL could have quit (and then starved) if they hated their jobs so much. Indeed, the homeless must be the freest of all!

No doubt you would squeal about the coercion of unions, but see no coercion in the situations I describe.

I don't "squeal" about unions. I support them very much for the most part. By "unhappy worker" I don't mean a teen working a side job to pay for her phone. I mean "unhappy" like one who works at a crappy low-wage job to support their family.

I just don't see the distinction between prostitution and other jobs that you seem to be drawing. It's providing a service for money, just as many jobs are about.

 

[CoveTom]

I have a good job. It pays good money and I enjoy the work. I am unhappy with the fact that it does not provide health insurance benefits, and I also dislike the fact that I have to drive an hour to get there. But it was the job that presented itself and, despite the couple of negatives, I took it. Was I somehow coerced into that job because of my lack of economic choices?

 

[Nightdiamond]

So basically you have a few differences with prostitution... A- the "Call Girl" - someone who chooses to trade sex for money, (and claims to make lots of money doing it.)

B - the street hooker who does it for various reasons, but the usual idea is they are poor and abused.

In between you have the massage therapist who may offer "'something extra" for a price after the massage is over with.
Or a Brothel maybe.

Which scenario has less choices than the other?
Idk, but when you go back in time, the issue gets more complicated.

I've always said, I have a very, very hard time figuring out why anyone in the 24th century would resort to prostitution when replicators are available.

I mean, unless the taboo is removed and they just liked that sort of thing.