Pecunia non olet? (was: Gender, Race, and Publishing on the Left)
sokol at jhu.edu
Tue Jun 16 10:25:10 PDT 1998
At 10:05 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Maggie Coleman wrote:
>In a message dated 98-06-15 17:55:43 EDT, wojtek writes:
><< >It's a simple fact that because the nature of prostitution is to receive
> >pay for servicing pleasure, rather than offering pleasure for pleasure's
> >sake, it is a natural metaphor for any act undertaken for purely monetary
> >motives and in that context has entered the dictionary as a secondary
> >definition. >>
>ah, but most of capitalism takes place for purely monetary motives. Do you
>think the waitress would serve you, they typist would type your letters, the
>nurse would care for you, the doctor would heal you if not for money?
I did not write that passage, it was written by Ingrid Multhopp responding
to our exchange. I agree with the specific point you make above.
On the other hand, I wonder why sex work is demeaned in our society - I do
not think it is only a gender issue, for male sex workers can't boast high
occupational prestige either. I think it may have something to do with
cheap sentimentalism in our perception of sex, and moral outrage when that
sentimentalism is being stripped off by transparent pecuniary motives.
After all, money does stink :)
More information about the lbo-talk