Un rant abolicionista

Este es un argumento que, aunque está claramente envuelto en una lógica abolicionista, es sensato en el sentido de que legitimar lo incontenible del impulso sexual en los seres humanos implica restarle valor a cualquier argumento de racionalidad ya sea en favor o en contra del trabajo sexual. Y además me dio mucha risa, aunque no sé si era la intención de la autora:

"In arguments that prostititution is merely one expression of a natural appetite, the comparison is invariably made between prostitution and the provision of food. To claim that 'we all need food, so food should be available to us... And since our sexual desires are just as basic, natural, and compelling as our appetite for food, this also holds for them', is neither an argument for prostitution nor for any form of sexual relations. 

Without a minimum of food (or water, or shelter) people die, but to my knowledge no one has ever died for want of an outlet for their sexual appetites. There is also one fundamental difference between the human need for food an the need for sex. Sustenance is sometimes unavailable but everyone has the means to satisfy sexual appetites to hand. There is no natural necessity to engage in sexual relations to assuage sexual pangs. Of course, there may be cultural inihibition against use of this means, but what counts as food is also culturally variable. In no society does the form of food production and consumption, or the form of relations between the sexes, follow directly, without cultural mediation, from the natural fact that all humans feel hunger and sexual impulses. The consequences of sexual inhibitions and prohibitions are likely to be less disastrous than prohibitions on what counts as food."

Carole Pateman, The sexual contract