The legal type of prostitution appeared at first thanks to Solon. It is not certain though, whether the reason for founding laic brothel was a rising sex crime level, or maybe the fact that Solon got bit envious of profits that temples used to make on prostitutes. Dufour writes: The existence of cult prostitution of all Athens’ temples was probably a reason that Solon, constituting the law, sanctioned the legal type of prostitution. He saw how temples and it’s servants got wealthier thanks to that procedure, (…) he wished to provide similar profits to the polis, as well as a pleasure to Athens’ youth and safe environment to noble women.
This way Solon developed public profit organization. Jacek Hołówka, Polish ethics professor, describes Solon’s methods as seeking for the lesser of two evils:
Solon established a brothel in Athens, where he put foreign slaves. (…) First of all he wanted to get general acclaim to his idea, second of all, he desired, that the premises pull off young men from women that doesn’t look for sexual relations. (…) Solon could easily say that prostitution was an evil which is inevitable, or even necessary.
Since the ancient times, prostitution has been quite good. The thing which is worth noticing is something which was visible back then as well as it is today. Selling a body for a profit was always something common. The existence of harlotry was accepted, claiming that it was really necessary; on the other hand, it used to be condemned. Prostitution, since its very beginning has been linked with something morally evil, even though it has never felt a lack of male customers. The same men, that used to shout, damn the idea of trading bodies this way, allowed, or even desired a company of a woman of pleasure.
This incompatible moral judgment can be explained by the fact, that there was always couple of kinds of prostitutes. In the ancient times they were dicteriades (the lowest category), auletrides (flute musicians, dancers hired to join symposiums, parties with lots of drinks, especially wine). Auletrides, despite, they, and their children couldn’t get Athenian citizenship, were intelligent and creative enough to gather large fortunes. Legends about temples, monuments, or even fleets sent to war, founded by wealthy auletrides maintain till today. Jacek Hołówka writes:
Courtesans were never condemned by common morality. Maybe because prosperity and power always brings respect, or maybe because wantonness is damned only if it is a real threat; (…) It is hard to believe that something widely practiced from the ancient times, throughout renaissance to XIX century, was considered as immoral.
Just the division of prostitutes and attitude people towards them asks the question about “harmonizing” our opinion in that matter. It seems that reflection on the idea of prostitution is really important. General definition is quite clear- it is providing sexual services in the name of any profits. (It is possible of course to discuss artistic prostitution, etc. but this phenomenon only borrows just the term to describe some similar behaviors. There’s no need to go beyond human sexuality, speaking on this subject.) Here however some can find some lack of accuracies. It is certainly very difficult to define “sexual service”, where would it suppose to begin and finish. The same case is with the term of “profit”, whether it is only money or any other material means, or even any other. Professor Gajda from Lublin’s University in Poland in one on his books presents very peculiar point of view:
Apart from official harlotry, there is other one growing without any money, but never without interest. It is just having sex in work places, between friends, neighbors, counting on promotion, pay rise, or just to confirm acceptance.
This acceptance case is much more difficult than promotion or pay rise, which can be easily included to reasons of harlotry. Here there is some problem. Every grown up physically and emotionally person, doesn’t matter gender, seeks for acceptance. Thinking this way, every person who decides for “one night stand” for instance is a prostitute literally. There is nothing wrong in seeking for acceptance from the partner. Polish sexologist Kazimierz Imieliński doesn’t have any problem with defining the term “profit”:
The fact that the definition of prostitution includes “taking fees” is important, because it separates the person who takes profit from the person who pays for the service. The important thing is the materiality of fee, which separates customer from provider; the customer gets after all sexual satisfaction, which also could be considered as special form of “fee”.
From this point of view, Gajda’s theory seems to be not acceptable. Reflection on prostitution implicates clear division on customer and service provider. Imieliński goes further, making the definition more accurate: selling body to more than one person (not on one time of course). It is rational because it excludes these women living with a man for longer, receiving some material profits from that sort of relationship. On the other hand, according to that definition, if the girl is so not competent that she can get only one customer, there is no way to consider her as a prostitute.
