According to the article, research has repeatedly shown that humans are not the only species who engage in prostitution. Female capuchin monkeys and bonobos have both been observed trading sex for "money" or for food which is considered the basic equivalant. This strongly suggests that prostitution is "evolutionarily familiar" yet Kanazawa also noted other factors which suggested the possibility that prostitution could actually be "evolutionarily novel".
Maggie McNeill immediately noticed some fallacies in his logic that appeared to stem from lack of any real working knowledge on the overall subject of prostitution and surmised that he had never actually met a prostitute. As she discussed in her column of March 12th, she wrote him an email offering some of her own experience and wisdom; although Maggie's sharp intuition comes as no surprise to anyone who knows her, Kanazawa was amazed at how accurately she had pegged him. He was very gracious and genuinely interested, I would venture to say that he found the ensuing discussion with a retired prostitute to be an eye opening experience. The idea that whores are intrinsically no different from other women is one of Maggie's deeply held philosophies; several weeks later Kanazawa published this follow-up article to the original based on their correspondance, titled "Are All Women Prostitutes? A perspective from someone who knows what she's talking about."
On the other hand, I, somewhat like Kanazawa, am going out on a limb by discussing what I believe to be logical fallacies in his reasoning based on my perceptions of subjects in which my formal knowledge is little to none; evolutionary psychology, psychology, evolution, genetics, cognition, and so on so forth. Therefore it is my hope that if he at some point reads this he takes it with the grain of salt with which it is meant to be taken :-)
do men try to impress prostitutes
"The deep evolutionary origin of prostitution and prostitutes and thus their evolutionary familiarity suggest that men would not try to impress prostitutes, because they know it is not necessary…If it turns out that men routinely attempt to impress prostitutes before having sex, then it means that prostitution is evolutionarily novel and it is not the world’s oldest profession." -Satoshi Kanazawa, in the original article "Do Men Try To Impress Prostitutes"
It is my opinion that the question of whether prostitution is evolutionarily familiar or evolutionarily novel cannot be answered by the question of whether or not men try to impress prostitutes; in fact the two are completely unrelated.
The desire of one human to impress another has less to do with who he is trying to impress than it has to do with his own ego and need for validation. It can be argued that men trying to impress women is a mating ritual comparable to a peacock fanning out his plume, but if that's the case than why do heterosexual members of the same sex try to impress each other?
In the cited example from Superfreakonomics, Allie's (a prostitute) venture capitalist client didn't try to impress her by bringing her flowers or jewelry. Instead, he attempted to impress her with intellectualism and common interests, which could have been used to impress anyone, potential sexual partner or not. Clearly the human desire to impress others is more than a simple mating ritual. Note that the desire to impress others is equivalant to the desire to be admired, respected, and liked. If someone is impressed by another individual then they by definition admire, respect, or like him.
Everyone wants to be liked, therefore everyone is constantly trying to impress everyone else to a certain degree. Additionally, most men feel a strong biological need to feel admired by a sexual partner. Her status as a prostitute is irrelevant. Most, if not all, of my gentlemen friends try to impress me in one way or another. They are always complimentary, often bring small gifts or tokens of appreciation, and many read this column. All are unfailingly polite and conduct themselves as gentlemen because they want me to like them and more importantly, they want me to enjoy the experience. In addition to their need to feel admired, most men also have a strong biological need to feel they have satisfied their partner.
the genetic factor
Kanazawa goes on to state that if prostitution is indeed evolutionarily familiar that men's brains ought to be able to recognize prostitutes.
Ever notice how certain women simply exude more sex appeal than most? Or ones who seemingly stand out in any crowd? Amanda Brooks first discussed the possibility of the genetic prostitute in her article "A Natural History of the Prostitute".
Hypothetically speaking, if men's brains are in fact programmed to recognize a prostitute there must be genetic prostitutes, and a true genetic prostitute must be programmed in some special way to make them recognizable. This would not mean that prostitutes in today's society are necessarily of the genetic sort. If genetic prostitutes do in fact exist I would expect them to be scattered throughout society due to the fact that whore stigma and criminalization has made life quite difficult for the traditional prostitute. A few could almost certainly be found among modern working girls, however many more might be found living the good life* in a nice home, caring for their children, and attending to the needs of their husbands who in return take care of the family's needs (*see Andrea in the comments section of that link). Or perhaps one might find a genetic prostitute saying something like "I am an excellent housekeeper. When I get a divorce, I keep the house" (-Zsa Zsa Gabor). Hollywood might be a good place to look if one was actively seeking out one of these fascinating creatures. I'm pretty sure if genetic prostitutes actually do exist that a few could even be found on my blogroll to the right.
the intelligence factor
Data indicating that intelligent men are more likely to have ever paid for sex at first suggested to Kanazawa that prostitution may be evolutionarily novel:
"Intelligent men are more likely to have had sex with a prostitute than less intelligent men. According to the logic of the Hypothesis (Kanazawa's hypothesis), this suggests that prostitution is evolutionarily novel and there were no prostitutes in the ancestral environment."Maggie had another idea, indicating that this fact also has no bearing on the question of evolutionary familiarity:
"Intelligent men are less likely to believe in silly propaganda against us, and less likely to have the kind of fragile masculine ego which would be wounded by "having to pay for it." The intelligent man knows that "free tail is the most expensive kind," and can make the reasonable and pragmatic decision to spend his money on a "sure thing" rather than chasing women whose price and quality are uncertain." *Well, now that that's settled...
*For anyone suffering from cognitive impairment, here is the English-to-Stupid translation: Stupid men are too stupid to realize how much money they spend chasing after women who don't put out. All they know is that they are better than men who pay to have sex with whores!
prostitution: familiar or novel?
Despite (or perhaps due in part to) some basic differences in our philosophies, it was definitely refreshing to see an "academic" with an open mind. Lately, it sadly seems that too many people simply prefer to remain close-minded, even when it becomes painfully obvious that their rigid belief systems and long treasured misconceptions are essentially rooted in the Dark Ages. It is difficult for me to grasp the idea that a highly intelligent, well educated person such as Kanazawa genuinely understood so little about whores; in fact this concept is probably just as fascinating to me as talking to a retired whore was to him. It certainly explains a lot about how people's misconceptions about prostitutes allow them to believe the most outlandish of lies.
Following his contact with Maggie he writes:
"Prostitution is evolutionarily familiar, because mating is evolutionarily familiar and prostitutes (at least the classy ones) are no different from other women, whom men also have to pay – not in cash payments but in dinners and movies, gifts, flowers, chocolates, and motor oil – if they wanted to impress them enough to have sex with them."Prostitutes most certainly are not any different from other women, much like black people are no different from whites. Human beings are human beings, and whore stigma is just another prejudice which hopefully will soon be equally as unacceptable as prejudices stemming from skin color or sexual orientation. In regards to evolutionary familiarity however I think that his statement is only partially correct.
Advocates for sex workers rights consider decriminalization of prostitution a labor rights issue because prostitution is an occupation no different from any other. One hires a prostitute much like one hires a hairstylist, mechanic, or home health care provider. Each trades their particular service for compensation.
The original form of trade was barter; as I see it, the answer to Kanazawa's question lies in the evolutionary origin of barter and the evolutionary development of the species who built an entire world around it.
Since I don't buy into ridiculous notions of social construction of gender, I simply assume that males of our ancestry were more inclined towards hunting and females preferred caring for their young. At the lower levels of consciousness on which I assume our earliest ancestors operated they would have been aware of their physical needs: the need to eat, the need to sleep, and the need to have sex, and perhaps also aware that those around them shared the same needs. It is quite logical that barter began with the convienient exchange of physical needs - food and sex. It is unknown at what point in the evolution of the genus homo that barter actually began, however it is probable that barter is older than language. According to my line of logic, prostitution is evolutionarily familiar because barter is evolutionarily familiar and barter is only possible within the extent of the realm of consciousness.
Does this mean that prostitution is in fact the oldest profession? Not quite. By definition, compensation of some sort must be involved in order for anyone to actually prostitute themselves and so hunting and gathering must have preceded prostitution. Regardless, there is a possibility that human prostitution is almost as old as the oldest of our homo ancestors; homo habilis first appeared approximately 2 million years ago. Language most likely came into being about 200,000 years ago with the advent of homo sapiens and since we already ascertained that barter is most likely older than language, it can be logically inferred that barter as well as prostitution are most likely somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million years old.
