There is an inherent problem in trying to address principles to such an enormously large and varied set of activities. I’m not for one moment suggesting or encouraging that this discussion disects sex work into its myriad parts, but must acknowledge that in all industries, indeed all human activities, there are examples across the spectrum from wise and harmless, to deluded and harmful. This is just as true for sex work.
Also given the importance of intention with regards to actions, this becomes more individualised, and it is very difficult to make broad generalisations accross something as varied. I think any case could be made here, because one would find examples that embody the full spectrum of human behaviour.
I have had dealings with a range of different sex workers in the course of both my personal and professional life - and each one is very different - ie… not much point in sweeping generalisations.
I’ve found that considering what harm ensues is much more useful - and that there is no useful place for judgements.
Also different cultures have widely different approaches to this issue, and that emotional responses are common.
It requires extra care to be mindful of emotions and conditioning when responding to topics like this.
I distinguish between being a disciple of the Buddha and being a Buddhist. And actually I would suggest that one can be a lay follower of the Buddha without going for refuge despite what that sutta suggests, but that’s a different thread.
The term Buddhist means lots of different things to lots of different people. It has certain connotations in my world and they are usually around behaviours. I don’t think that there is an analogue to the current use of the word ‘Buddhist’ in the EBTs. Well, not the way it’s used by those people that I interact with on a daily basis. But of course you are free to translate these terms however you wish Venerable.
Right livelihood (samma ajiva) follows Right action. Morality becomes the foundation for the choice of livelihood- or livelihood will change accordingly… I don’t think it is possible for someone keeping the precepts to engage in sex work, at least, not for very long!
The ancient Indian 3rd precept is not the 3rd precept that most (western) people nowadays follow. The ancient Indian third precept did not prohibit a man from seeing women aside from his wife or wives as long as they were not married or protected etc. And the ancient Indian third precept did not put responsibility on females to preserve a man’s fidelity but only that a wife should be faithful to her own husband. There were a number of Buddhist courtesans in ancient India having sex with married men and they weren’t breaking the precept as it existed for ancient Indians. Nowadays we have different sexual mores and tend to rightfully reinterpret the precept to fit them. But it seems that we also tend to consciously or unconsciously project our modern and western sensibilities onto the ancient east.
I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to take a stand on anachronisms to justify our current sexual mores for all time. If even just because it deviates from truth. And I’d encourage people to look at the issue with an academic’s disinterest, lest their passions skew their ability to see clearly. Finally I’d just like to say that ancient Indian patriarchal society is not a model for modern ethical sexual mores so let’s also not project past mores onto the present as a completely reliable guide. In other words, it’s probably best to avoid being with or being a prostitute even though it technically isn’t necessarily against the precept as it was formulated for ancient Indians.
This is a very intelligent post. What I think I would add is that sex work encompasses a great deal more than prostitution, and even within the category of prostitution there are many different circumstances under which it can occur.
With regards to sex work, aside from what people typically associate with prostitution are a variety of categories of erotic and/or sexual services that do not involve the exchange of money for sexual intercourse. Women (and men) can engage in paid work as erotic dancers/performers, still photo models, actors in erotic films (whether or not they include overt sexual acts), dominatrices, and role-play actors, just to name a few. The internet has also spawned an entire category of what might be considered amateur erotic actors (exhibitionists) who in their spare time perform solo or in pairs/groups in exchange for “tips” given by viewers using an electronic currency. I won’t name any of those websites by name, but there are several sites where everyday folk shed their clothes (or not) on camera and, in the process, earn some pocket change to supplement their regular income (or just because they find it fun).
As for the circumstances under which what is historically understood as prostitution occurs, obviously there is a very sordid history of (mostly) women exploited by individuals (mostly men, but not exclusively so) who coerce them into paid sex work and then expropriate a large amount or even all of their income. I don’t think there is much question that this constitutes severe sexual misconduct, and patrons of prostitutes who clearly have been forced into providing sexual services would be violating Buddhist precepts.
On the other hand, throughout history and presently there are any number of individuals (women and men) who make a voluntary and conscious decision to earn money through providing sexual services. One can debate whether or not such a choice really is ever voluntary (given the economic and cultural circumstances under which such a decision is made), but to declare definitively that all prostitutes are sexually exploited would be to deprive these individuals of their agency in making what to them feels like a voluntary choice, one which many prostitutes (e.g., in Western European countries where prostitution is legal) say “empowers” them.
So it is helpful probably to avoid universal declarations about how sex work figures into Buddhist teachings. I am humble enough to admit that I am not in a position to unilaterally draw a line on a complex issue. But I could be persuaded that all sex work violates Buddhist precepts.
In general, therefore, the attitude to prostitution in Påli texts seems to be this: from the ascetic–ultimate perspective, prostitutes’ behavior is a prime example of the greed, attachment, and defilement which tie all those who live the household, married life to rebirth. Some can, however, reform and attain enlightenment in the same life. From within a karmic perspective prostitutes do not, or at least do not necessarily do, wrong, and do not break the Third Precept. Men who visit them likewise do not break the Precept (they are not a Forbidden Zone, as are the Ten Women and Ten Wives), although the psychological and interpersonal ideal of monogamous fidelity would seem to tell against the habit.
I guess all of the precepts are situational, and operate within the definitions laid down within a particular society. Even something as straight forward as ‘theft’ requires a secular definition of ‘property’, which I’m guessing was also very different in ancient India (e.g. no definition of intellectual property, so no copyright laws). Nicely pointed to. Thanks polarbear.
Methuna/Sexuality the Lord has described the destruction of the bridge, the eight fold ‘aṭṭhangika magga’ difficult for the blind worlding to see, engulfed in the mire of sexual desires, repeatedly they go to the guilloteen of maya, sexuality- a boil a morass- the wise leave behind and go to where māra is blind.
