Lapdancing Towards A Better Tomorrow!

"Sex sells", as they always say. Depending on the people and the environment, this can be taken as either a positive or a negative. One area where this is a bit of a cognitive divide, where sex and sexuality are concerned, is of course the transhumanist movement as a whole.

Yeah, you wouldn't know that to hear Ray Kurzweil talk on and on about how sexuality is going to change in the future -- nor would you know it to hear Khannea Suntzu speak out on the subject from Second Life. But as some of the controversy within transhumanist circles demonstrates, the traditionally libertarian viewpoint of transhumanists takes a bit of a beating when sexuality rears its (sometimes ugly) head. And 'poor' Khannea has at least once been on the receiving end of that controversy.

It amazes me, that transhumanists can talk about personal autonomy and reproductive rights -- yet when it comes to 'seamier' behavior, suddenly all us geeks and nerds get stuffy and suppress our indignation. You wouldn't know that from looking at our stated goals, though:

Transhumanists seek things like intelligence augmentation, increased strength and beauty, extreme life extension, sustainable mood enhancement, and the capability to get off-planet and explore the universe.

Where does this dichotomy, then, come from -- especially within a movement that seeks what they call "cognitive liberty"? Well, the answer to that is painfully simple; unexamined biases. It's as simple as that: our society as a whole disapproves of 'sex work', and therefore, on an emotional level, so do we. It amazes me to see someone discussing the idea of women in sex-work as teaching girls that "self-exploitation is okay". (And yes, I know; the article I'm using here is almost a year old already -- hardly 'news', but it drives home the point.)


It is by no means all that surprising that libertarians should be somewhat 'further ahead' on the scale where cognitive and sexual liberty are concerned. Take, for example, this entry from Gordon Unleashed, the personal blog of the former director of communications for the National Libertarian Party. His topic? "Strippers for Ron Paul." (No, it's no mistake that today's article is so closely related to his.) He mentions two whom specifically endorse Ron Paul, one of which maintains a blog entitled, "Hustle And Cashflow." From said blog:

If any of the other major contenders get elected it will be the same mediocrity as we’ve had for the past century or so. If Ron Paul gets elected I will be able to put off my plan of eventually fleeing to Malta for at least four years. That’s a chance worth taking, in my estimation.

So what is the connection, precisely, between transhumanist libertarianism and sex work? The answer ought to be obvious, yet seems not to be -- at least, there doesn't seem to be any other mention of it anywhere in google's search results. That being the case, the semi-euphemistic title of this entry comes into play: transhumanism is all about seeking out the betterments of ourselves and our natures. When done responsibly, legally, and openly, that is exactly what sex-work accomplishes for women; as "Khannea Suntzu" demonstrates; as "Hustle and Cash Flow" demonstrates; as Jenna Jameson demonstrates -- the list can go on and on. One of the areas that is most open to augmentation and enhancement, today, is one's physical appearance. This is an area that many strippers, porn stars, and prostitutes (where it is legal, which is an important distinction) take to in many cases the extreme. So in a very real sense the "sex worker culture" is inherently transhumanist. It is also very libertarian; in the senses of agorism and libertinism, at least. As a personal anecdote, I can also state that I have never knowingly met a single stripper who wasn't a Libertarian (by party affiliation); and I have met more than one; which is in and of itself fairly impressive for a hermit who doesn't see the point in patronizing said industry.

Both transhumanists and libertarians, as separate 'organizations', need all the support they can get. Both also need all the opportunity possible to demonstrate how their (our) philosophies can improve the world. In both cases, this requires outreach to accepting segments of society. So why is there so little here? Simple disdain? Echoes of elitist bias? Fear of marginalization? None is precisely "principled" as motivations or courses of action goes. So maybe, just maybe, we ought to be spending a little more time realizing that both A) need all the help we can get and B) ought to spend more time doing outreach and explaining to these women (and men) just how important to the hope of a better tomorrow they really are?