1. Different from conservative moralists: prostitution as the immoral plague of society
linked the "essence of prostitution" to the "nature of money itself" :
male domination + alienation
the lowest point of human dignity: The market exchange in prostitution works only to the prostitute’s indignity and humiliation because in the sensual act, “the man contributes only a minimal part of himself, but the woman her entire self.”
The men never interact with her “as real and whole persons,” and she “must feel a terrible loneliness and dissatisfaction

2. Simmel argued: “the key feature of prostitution is not polyandry, but polygyny.” That is, the advantage of the buyer (client) over the seller (prostitute) in the sexual exchange economy means that prostitution is not defined by a woman’s availability to many men but in a man’s sexual access to many women. Polygyny “diminishes uniqueness of a woman; she has lost the value of rarity.”

3. Goffman

4. Focuses on rituals which we are not aware as such, that permeate every aspect of our social encounters.
E.g: politeness and good manners
“How are you?” is not meant literally; it is a symbolic formula: not just a purely businesslike situation, but more intimate.
Status
Conversations at coctails: “small talk”: weather, etc.
To make the right contacts, to embarrass, to assert one’s superiority: the ritual creates the self

5. Durkheim vs Goffman
Goffman: rituals are analogous to the theatre; peformances that we put on
Through the drama actors give meaning to themselves, to others (and of others) and their situation. Interactions (performances before observers) deliver impressions to others according to the actors goals
Requires costumes, stages, places for the audience
Front stages vs backstages
Rituals do not only have social consequences: creating ideal images of the self; negotiating social ties; controlling others
They also require resources: material and cultural skills.
Rituals uphold and renegotiate class structure
Rituals create the self and rank selves into different social classes.

6. A front must be convincing - "in-line" with expectations
A front must be convincing - "in-line" with expectations. This is significant in terms of attributing ethical, correct or "inappropriate" (if not quite so clearly unethical) characteristics. The actor transmits information via various channels (a process to be controlled if others are to be convinced that behaviour is in line with the role and person they assume). Such credibility is won by
satisfying the expected duties and manners of an attributed role
being consistent in communication of activities and traits.

7. An "idealised" front conforms to conventions, mores and rules required by the audience (the team, the gang, the public). The aim is for the performance to be believed. The actor wants it - the audience want it. Credibility is manifested in verbal and non-verbal signifiers used
to establish intention
to verify the integrity and honesty of what is said or done and how it is said/performed.

8. Various signs and signifiers are used in projecting the front including
the Social setting (scenery, location) The front incorporates the setting and baggage we bring with us. We enter, reside in perform in and leave settings (home, office, surgery, factory floor, the board room, restaurant, bed, funeral procession, classroom). Some are relatively fixed - some vary according to time (years or moments) or place. To add to sex, age, race, dress, size - we can add speech, clothing, lap-top computer, framed diploma and posters on the wall, Mac over PC… the significance of the symbols to the actors and audience.

9. Appearance and manner Goffman differentiates between
Appearance is an element of "front" or "role". Expectations about appearance are often regularised or normative within a culture - although this is more varied today as fashion designers and followers of fashion challenge expectations. "Appearance signs" are selected (corporate and gang uniforms). Appearance works ritualistically to tell of the performer's status - formal or informal, conformity/individuality. Dress, props (clothes, car, house, food, body posture, facial expressions, gestures) serve to communicate gender, status, occupation, age and personal commitments.
Manner - how we play the role; the personal touch - works to warn others of how the performer will act or seek to act in role - dominant, aggressive, yielding, receptive etc). A manner is expected - of the doctor, the sales person, the mother

10. Dramatic Realization
Once again, human actions are not done only for their own intrinsic sake in the presence of others, they are fundamentally social in nature. People typically, in the presence of others, "dramatize" what they are doing - highlighting and emphasizing those aspects of what they are doing they want to convey most. Some professions face no problem of this dramatization, as policemen, musicians, surgeons, etc. Other professions face a little more difficulty. This often leads to the dilemma of whether one should focus on doing whatever they are doing "for their own sake", or should one be concerned more about expressing what they are doing to others.

11. Idealisation:
A performance often presents an idealised view of the situation. More specifically, we often try to seem a little better than we are. An individual's performance tends to exemplify social norm. For example, a woman may dress in certain ways in conformity to "official", common, values. However, there's a gap between our "human" self & "socialised" self. We do not merely live our "human" self but act out our "socialised" self, by playing a chosen character, defending and idealising our passions.