New at Reason
Cathy Young asks why prostitution is still prohibited.
Comments to "New at Reason":
MayorOmalleySuxs | May 7, 2007, 3:50pm | #
"Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?"Becuase men are exploited and we can't have men exploited.
Jozef | May 7, 2007, 3:54pm | #
"Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?"Because sex is a pleasurable activity, and we can't have such in the US. Just like we can't have gambling, drinking on Sundays, sex toys and much more (can you tell I live in Georgia?).
Because there's some history there. Prostitution isn't some novel concept where somebody in a bar in Brooklyn got the bright idea in 1983 to back up his pickup line with a few twenties.
There actually has been this thing called "prostitution" throughout human history, and it has a fairly nasty lineage. It's characterized in most parts of the world by appalling exploitation, violence, and disease. THAT'S what people want to ban - prostitution as it actually exists.
Formulating conepts of the ideal form of government, and thinking about how things would work under that system, is all well and good, but it's not very helpful in answering practical questions and effecting political change.
For the record, I agree with the policy proposal - like the Drug War, bans on prostitution just make the business more violent and increases the collateral damage.
There actually has been this thing called "prostitution" throughout human history, and it has a fairly nasty lineage. It's characterized in most parts of the world by appalling exploitation, violence, and disease. THAT'S what people want to ban - prostitution as it actually exists.
Formulating conepts of the ideal form of government, and thinking about how things would work under that system, is all well and good, but it's not very helpful in answering practical questions and effecting political change.
For the record, I agree with the policy proposal - like the Drug War, bans on prostitution just make the business more violent and increases the collateral damage.
Marcvs | May 7, 2007, 4:07pm | #
Not to mention how black market constitution makes it more difficult to police the sex slave trade, where the prostitutes really are victims.Say again?
Because this is the United Stupid Fucking States of America. Next question.
Pro Libertate | May 7, 2007, 4:07pm | #
I just found a link between the libertarian view of government and prostitution. To violate joe's copyright:There actually has been this thing called "government" throughout human history, and it has a fairly nasty lineage. It's characterized in most parts of the world by appalling exploitation, violence, and disease. THAT'S what people want to ban--government as it actually exists.
Most of the real downsides to prostitution at least in this country are the result of it being illegal. If you made it legal and regulated the hell out of it, you could put an end to human trafficing and pimps and the violence associated with the profession. In the day and age of AIDS, only a real sicko or an idiot is going to go to an unlicensed prostitute. You could use the licensing process to put the pimps and the human trafficers who use underage runaways and illegal immigrants out of business.
grumpy realist | May 7, 2007, 4:18pm | #
Because we like to pander to the loudmouth Puritans who scream incessantly about Virtue even while they're visiting the prostitutes on the side. And because the US is a totally wacko country when it comes to sexuality.I agree that most of the problems associated with prostitution step from its illegality. Legalize prostitution, regulate it, unionize the workers. NOW.
swillfredo pareto | May 7, 2007, 4:20pm | #
It is sometimes claimed that the true victims of prostitution are the johns' wives.It is also sometimes claimed that not all johns are married, nor men.
It's characterized in most parts of the world by appalling exploitation, violence, and disease.
The same goes for labor and I don't see that being banned. The thoughtful government response is to address the criminal components caught under the umbrella of the consensual adult behavior. The expedient response is to ban it without giving it any thought.
The Pimp lobby is pretty good at arm-twisting. Makes the NRA look like pikers.
It's illegal because if it wasn't everybody would be doing it and no real work would get done.
R.Totale | May 7, 2007, 4:39pm | #
It's illegal because if it wasn't everybody would be doing it and no real work would get done.
not really shooting for the moon anymore, are ya dan?
ellipsis | May 7, 2007, 4:42pm | #
I don't think it's as much a matter of puritanism as bureaucracy that keeps it illegal. There's some moral outrage about gay couples, but it's not illegal to be in a gay relationship anymore. Mostly because of grassroots GLBT organizations standing up for what they believe in the last couple decades.I don't think most Americans are against prostitution per se, it's just they don't care. And don't care + no political lobby = no change.
I know a prostitute. She is stunnning, smart and married to a pot smoking cop- in Amsterdam. When asked why she works the red light district, she said she makes 1000 Euros a night, sets her own schedule and doesn't deal with nasty people. She and her husband are swingers, so no big deal on the sex part. She uses condoms with EVERYONE.
Pro Libertate | May 7, 2007, 4:55pm | #
As far as my personal morals or inclinations go, I oppose prostitution and, for that matter, most drug use. But banning either practice causes much more trouble than the practices themselves do, and, of course, there's a libertarian argument against banning consensual activities. Still, it's the utilitarian reasons for lifting such bans that appeals most strongly to me.Tacos mmm | May 7, 2007, 4:55pm | #
It's characterized in most parts of the world by appalling exploitation, violence, and disease.Perhaps, but that wasn't what got it banned. Prostitution was legal in the United States until it was banned, along with alcohol consumption, for moral reasons in the early 20th century. The same forces that opposed booze and birth control also opposed prostitution for the same reason. It's just that the stupid ban on prostitution stuck, while the others fell through. Once dumb ideas get enshrined in law, it can take forever to change them.
It is interesting that libertarians who are for legalized prostitution still want to see it "regulated", which is kind of a way of saying "not in my neighborhood".
New Motto for libertarians
"Once dumb ideas get enshrined in law, it can take forever to change them."
"Once dumb ideas get enshrined in law, it can take forever to change them."
ktc2 | May 7, 2007, 4:58pm | #
"Not to mention how black market constitution makes it more difficult to police the sex slave trade, where the prostitutes really are victims."Oops! Think constitution should be prostitution. lol.
Marcvs | May 7, 2007, 5:00pm | #
It is interesting that libertarians who are for legalized prostitution still want to see it "regulated", which is kind of a way of saying "not in my neighborhood".You'll often see this with drug arguments as well: "Legalize pot, then you can tax the hell out of it..." My gut feeling is that these people are more libertines rather than libertarians, but some people are just bad at defending principles.
Flyover Country | May 7, 2007, 5:01pm | #
I've never understood why you can give it away, but you can't sell it.Marcvs | May 7, 2007, 5:01pm | #
Oops! Think constitution should be prostitution. lol.Yeah, I caught that in the fourth post. Doesn't appear that they have fixed it yet.
Gimme Back My Dog | May 7, 2007, 5:01pm | #
One thing about prostitution that has always puzzled me-- why are prices higher in legal Nevada brothels than from the illegal local girls? Shouldn't an illegal commodity have a risk premium?Disclaimer: Cost comparison is not from personal experience. Just from watching the various whore based documentaries on HBO.
matter of fact | May 7, 2007, 5:10pm | #
"Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?"Because that is a policy feminists and Christian Conservatives can agree on.
Neu Mejican | May 7, 2007, 5:12pm | #
"I agree that most of the problems associated with prostitution step from its illegality. Legalize prostitution, regulate it, unionize the workers. NOW."So do you need the full package to avoid the problems?
It is easy to test the assumption that legal prostitution avoids the abuses.
In the US you can look to Nevada's heavily regulated prostitution. Or the Netherlands where the workers are unionized. If abuses are largely avoided in those places you might be correct in your assumption...
But don't forget Turkey, where brothel-based prostitution is legal and regulated, and abuses are widespread and include persons held against their will (both women and children).
I imagine that for the abuses that joe mentions to be avoided you need a cultural context that respects both parties in the exchange equally, sanctions coercive force, and provides for ready access to justice for the victim if abuse occurs.
I bet that context is rare in regards to prostitution (given the ubiquitous use of some form of "whore" as an insult cross culturally).
Gimme Dog: for the same reason tvs that fell off the back of the truck are cheaper than the ones sold at Circuit City legally.
I believe prostitution is legal throughout most of the US as long you film the sex act and call it pornography.
temporary k | May 7, 2007, 5:15pm | #
just wanted to say WAY TO TAKE A STAND, Cathy!even the qualifications at the end were more clarification than vacillation. more of this please!
k
Okapi | May 7, 2007, 5:16pm | #
Gimme Back My Dog:There is a risk premium, but it goes the other way: the risky, illegal whores have to compete with the legal whores. If they were priced the same, no one would visit the illegal whores.
Legalizing prostitution doesn't eliminate illegal prostitution, or pimps, or anything else. It just makes a horrible situation slightly less horrible.
Neu Mejican | May 7, 2007, 5:16pm | #
"One thing about prostitution that has always puzzled me-- why are prices higher in legal Nevada brothels than from the illegal local girls? Shouldn't an illegal commodity have a risk premium?"They do, but it works in reverse... you pay more to avoid the risk (STD's, etc...). Think of it as a user fee for the regulation.
Neu Mejican | May 7, 2007, 5:17pm | #
Okapi covered it.NoStar | May 7, 2007, 5:18pm | #
Paying for sex never made sense to me. I like sex, but I like my money even more.And I always thought I was good enough that the women should be paying me. So, it was a wash.
ellipsis | May 7, 2007, 5:18pm | #
One thing about prostitution that has always puzzled me-- why are prices higher in legal Nevada brothels than from the illegal local girls? Shouldn't an illegal commodity have a risk premium?In a word, scarcity. Since there's only one place in the US that serves this niche, it's a rare commodity. And since there are lots of gamblers that go to the state with pockets of money anyway, they're willing to pay big bucks.
So you're in effect competing against a bunch of high rollers in a limited market. Supply and demand.
Neu Mejican | May 7, 2007, 5:23pm | #
edit to above post..."sanctions coercive force"
should be
"sanctions against coercive force"
Or better yet...
"Provides sanctions to discourage the use of coercive force"
Bucko | May 7, 2007, 5:23pm | #
"But don't forget Turkey, where brothel-based prostitution is legal and regulated, and abuses are widespread and include persons held against their will (both women and children)."This is America, buddy. We'd do it right.
I agree that we'll never get rid of prostitution, but Cathy please don't treat it as just another career choice offered by the market. The average age of entry into the trade is 14, and that entry is ususally motivated by abusive homes and addiction to drugs. There is really nothing terribly consentual about this arrangement from the provider's point of view, especially if addiction is what keeps her in the profession. Please be cognizant of these realities when commenting on the issue.
miche | May 7, 2007, 5:33pm | #
In a word, scarcity. Since there's only one place in the US that serves this niche, it's a rare commodity. And since there are lots of gamblers that go to the state with pockets of money anyway, they're willing to pay big bucks.You haven't seen the casino floor of a Vegas hotel after 3 a.m. have you?
So you're in effect competing against a bunch of high rollers in a limited market. Supply and demand.
Kwix | May 7, 2007, 5:35pm | #
I do not believe that selling sex should ever be seen as an empowering or liberating way of life, or an affirmation of female sexuality. (If anything, it perpetuates the notion that sex is something women do for male enjoyment.)So, picking a career that you are a)good at and b)makes you enough money to live well or very well is not empowering or liberating?? So, a non-coerced woman who likes sex enough to have it every night for pay is doing it just because men like it? By that extension, you must write solely because we derive enjoyment from reading.
edna | May 7, 2007, 5:37pm | #
unionize the workersbad idea. can you imagine?
"it's not doing anything."
"hey honey, can you suck on it a little?"
"oh, no, union rules, we have to get another girl in to do that. and it's after 9 pm, so you'll have to pay another girl time-and-a-half to watch. but she'll have to be from the voyeurs union."
anonymous coward | May 7, 2007, 5:40pm | #
for the same reason tvs that fell off the back of the truck are cheaper than the ones sold at Circuit City legally.You can get a transvestite at Circuit City?
bigbigslacker | May 7, 2007, 5:41pm | #
"Formulating conepts of the ideal form of government, and thinking about how things would work under that system, is all well and good, but it's not very helpful in answering practical questions and effecting political change."joe, are you refering to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians or prostitutes?
Kwix | May 7, 2007, 5:41pm | #
The average age of entry into the trade is 14, and that entry is ususally motivated by abusive homes and addiction to drugs. There is really nothing terribly consentual about this arrangement from the provider's point of view, especially if addiction is what keeps her in the profession.Much of this is because both prostitution and drug use are underground economies where the only interest the police have in it is sending all participants to jail. If prostitution were legalized, police could concentrate on getting coerced prostitutes (girls, young teens, imported sex-slaves, etc.) the help they need and busting the "pimps" that force them into the work.
You can paint this up anyway you want but the fact of the matter is, regardless of the legality of the arrangement, or your feminist or libertarian leanings, far too many johns treat prostitutes like shit.
Marshall Dillon | May 7, 2007, 5:50pm | #
"You can get a transvestite at Circuit City?"No but you can get one in Dodge City. Festus is always talking about "them there she-males".
NoStar | May 7, 2007, 5:53pm | #
The Unionized WhorehouseA man walks into a whorehouse and asks the madam,"Pardon me madam, is this a union whorehouse?"
She replies, "No, were not union."
HE says,"THEN you can’t have my business because I only shop at union businesses."
He walks into a second whorehouse and asks the madam, "Pardon me madam, is this a union whorehouse?"
She replies, "No, were not."
HE says, "THEN you can’t have my business because I only shop at union businesses."
He then walks into a third whorehouse and asks the madam, "Pardon me madam, are you a union whorehouse?"
She replies:"Why, yes we are."
HE says: "THEN you have my business because I only shop at union businesses. I'd like that pretty young blond in the corner."
She replies: "OH I’m sure you would, but you can’t have her. You'll have to take the old fat ugly one because she has seniority."
Neu Mejican | May 7, 2007, 5:59pm | #
Now that I have read the post... I notice this..."$300 an hour to $2,500 a day for her services... discreet and private sexual encounters with men—encounters that would have been perfectly legal if, instead of directly paying her for sex, those men had spent an equivalent amount on dates and gifts."
Such an odd point of view...on so many levels.
Marshall Dillon | May 7, 2007, 5:59pm | #
"You can get a transvestite at Circuit City?"No but you can get one in Dodge City. Festus is always talking about "them there she-males".
GILMORE | May 7, 2007, 6:03pm | #
prostitution is sadno, things shouldnt be illegal cause they're sad.
i wonder what all the tradeoffs are? maybe that VTech shooter (cho) could have been stopped by a $10 blowjob. Or a lot of them. Or maybe the concentration of asshole bachelors in the country would triple since there were fewer incentives to even try to deal with a crazy girlfriend. Or maybe nothing would happen since it's all just underground anyway, and it would just be taxed.
Anyway, whatever.
p.s. Pornstars arent prostitutes since i am not allowed to have them.
JG
John in Nashville | May 7, 2007, 6:13pm | #
I have been trying to think of any service other than sex which can be lawfully given away but not sold. The only things that come to mind are voting and governmental decision-making. The latter, however, is supported by taxes and the providers are thereby, at least indirectly, compensated for the service.Anyone else have any ideas?
If there are any lawyers posting here, maybe you can answer a question which has long perplexed me: How is it that prostitution is illegal, but paying a woman to have sex in a pornographic movie is not? I'm not saying morally, I'm asking from a legal standpoint. How does the porn industry not get charged with prostitution? Does the fact that both (or more than both) participants are being paid make a difference? Big-name porn actresses tend to get paid much more than the male actors they often film with, so if you pay a prostitute $400 and she pays you $5, would that make it legal? If you have a camera in the room, does that make it legal? Is there anything to stop a prosecutor from bringing charges against Jenna Jameson?
"Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?"
Because a lot of Christians haven't thought out the ramifications of the beliefs they profess. I'm Mormon, and not only does Church doctrine say that free agency is one of the most precious gifts we have, but that the devil wants to take free agency away from us. Yet, Mormon voters have enacted all kinds of laws against consensual activities -- laws that logically should be viewed as satanic in origin. When I point that out, you can just about watch the smoke pour out of their ears from the gears grating over all the cognitive dissonance.
Because a lot of Christians haven't thought out the ramifications of the beliefs they profess. I'm Mormon, and not only does Church doctrine say that free agency is one of the most precious gifts we have, but that the devil wants to take free agency away from us. Yet, Mormon voters have enacted all kinds of laws against consensual activities -- laws that logically should be viewed as satanic in origin. When I point that out, you can just about watch the smoke pour out of their ears from the gears grating over all the cognitive dissonance.
Prostitution is illegal because most people dont want to see their daughter doing it, that and the fact that it is associated with victimology. Many people, particularly in the mental health field automatically assume that people who are sex workers are bipolar and scarely, if ever, become adults.
D.A. Ridgely | May 7, 2007, 6:31pm | #
Is there anything to stop a prosecutor from bringing charges against Jenna Jameson?Editorial retribution from her uncle, J. Jonah.
swillfredo pareto | May 7, 2007, 6:42pm | #
I have been trying to think of any service other than sex which can be lawfully given away but not sold.Isn't someone from reason at a debate on the other biggie: organs? I can give away a kidney, but I can't sell it. Of course it is a good rather than a service.
"I have been trying to think of any service other than sex which can be lawfully given away but not sold. The only things that come to mind are voting and governmental decision-making. The latter, however, is supported by taxes and the providers are thereby, at least indirectly, compensated for the service.
Anyone else have any ideas?"
Try unskilled labor that is uneconomical at minimum wage or above, resulting in unpaid internships for people trying to gain the requisite experience.
Anyone else have any ideas?"
Try unskilled labor that is uneconomical at minimum wage or above, resulting in unpaid internships for people trying to gain the requisite experience.
Evan! | May 7, 2007, 6:47pm | #
"You can paint this up anyway you want but the fact of the matter is, regardless of the legality of the arrangement, or your feminist or libertarian leanings, far too many johns treat prostitutes like shit."Think about what you wrote for a second. Then think about two situations: one where selling sex is illegal, and one where it's legal. In both situations, a john "treats a prostitute like shit", AKA beats her, abuses, etc. Now, in scenario #1, where it's illegal, what recourse does said whore have? Tell her pimp? Maybe he does something, maybe he doesn't---and if he does, it won't be pretty. But in scenario #2, the woman can go to the police and report the guy.
Same with drugs...why do you think that drug disputes are solved with violence? Because it's not like a drug dealer can go to the police and say "awww, man, I was trying to sell some crack, and that other nigga stole my cash". In any black market, since the participants are all engaging in illegal activity, they are, for the most poart, unable to call upon the justice system for dispute resolution...which means more violent outcomes.
So, to answer your proposition...yes, it WOULD be different if whoring was legal. If a john beat a whore, she could go to the cops without fear of being arrested.
mediageek | May 7, 2007, 6:50pm | #
"How is it that prostitution is illegal, but paying a woman to have sex in a pornographic movie is not?"As I understand it, filming a spank vid is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Also, I don't think you can really shoot a porno anywhere in the US. Certainly this does happen all over the US, behind closed doors and taped curtains, but if you get caught, I imagine that the reaction you'd get from the authorities in Slackjaw, MS would be quite different than the one you'd get from the authorities in the San Fernando Valley.
Kwix | May 7, 2007, 7:01pm | #
MG,Did you mean that sentence to read,"Also, I don't think you can really shoot a porno just anywhere in the US."?
You are correct that an adult vid is a)protected under Amendment 1 and b)you are paying the actors for, well, "acting". That they have sex together is immaterial to what it is you are compensating them for, which is their portrayal of sexual deviants on film.
Pi Guy | May 7, 2007, 7:09pm | #
"I've never understood why you can give it away, but you can't sell it."How 'bout this: If you pay a woman to havae sex with you, it's illegal. However, if you pay a woman to have sex while you video it and put on the intertubes, well that's just peachy!
Well, it has gotten to the point of no return in this country when it comes to drugs so I suppose it will have to get that bad before prostitution get legalized. We elect idiots in this country; we get what we pay for.I wonder...will there have to be a really horrendous outbreak of AIDS and TB, etc before the public health authorities overrule the idiots? Similarly with drugs.In this case though I don't hold out any hope. It seems to me the money from cocaine, meth, etc is so huge and the drugs themselves so demonized they will never be regulated. What scares me is that there are political authorities that know this and are not talking about it at all. We know that because of fifty+ years of illegality the criminal underground is now as powerful as any force from any nation that should choose to oppose them; and if they wanted to they could demonstrate just how powerful they are, for instance by engaging in numerous and deadly kidnappings to illustrate what they would resort to if deprived of the easy money from drugs. No, I am afraid the USA is going to realize nurturing a huge criminal empire is a fatal toxin.
Getting prostitution off the streets, along with the drug trade, would greatly improve the quality of life in low-income neighborhoods. Right now, I'm living in a neighborhood where both are really bad. We have separate drug and prostitution hotlines that will allegedly get the cops right out to investigate anonymous complaints. Puts me in a conundrum, since I think those activities should be legal. On the other hand, I'm no more happy than anyone else in the neighborhood about the drug-related shootings, or the fact that getting from the subway to my house means walking down sidewalks where prostitutes are loitering and johns are cruising them. It's just not a safe environment. I can't imagine having to bring up kids in my neighborhood. Fortunately for me, I've got options that many of my neighbors don't have. I can drive to work instead of taking public transit. If I want to pay more for rent, I can easily pony up another $400 or so a month and live in a much nicer neighborhood. My neighbors, who are mostly low-income immigrants, aren't so lucky.
I wonder what the average person in my neighborhood would have to say about legalizing prostitution, if legalization meant that the trade would be regulated and circumscribed by location. It would be much easier to keep the streets decent and safe if it were.
I wonder what the average person in my neighborhood would have to say about legalizing prostitution, if legalization meant that the trade would be regulated and circumscribed by location. It would be much easier to keep the streets decent and safe if it were.
carrick | May 7, 2007, 8:50pm | #
Back when sex outside of marriage was illegal, soliciting someone to commit a crime for a fee would also be a crime.Since the blue laws have been repealed almost everywhere, sex between consenting adults outside of marriage has been decriminalized. However, the laws regarding solicitation were not repealed at the same time.
So we now have a situation where it is illegal to solicit someone to commit an act for money where the underlying act is no longer a crime.
Asharak | May 7, 2007, 9:00pm | #
It's illegal because if it wasn't everybody would be doing it and no real work would get done.Just the kind of answer we'd expect from ersatz liberal Dan T., who also supports the racist drug war. Don't forget, it's about protecting "the children", right, Dan?
Asharak | May 7, 2007, 9:15pm | #
It is interesting that libertarians who are for legalized prostitution still want to see it "regulated", which is kind of a way of saying "not in my neighborhood".Wasn't it you who said that you supported anti-drug laws because you didn't want drug users making your neighborhood look bad or something like that? I figure you support anti-prostitution laws for similar reasons, you hypocritical, irony-challenged git.
Yogi | May 7, 2007, 9:47pm | #
It is interesting that libertarians who are for legalized prostitution still want to see it "regulated", which is kind of a way of saying "not in my neighborhood".I think most libertarians who have some sense of what's politically practical would agree that going from prohibition to heavily regulated is going in the right direction.
You have to treat the general public like a teenager. If you have been making them live in a nanny-state for their entire lives, and then give them all kinds of freedom when they go to college, they'll either end up on Girls Gone Wild, party themselves into a Recreational Studies major, or spend all their time playing video games. However, if you teach them how to be responsible in small increments, they can handle it responsibly and turn out okay.
BakedPenguin | May 7, 2007, 9:48pm | #
Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?Because paying for sex makes baby Jesus cry...
Asharak | May 7, 2007, 10:00pm | #
Congrats on post # 69, Asharak!Gracias.
I also noticed Dan's been ducking my bringing up his support for anti-drug laws, but here's a link for him to read anyway.
brotherben | May 7, 2007, 10:28pm | #
It is still illegal because outside christian circles, when sex becomes a simple market commodity, women then have no real value. Its what makes em "special." I dont believe women could live with that as it would take away their power.Grotius | May 7, 2007, 11:08pm | #
joe,Perhaps you ought to share your notions with the International Union Of Sex Workers or TheCanadian Guild For Erotic Labor.
Lots of sex workers like their jobs and would I am sure love to practice their trade in the open.
I agree that we'll never get rid of prostitution, but Cathy please don't treat it as just another career choice offered by the market. The average age of entry into the trade is 14, and that entry is ususally motivated by abusive homes and addiction to drugs. There is really nothing terribly consentual about this arrangement from the provider's point of view, especially if addiction is what keeps her in the profession. Please be cognizant of these realities when commenting on the issue.
I bet you have a link to the data that supports these claims right at hand. I'll wait right here.
I bet you have a link to the data that supports these claims right at hand. I'll wait right here.
As for things that it's legal to give away, but not sell, ask the sainted Virginia Postrel. It's not legal to see sell your internal organs, even after death. I suppose many people just can't bear the sight of desperate people selling their kidneys to raise cash. I've never seen anyplace that pays cash for whole blood, either, though cash for plasma is common.
Ispdrudge | May 8, 2007, 1:57am | #
I can think of another one: babies. You can give a child up for adoption, but you can't get paid, as it smacks of slavery.Since y'all'er so smart, is there anything that is legal to sell, but not give away?
kevrob | May 8, 2007, 2:56am | #
ispd:I once worked at a shop that liked to throw the occasional wine and cheese party for the clientele. The city told us that we had to stop that until we paid for special event licensing and hired licensed bartenders to dispense the vino. We couldn't get a permanent liquor or beer & wine license, as the alderman wouldn't allow anymore on our block than there already were. Catch-22.
Kevin
miche | May 8, 2007, 3:16am | #
Hubby and I got freaky today. We pulled out the video recorder during our afternoon delight and on playback, he realized that I'm not only a good fuck for him, but my ass looks hot on camera.I told him we should sell my video or my ass. I would make really good cash selling bits of myself that it doesn't really bother me and we could retire to Buenos Aires. It's a no go in my house, but not for any reason other than pride. A parter of his
Mark | May 8, 2007, 7:48am | #
Because prostitution is a part of a pornography addiction, much like drugs is an addiction. Pornography and/or sex addictions sometimes leads to more serious crimes, including rape and murder. Even if prostitution doesn't lead, in most cases to those crimes, it nevertheless basically leaves the "john" unsatisfied and craving more fulfilment. (Sex without love is like chocolate without peanuts. Sweet but not fulfilling) It tends to escalate rather than satisfy the desire to fulfill, thus creating a sort of fervor to investigate more unnatural types of sex. There has been a market created by this drive for the ultimate sexual fulfillment: It is called the Snuff film, and that most certainly is a crime.It does indeed victimize the client, as it takes advantage of puerile desires and robs the client of money, not to mention self esteem.
crimethink | May 8, 2007, 9:41am | #
As far as the porn vs prostitution thing goes, I don't think the guy who "stars" in the video is allowed to be the one paying the actress.crimethink | May 8, 2007, 9:43am | #
Also, there's a lot of bookkeeping that porn producers have to do to comply with Federal anti-kiddie-porn laws; not the kind of thing that your avg john is looking to get himself into.crimethink | May 8, 2007, 9:45am | #
Mark,I'm a virgin, and even I can't believe how naive your viewpoint on sex is. I know a lot of people who are totally content with loveless sex (and chocolate without peanuts for that matter).
Puta | May 8, 2007, 9:57am | #
"So, to answer your proposition...yes, it WOULD be different if whoring was legal. If a john beat a whore, she could go to the cops without fear of being arrested."How odd that you would equate "johns treat prostitutes like shit" with "a john beat(ing) a whore". I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't actually know any prostitutes.
dhex | May 8, 2007, 10:20am | #
"It tends to escalate rather than satisfy the desire to fulfill, thus creating a sort of fervor to investigate more unnatural types of sex."so say this like it's a bad thing?
purity for the puritans!
sodom for the sodomites!
little american flags for everyone.
Neu Mejican | May 8, 2007, 11:33am | #
Grotius,"Snuff films are an urban legend."
Except when they're not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
GILMORE | May 8, 2007, 11:52am | #
Because prostitution is a part of a pornography addictionJesus mark, where do you get this tripe?
"Sex addiction" is a set of moral beliefs hiding under a cloak of science. The 'science' behind pornography addiction all starts with basic premises that are themselves assumptions, e.g. =
- "Sex is only considered healthy in committed, monogamous, heterosexual relationships"
- "There are "obvious" limits to healthy sexual expression (for example, masturbation more than once a day)"
- "Choosing to use sex to feel better about yourself or to escape from problems is unhealthy."
3 strikes here, and you're a sex addict.... which more or less makes any unmarried sexually-active male between 18-35 an 'addict'. Total bunk.
one of the leading pushers of the sex addiction idea (she testified before congress in 2004?)...whats her name...Ahh, Judith Reisman...
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/white_papers.html
shes also big on the theory that the Nazis were actually a giant gay movement, and that, like their gayness and shit is why they killed all those people. Cause they were gay. All of them. Gay Nazis. It makes sense, right? Gay = Bad, Nazi = Bad.
This 'science' is like Dr. Leonard Jeffries for uptight white folks.
That said, I was hoping someone would present some reasoned argument for why prostitution should at least be discouraged in a culture, if not outright banned. Again, I agree with the basic libertarian impulse to let markets work it out, but there is something stickier (erk) here that can't be so easily dismissed. I dont think prostitution is ultimately good for either the vendor or customer. Who am I to say though? It's my feeling. However, I'm not prepared to make up reasons using junk argument like Mark above.
GILMORE | May 8, 2007, 11:57am | #
I will add that chocolate is vastly superior when completely free of peanutsI also think peanut-chocolate eaters are a bunch of perverted sickos that need to straighten up and learn to eat their goddamn chocolate without these unecessary and decadent roasted legumes stuffed inside what used to be a perfectly normal and decent milk/cocoa confection.
R C Dean | May 8, 2007, 12:12pm | #
Its the usual question:Are the bad aspects of prostitution inherent to the sex trade, or a product of the fact that it is a black market?
Personally, I lean toward the latter, but as observed above I suspect that cultural context matters a lot.
Grotius | May 8, 2007, 12:32pm | #
Neu Mejican,A snuff film must also include a profit motive. Indeed, that is exactly what snuff films are advertised to be - films made with the purpose of selling them to an audience who would enjoy such a thing.
So, did this guy have a profit motive? If not, then it wasn't a snuff film.
Next?
is there anything that is legal to sell, but not give away?
Kevrob already eluded to this but, as someone who worked in the restaurant industry for quite a while, I can attest to the many weird laws from place to place regarding the dispensing of alcohol.
In some places it's illegal to have a night where females drink free. They can buy it, or have it bought for them, but it can't be free in any way.
Kevrob already eluded to this but, as someone who worked in the restaurant industry for quite a while, I can attest to the many weird laws from place to place regarding the dispensing of alcohol.
In some places it's illegal to have a night where females drink free. They can buy it, or have it bought for them, but it can't be free in any way.
Neu Mejican | May 8, 2007, 2:01pm | #
Grotius,"A snuff film must also include a profit motive."
According to you.
Pretty restrictive definition.
Next...
djg | May 8, 2007, 2:08pm | #
You can have "fun" in Georgia, it just depends on the county and the vice squadI wonder if it's still legal to hire a thirteen-year-old to babysit, but illegal to leave a couple of your kids alone in your home if the oldest one is only 13.
Grotius | May 8, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Neu Mejican,I'd say that it is a fairly common definition of the term actually. All definitions are restrictive.
The most common definition of a snuff film is of a motion picture showing the actual murder of a human being that is produced, perpetrated, and distributed solely for the purpose of profit. This definition thereby excludes recordings of murders caught by accident, and videotapes of actual murders that were never intended to be released as entertainment films. Given these criteria, the existence of snuff films is highly questionable, and commercial snuff films have long been relegated by skeptics to the realm of urban legend and moral panic. To date, no film generally accepted as fitting this definition has been found.
Camille Paglia | May 8, 2007, 3:55pm | #
Feminists are constantly carrying on aboutsnuff films. Where are they? I want to see one! They don't exist. Maybe
there was one in history, and people mythologized about it. When we go to
see a mystery film, we don't want to see a real person being killed on camera.
That would be appalling. When we go to Hamlet, we don't want to see real
people die on stage. We accept the fictional motif of someone being killed
for whatever reasons, political or romantic. I maintain that a snuff film,
insofar as it violates a taboo, is culturally necessary at this moment. As
an intellectual, I have an obligation to find the taboos and violate them
before they become cliche's. I call for snuff films to be made. Not real
snuff films where a woman is killed, but a fictional enactment of this snuff
scenario that is so feared and abhorred by contemporary feminism. That would
be a true avant-garde gesture.
J Golden Rockwell | May 8, 2007, 9:05pm | #
Not only is it legal to pay for sex, the courts often mandate it.They call it "child support."
James | May 8, 2007, 9:24pm | #
But there is a vast difference between social stigma and criminal prosecution, between personal moral judgment and the nanny state.Social stigma has been outlawed, in large measure due to libertarians themselves. The same is true for "personal moral judgements". You are free to make them, but you had best keep them to yourself.
In my view this is a pervision of true libertarianism, buts it's what Reason and other big government libertarians are selling. Individuals would not really be free to do what they wished if other people in general could ostracize them for it.
James | May 8, 2007, 9:33pm | #
In some places it's illegal to have a night where females drink free. They can buy it, or have it bought for them, but it can't be free in any way.Many places have anti-discrimination laws. I suppose these places could give drinks away for free to anyone of any sex if they wished. But you can't legally discriminate on the basis of sex. Or of race, religion, or several other factors. What would you think if your local bar had days where white people, and only white people, drank for free?
bude | May 8, 2007, 9:37pm | #
Gimme Back My Dog says:"One thing about prostitution that has always puzzled me-- why are prices higher in legal Nevada brothels than from the illegal local girls? Shouldn't an illegal commodity have a risk premium?
Disclaimer: Cost comparison is not from personal experience. Just from watching the various whore based documentaries on HBO."
Lots of other folks have taken a run at this, but they haven't quite got it.
What you see on HBO can be classified as advertising. Really.
And when was the last time you paid Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price for a car?
I'm sure that some people actually pay MSRP for cars, and that same subset (colloquially known as "suckers") pays the prices mentioned in the shows. In general, the prices at the lesser known bordellos - there are three others within a stones throw of the MBR - are significantly lower than the HBO MSRP, and I suspect that the "real" prices there are in that same ballpark.
Lots of porn junkies (and would-be sex junkies) here who seem to have convinced themselves that the only reason they are not getting more is because of the mean ole' gubbmint. Stop whacking off and make an effort to develop some personality.
Stephen | May 8, 2007, 10:12pm | #
Sex is the Appetizer ~ Death is the Main Course ~ A meal between children is a different matter entirely.Why is it,you have not asked Satan is totally clear to me.
Jay | May 8, 2007, 10:20pm | #
Ultimate in 'victimless crimes'? The legalization of prostitution in Germany having two deleterious effects: (1) it has made those in the sex industry legitimate employers who could make job offers to the unemployed, which triggered the state to say that if the unemployed person refused the offer that she would lose her benefits;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml
(2) Russian organized crime syndicates moved in got involved in human trafficking and the state has less incentive to prioritize intervention http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjY1NA==
When all is said and done ~ In the end,there will not be anymore sex for the woman will be missing from the memory of Man. In addition what is free will not be for Sale ~ Blessings
Bob Mnemos | May 8, 2007, 11:13pm | #
Go to any neighborhood where there are some reasonably good marriages and ask the wives (doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative) if they'd mind if a few prostitutes plied their trade in the neighborhood. I think you'd find out pretty quick why in the Real World (tm), which no here seems to be from, prostitution has never been openly accepted in society. Even the places where it's "legal" are heavily restricted for that very reason.I'm a criminal investigator and I see a great deal of prostitution. It's strictly drugs, thugs, disease, violence, and pathetic lost women addicted to crack -- who'll do anything for more crack. They're exploited by men who'll use them unspeakably for a rock. Their circumstances are filthy and dangerous. Why does anybody think we can "regulate the hell" out of the prostitution business? Does anybody really imagine these people are suddenly going to play by the rules? Will regulation solve the crack problem? Please get real.
And I've spent the last three years after a maniac who's killed at least 8 prostitues, attacked many more. He picks them because they are easy marks.
Prostitution is evil.
And I've spent the last three years after a maniac who's killed at least 8 prostitues, attacked many more. He picks them because they are easy marks.
Prostitution is evil.
KarmiCommunist | May 8, 2007, 11:28pm | #
Not that i disagree with yore premise here...Now, try substituting that premise with:
Whores and Wars
...so to speak whilst wondering why the Libertarian (i am a 'Boortz' Libertarian) Party thinks that Individual freedom is free when it comes to two Individual consenting adults (gay or not), but that such freedom should not be protected until the enemy arrives on our 'shores'.
Stevo Darkly | May 8, 2007, 11:59pm | #
And I've spent the last three years after a maniac who's killed at least 8 prostitues, attacked many more. He picks them because they are easy marks.Why is that? Because their work is illegal and therefore they find it difficult to obtain police protection? And find it more difficult to associate with people who are not scum?
Or do you get a lot of witnesses coming forward who say, "I'm a prostitute/frequently associate with prostitutes, and I'd like to talk to you about a guy I encountered who may be the maniac you're looking for"?
Anyway, meanwhile, I hope you catch the guy.
The question presupposes its own answer. Within the libertarian belief system it is taken as axiomatic that any transaction between consenting adults should be permitted. This is a completely arbitrary viewpoint. The mere fact that its adherents hold it with great fevor does not change that.
J Golden Rockwell | May 9, 2007, 12:48am | #
Years ago, I had a pen pal who I eventually discovered worked in a Nevada brothel. We talked about her work, and she put it simply:"A guy will spend fifty bucks to take a girl to a nice dinner and a movie to persuade her to go to bed with him.
"I'd rather have the money."
Tim Peterson | May 9, 2007, 1:52am | #
I think a better libertarian argument against prostitution is that the libertarian ideal of unfettered buying and selling in the sex arena ignores many other unsavory market transactions that cannot be truly characterized as free. For example, the sex industry and illegal sex slave trade are inextricably interlinked, where young and vulnerable girls from Third World countries are kidnapped and literally forced into a life of prostitution, and through physical threats to them or their families, kept in that life. The reduced cost of the sex transaction in real terms would only increase the demand for sex acts, prostitutes, and ultimately, victims of the illegal sex trade. Prostitution also invites pimps into the transaction. The pimp exchanges promises of protection for a percentage of the take, but often prevents the prostitute from shopping around for a better pimp through threats of violence or other unsavory behavior. Again, the libertarian ideal of parties freely entering into this sexual transaction does not apply, as one party is not completely free to do so.Some of these externalities might be mitigated by a government licensing scheme, but that could lead to other problems. Such a scheme could put the government close to the records of these brothels. The stigma of hiring a prostitute would linger even in a regulated environment, so one can easily imagine the government improperly obtaining these records for improper purposes such as blackmail.
And finally, the increased number of prostitutes would need an address to ply their trade, and such addresses would become known, reducing property values in that neighborhood and negatively impacting families and marriages.
Neu Mejican | May 9, 2007, 1:58am | #
Grotius,I'll call your wikipedia and raise you a dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snuff+film
"a pornographic film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act."
Like any genre of film there are the commercially motivated and the artistically motivated creators. I cited an example of the artistically motivated.
Let's not even get into the latest incarnation... the politically motivated snuff film.
goofy | May 9, 2007, 3:05am | #
Same reason as public gambling,smoking and growing your own pot, music sharing and helping each other out for free etc. : Money!The government and the industry doesn`t get money. Its that simple.
People who think otherwise are just following what the government and industry is telling them.
goofy | May 9, 2007, 3:13am | #
Its all about power and money and keeping it for themselves and not the people which in fact might be good at this time but that is all changing as people progress and start thinking their own thoughts.In most states ADULTERY is grounds for divorce, if you legalize prostitution you would have to rewrite the law to remove adultery, or, only single people (men and women) could pay for sex, mostly men. Honestly unless you have groupies chasing you and will do anything you ask most men are paying for sex. Most women can have sex whenever they want, hence, women put conversation and emotions above sex, while men have to earn it and are disciplined by the woman withholding sex. Make-up sex is nothing more than the man caving so the woman wins and he gets sex again. This is married and single life, if you haven't experienced this...you will.
Tito | May 9, 2007, 10:47am | #
Well goofy you are right, its about money. but not they way you think. You see, moraly many people are against prostitution and its not difficult to see why. Then again even legal or morally sound things can turn ugly, why? because we are human and its in our nature to destroy. Its kind of like having schools, how wondeful, everyone gets an education, then it turns ugly when schools are underfunded and students are not really getting prepared for the future. Perhaps not the best example but just to give you an idea of my point. You see the reality is that if prostitution got legalized, its not going to turn into a happy flowery everyone gets what they want situation. It will still be ugly because people will make it ugly. Whores will still be exploited and abused, and horrible things will happen not to mention all the unintended consequenses that will ensue. Take alchohol, its legal and regulated but guess what, they still have to deal with moonshiners and such. Getting back to the money issue, the reason why it should be lagalized is because of money my money, tax payer money. How much money does it cost to prosecute a case? To police the streets to arrest Johns and prostitutes? to keep offenders in jail? How much is the average sex transaction worth? How much revenue could be made from taxing it? If we use alchohol as an example we can conclude that illegal transactions will not disappear but they will be reduced, and wether its legal or not people will buy it so why not tax it since its at its most basic form the selling of a service. There are still problems with alchohol but nothing like in the days of the prohibition, so why not do the same with prostitution. Im sure supporters of the prohibition in those days suggested that if booze was legal people would drink all day and get nothing done. Well i can tell you that i actually know a few people like that but that is definetly not the norm. So for all of you who think that if paying for sex was legal, that men would not get girlfriends and just pay a hooker, please try to use common sense and realise that people who do such things are clearly not the majority and would do simiraly with sex drugs alchohol or anything else if so inclined. So to recap, legalize prostitution, regulate it and tax it, realize that problems will still occur, victims will still exist but will now have legal recourse, certain social problems will emerge but others will be mitigated, money will be made and not by street pimps, please, PLEASE realize that if you find prostitution appaling then you need not participate in it, and that you are free to decide. We could spend all day arguing how bad prostitution can be but the truth of it is that anything and everything can be bad if taken to an extreme.God gave us freedom, not the goverment, the goverment just keeps trying to take it from us little by little...
Now to end on a Carlin joke: (I apologize for the cuz words in advance hah!)
Selling is legal...
Fucking is legal...
Why isnt selling fucking legal!!!???!!!??
oh and to mess with your head, how much does the average date to a nice restaurant go for...? ( and keep in mind sex is not assured )
offtopic | May 9, 2007, 11:01am | #
continuing the off-topic dialogue about snuff films between Grotius and NeuMejicanSnuff films exist, even if one allows the restrictive definition of filming a murder for monetary compensation. Exemplars include the murder of persons in Iraq posted to various websites and aired on various networks with the express purpose of recruitment and fund-raising.
(Do we even need to count the edited versions aired on the likes of Fox and CNN for the purposes of raising ratings, and thus advertising dollars?)
I can pay a woman to climb down into my septic tank and suck up offal and effluvients to her hearts content. I can also pay her to change my diapers, take stool samples, pop pimples on my posterier.......and so on and so forth, but I can't pay to have a little fun sex.The world is mad!
Suicide | May 9, 2007, 11:28am | #
Cathy, why do you assume Ms. Britton committed suicide because of her trial? Might she have committed suicide because of the publicity? Unless you are saying legalization will reduce the social stigma, which it undoubtedly will.ttruth | May 9, 2007, 11:34am | #
re: Why do the Nevada prostitutes cost more than the illegal ons?Another aspect, especially concerning the HBO specials, is that a lot of the women in the specials are porn stars making a few extra bucks on the Ranches. There's a subset of men who get off on "I nailed a famous porn star"; they get charged a premium.
h | May 9, 2007, 12:01pm | #
There's nothing reasonable about this argument. How many prostitutes does the author know? How fulfilling is their life? How much do they like degrading themselves or being forced into degrading themselves.Prostitution is time-limited slavery. Should slavery be legal even if it were "consensual?" No, because for one human being to be so degraded all of humanity becomes degraded.
Tito | May 9, 2007, 12:41pm | #
Hah, a little too late for thatTito | May 9, 2007, 12:45pm | #
Bah, ppl dont care because most ppl see it as wrong or immoral so the concept of civil liberty or actual socio-economic improvement wont be sufficient argument for them to demand any change, most people will say, well im not looking to go pay for sex so it might as well stay illegal...besides no matter how many "pretty woman" clones come out trying to glorify prostitution, it will always be seen as part of the seedy, dark underbelly of society.etcetc | May 9, 2007, 12:59pm | #
Grumpy realist wrote: "Because we like to pander to the loudmouth Puritans who scream incessantly about Virtue even while they're visiting the prostitutes on the side. And because the US is a totally wacko country when it comes to sexuality."Riiight. All religious people who think prostitution is a bad idea are using prostitutes. Next fantasy, please!
Admittedly, GR is an easy target, but I also find Young's argument to be the usual unpersuasive "if we legalize it, we can regulate it" argument that pretends:
A) That any moral conotations of the issue are meaningless because, "Well, I don't like it myself but who really cares what people do?" That may persuade the hell out of libertine libertarians, but many other people do care about what the commodification of sex means to human relationships, the institution of marriage, the objectification of women, and the denegration of sex to something no more meaningful than an evening at Wild Sally's Amusement Park of Flesh. Imagine Disney with hookers to get the last point. All of these elements relate to moral objections about sex and all are little touched on by the libertarian view, except dismissively, including in Young's article.
B) It doesn't really work. She quotes Australian numbers on HIV/AIDS but such argumentation relies on the idea that all prostitutes are registered and surveyed by the state, and that the transmission of STDs is the only practicable issue in regards to health. Condoms break, and the numbers go up in situations where sexual activity is frequent. Thus not only HIV and STDs are a concern, but increase pregnancies and injuries to the reproductive system (from abortions and violently oriented customers) are other health hazards. Furthermore, the assumption that all prostitutes will line up to pay taxes and submit to regulation is far-fetched. The influence of organized crime, violent and controlling pimps, and other hazards will not simply disappear because something is legalized. Indeed, if it were that easy, enforcement of prostitution would have resolved these problems long ago. Rather, the legalization of prostitution is simply a way to sweep these problems under the rug, as the supposedly modern European and other developed nations that have legalized the process have done.
Finally, the arguments about the dangers and tragedies of "criminilization" are rather predictable. Unfortunately, they are also almost always anecdotal. The suicide of Brandy Britton may very well be a tragic thing, but thousands of prostitutes are arrested annually in the US who don't commit suicide. Britton's suicide may or may not have been related to her prostitution (Young is very slippery about that detail) or it may have been other things, her unethical academic career, or depression (the cause of the vast majority of suicides) or a combination. The case of unethical detectives is another anecdotal situation.
The particular problem with complaining about excesses in this case is that, well they ARE excesses. Unlike excesses in drug law, such as some of the confiscatory policies or inequitable sentencing, situations which can be clearly distinguished from the actual legal and moral arguments about drug legalization, Young points to a suicide and criminal activity on the part of unethical law enforcement officers but offers us no concrete link. Does the illegality of prostitution cause additional suicides and greater police criminality. That case is much, much hard to make than Young pretends.
Ultimately, Young doesn't make the case, and neither does the stereotyping of anti-prostitution forces here sway anyone who is not already predisposed to legalizing sex-for-hire. Young sees the prohibition as "nanny-state" behavior, but fails to get beyond that sloganeering with arguments that dent the real problems people have with prostitution - it abuses women, cheapens sex, and damages society.
If you like the European solution to these issues though, there's always immigration.
Tito | May 9, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Hah!"theres always immigration" thats pretty funny but dont you mean emmigration? I assume u meant to say if they dont like it they can get the hell out right? Anyway i always love it when people accuse others of not supporting their arguments and then go boldly making unsupported arguments themselves...
etcetc said:
" Condoms break, and the numbers go up in situations where sexual activity is frequent. Thus not only HIV and STDs are a concern, but increase pregnancies and injuries to the reproductive system (from abortions and violently oriented customers) are other health hazards"
whats the failure rate of condoms? like 1%? not exacty heavy weight support there?
and how exactly does "the commodification" affect "human relationships, the institution of marriage" etc???
dont get me wrong im sure it does but how would it change if it were legal? would the social stigma be any different if it were legal? would it be any more acceptable to cheat on your wife with a prostitute than say your neighbor? Nope, you r still an adulterer either way.
This is all just cultural, people here have such strange notions about sex, they need to realize that it happens, it has always happened and it will continue to happen. I say let people sort it out by themselves with God. The only reason goverment needs to get involved is to keep things orderly, hence the taxing and regulating arguments, i mean if theres something they are good at, is making money off the people. Its kinda like alchohol, people are just gonna keep drinking so let them do it in a regulated manner so as to maintain an orderly society, its not like now we think being an alchoholic is ok now that its legal. Id really push this more if they did a study to see if money could be made or saved by legalizing and taxing the sex trade...
Guy Montag | May 9, 2007, 3:42pm | #
Congratulations on being mentioned by Jonah over at NR's The Corner!I remember some wag said about prostitution, "It's a combination of free enterprise and sex-Which one are you against?"
Tony Flagg | May 9, 2007, 5:04pm | #
Fools, prostitution is so 1820ish. I get paid to make porn!My own take is that most ppl aren't so much against prostitution per se as against _streetwalking,_ b/c of the annoyance factor and b/c it is a really crappy deal for the streetwalkers.
Alessandra | May 10, 2007, 2:22pm | #
1-The question to ask is: Why should society sanction the use of force to keep people (mostly women) from engaging in sex for money, if it is done consensually?..................................................
2- I really don't understand the arguments that hiring a prostitute for her "body part" is any different than hiring a circus strong man for his physical attributes.
The argument that prostitution is illegal? That's a laugh.
==============================
Above is a parasitical perspective. Saying that there's no difference between prostitution and sitting at your computer terminal, and it's all "just work," is like a propaganda slogan.
Ask these pro-prostitution guys if they would encourage their wives to be a prostitute, or be a prostitute themselves, and usually we get a no. If it were just another "job," they and their wives wouldn't mind prostituting themselves to hetero and homosexuals alike -- since it's all claimed to be just like a sports massage, or being a hairdresser. But that usually doesn't
apply. Why stop there? They could do the same with their own children. If there's nothing wrong with prostitution, why not their own kids (of legal age)?
If prostitution is "just work," we are sure that any of these guys would take their own daughters and sons, and instead of telling them to work at McDonalds to earn some extra cash, they would encourage them to prostitute themselves, starting at the legal consent age of 16 in DC, for example.
And since prostitution is "just a service," instead of mowing the neighbor's grass, they would offer their children to perform sex to the entire neighborhood, including the 60 year old pervert down the road, the alcoholic, the 3 homosexuals with syphilis (using a condom, of course, because this is a responsible father who prostitutes their own children!) I'm sure they would love to see their own children sucking other human beings for a buck -- that's what kind of men they are. And they could use their job connections to get clients with more money to pay for their kids' services - that's how much they care.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The truth is parasites are really comfortable with all kinds of sexual abuse and exploitation as long as the damage and hurt remains with someone else's kid. ( And we might add, given the epidemic rates of child abuse, the latter can only be said for the non-abusers ).
And this isn't even delving into all the studies proving the high degree of sexual/domestic abuse victims that get trapped into prostitution, etc. Although this is not saying all prostitutes have this same battered profile, this very violent reality also cannot
be negated for millions of children and adults caught in prostitution systems around the world.
How much do you have to be a parasite regarding human relations on a personal level and how much do you have to destroy a context of dignity, intimacy, respect, and love to begin thinking that degrading forms of sexual interaction are legitimate and good? And harmless?
The answer is a lot. Sadly, these kinds of attitudes are being increasingly normalized in society, and the damage they cause go way beyond some little DC madam scandal.
There is no space here to go into the question of the "consensual" label masking an enormous web of underlying problems as well; that's a key issue too in prostitution.
(p.s. and we can also note that pornography is not different than prostitution in many of these respects as well.)
Charlie | May 11, 2007, 12:45pm | #
Alessandra,You make some very good points, but not for criminalization. Criminalization of any type of consensual behavior only makes the problem IMMENSELY worse. Look at our government's previous attempt at prohibition concerning alcohol. It caused tremendous crime. Look at the issue now, with alcohol being legal - you don't see Budweiser pushing beer at the playground, do you? Also, look at another of our "leader's" current attempts at prohibition - since the inception of the "The Drug War" the drug problem is HUGELY worse. Why? Simply because of prohibition, nothing else.
Alessandra | May 12, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Charlie,There is absolutely no space here to discuss here what can be done about prostitution. (It takes at least a book, given that there are so many things a society can do that go way beyond the legal/illegal decision). Your analogies to drugs and alcohol are very faulty and simplistic, starting with the fact that so much in prostitution systems is not consensual and does not include free nor informed choices.
If you really want to delve into the issue, there are books with comparative studies regarding prostitution measures around the world, including underage prostitution.
You are wrong to think that no country has ever had measures put into place that didn't have a significant ameliorating impact on the prostitution problem (to diminish it, and to reduce violence and suffering -- which included keeping prostitution illegal). But you need to address the issue from a root perspective, the entire social context and causes, not a parasitical one which just wants impunity for sexual exploitation of people.
By the way, you forgot to mention smoking -- is the problem better or worse now that it is largely prohibited and unmasked for the crap that it is?
ZF | May 13, 2007, 3:16pm | #
the troubling thing about the prostitution ban, is that government thinks it can determine under what circumstances two consenting adults can have sex... that is really the issue, and its much more immoral than prostitution...Anastasia | May 14, 2007, 6:04am | #
This is to Chris Mitchell, the 'boss' of this magazine, as his email didn't accept my email. I'd like to pull Cathy Young up on the fact that she used my blog post without permission, especially when it had absolutely nothing to do with what occured in Washington.It's quite rude to make an assumption that I'm a victim, because I didn't state it in my blog post.
I can't believe the breach copyright that Reason Magazine has carried out in deep linking my post without asking for my permission. In Australia this constitutes to a breach of copyright.
It's only when I read the article (as well as its blind assumptions) that I was livid...furious, in fact. If I lived in the United States I'd set the wheels in motion to prosecute this magazine on its breaches.
YOU ASK PRIOR TO USING SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT!
Learn it!
Hey Alessandra you might want to check out http://www.prostitutionprocon.org