« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Prostitution: Why not?

By: randy streu (Diary) | January 29th, 2010 at 06:24 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Today on my show, I was having some fun with the story (courtesy, “The Smoking Gun”) of two women who traded sex for a pack of smokes, were unsatisfied with the sex (which, to be clear, was what THEY offered in exchange for cigarettes), and filed rape charges. Add to this story the accompanying mugshots and, well, there is much in the way of radio fodder.

But as I was mocking the audacity of two women who complained about the price they willingly paid for cancer (seriously, it’s like offering to mow your neighbor’s lawn and then whining that you don’t like his mower), I started to think about the aside at the bottom of TSG’s article. “Police have not identified the accused man,” it said, “who still could be charged with solicitation in connection with the sex-for-cigarettes arrangement.” I wonder, now, what it is, exactly, that this trio did wrong, on a social level?

From here on out, I’m going to anger some people — some of whom I hold as very dear friends. To you I say: “I’m also in favor of legalizing pot,” and, “hang on; I’m not finished.”

The trio in question traded sex for cigarettes. That at least two of them (and, I’m guessing, the third as well) wound up very unhappy with the outcome is really beside the point. The real question is, is what they did any different from any number of intimate pairings which law and society deems acceptable? Is trading sex for cigarettes more or less destructive and harmful than trading sex for, say, a sense of self-worth? At least in the former scenario, there exists a concrete trade-off.

What about some pink-shirted jerk who just wants a night of fun? He goes to a bar, waits for some unsuspecting lass to drink enough that he finally appears manly and attractive, and he takes her back to some seedy little no-tell motel for some one-on-one. She forgets whatever demons she was drinking to forget; he gets a notch in his white Abercrombe belt. Is this better for society because no money changed hands?

Prostitution, of course, isn’t the only game in town where the players screw each other for money. But it IS one of the few that is illegal. Is trading sex for money really any better for society than current tort practices, which enable good, producing members of society to be taken advantage of by any worthless jerk that can find a lawyer and invent a grievance?

I haven’t gone into the practical reasons for legalizing prostitution, and you’re not going to get a detailed treatise from me on the subject. Suffice to say, I’m a firm believer that, A, prostitution is a mostly victimless crime and, B, fewer laws make fewer criminals. Really, though, that isn’t the point.

Look, you’re not going to see me leading any crusades calling for immediate decriminalization of prostitution. I’m against the idea of selling sex for money. For the record, I’m also against selling sex for popularity, for self-esteem, for some teenage, romanticized version of “love,” or, yes, even for cigarettes. But I’m also not in favor of outlawing them.

Simply, I don’t see a difference.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

Not sure I agree, but I’m finding it hard to find a place to disagree.

Remington_Steele

and I enjoy a good dialog with NT, I’ll take the bait and answer the why is it easy to find a place to disagree

For me, now living in Colorado, but having spent many years in Reno (very close to Mustang Ranch) and having lived in Las Vegas for a while (very close to name your own bunny ranch), I don’t want legalized prostitution in Colorado. One big reason is the casualness of commercial industry. Once things are commercially allowed, advertising and commerce are all about growth and opportunity.

Have you ever tried to drive down or near the Las Vegas Strip with any young children? It’s impossible to not be embarrassed or swerve to no longer follow the Taxies and Trucks with naked and compromising poses of women in the industry. The billboards and shock ads that follow and create vertical integration from gentlemen clubs to bunny ranches are the inevitable result of an industry that tries to grow and survive just like any other commercial venture.

Remember that prostituion is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno proper, but legal on the outskirts. Vegas tried to make things more family friendly, but in the end, it’s still the same old place where what happens there only stays there in the commercials.

I for one want a city including the downtown area where I can take my kids without worrying about a prospering adult industry bleeding into more and more areas.

aesthete

I suspect that you probably plagiarized one of my inner monologues
E Pluribus Unum

I’ll have to ponder this at some length.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

But in sum, I’m going to have to say the thought processes are valid but I disagree with the majority of the conclusions. I used to be more libertarian than I am now.

Legalize pot? No.
Legalize prostitution? No.
Prostitution = victimless crime? Well, in the informal interpersonal marketplace, such as the TSG case here, sure. In the big large world, oh hell no. Not even close.

But the arguments about it are fun, informative, and enlightening, because it’s certainly not clear cut.

http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

is would the decriminalization of prostitution be much like that of the end of alcohol prohibition. The prohibition of alcohol lead to a rise in the mobs. Criminal elements ruled the industry because only criminals made the product. This meant that inherently there was more violence associated with the production and distribution of alcohol. The end of that prohibition saw the criminal violence associated with alcohol drop significantly (if not all together).

If you were to decriminalize prostitution would you see much of the same effect? That is, since the criminals would no longer be the primary suppliers, would you see a drop in much of the criminal activity associated with prostitution: kidnapping, smuggling of women from foreign countries, etc?

If the answer is yes, I would say that decriminalizing prostitution would be a net win for society. Sure, a few more people would likely succumb to the allure of a “cheap date” at the expense of their marriage/relationship, but I’d say that cost to society is far lower than the cost of the other illicit activity (i.e. kidnapping, etc).

E Pluribus Unum

Prohibition outlawed alcohol. No alcohol could be legal gotten or used. The more appropriate analogy to me would be if sex was outlawed.

Certain things IMO simply can’t be managed well. Gambling is, IMO, not a particular moral wrong. Gambling against the house is stupid, sure. But it is pure folly to suppose that the gambling industry (including all the state lottos) is not soaked through and through with organized crime. And organized crime is a truly evil, predatory blight on the planet. You can’t completely eradicate it, but you can force it to operate in the shadows and not take over society.

You legalize certain things, you open far, far more possibilities than you want. Even, and perhaps especially, if you regulate it.

I think what’s possible to discuss is the difference between prostitution as a matter of personal choice versus sexual slavery. But in my considered opinion, it’s pandora’s box.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

it’s not the LEGALIZATION that created the potential problems, but the original outlawing of it. Re-legalizing always comes with more problems than existed before the passage of laws.

That said, I believe government needs to be far more selective in what it chooses to ban. We can’t simply ban things because we find them distasteful, and ultimately, that’s what we’re looking at with prostitution.

streiff

There is really no evidence that re-legalizing and activity causes “more problems.” Case in point, the repeal of Prohibition.

streiff

legalizing gambling, like legalizing booze, got organized crime out of the business except for a presence on the edges, and they are on the edges of just about every economic activity.

Gambling is dominated by mega corporations. Sure you can always find a bookie if the mood strikes you but the casino operations are no more crime dominated than Costco or WalMart.

Raven

Are of criminals “gone legit” because they figure they have more to lose now. They don’t think they can Afford to be major crime bosses now.

pilgrim

The big large world of Elko, Nevada is not the same as the big large world of Baltimore, Maryland. Nevada has found a way in less populated counties to manage prostitution, but I do not think that model works in a highly populated urban area,

E Pluribus Unum

But the point is made. I have no objection to states’ choice on this, but I would oppose it in my state, any time, anywhere. As I said in reply to Brian above, it’s pandora’s box.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

In theory, isn’t it possible that, like alcohol, legalization of prostitution would cut DOWN on crime? (Except, of course, that driving under the influence of a hooker rarely involves the death of other human beings.)

Not to mention other practical benefits, such as cutting down on disease and other issues through industry regulation. And, speaking of industry regulation, legalized service will also be subject to labor regs (and taxes), which will solve MANY current problems with pimps, ultimately making life better for people who, by choice or perceived necessity, get into the line.

And, again, what’s the difference between selling it for money and selling it for fun or self-respect?

E Pluribus Unum

In the example given (the TSG thing) I don’t object. And your argument that it’s not so terribly different, down at its fundamentals, from a whole bunch of social interactions.

But there’s a bigger issue, and I covered it somewhat in my response to Brian. Government ‘regulation’ sounds plausible. So does socialism. But prostitution, including legalized, will eventually, INEVITABLY, become a center around which a whole host of other vices, and I mean the criminal kind, revolve. And as in all things, eventually the government agencies in charge will become the most corrupt of all, and next thing you know, your taxes and mine are going toward yet another agency that serves interests other than the national interest.

The last thing in the world I want is the government in charge of managing prostitution.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

let the states handle it. There doesn’t even need to be a specialized agency– just the standard agencies which already oversee business.

The problem is, I don’t see how it necessarily follows that legalized prostitution will give rise to a host of other vices.

AND — the reluctance to legalize based upon the perceived likelihood of a slippery slope, I have to say, smacks a great deal of the type of argument we are vehemently against when aimed at already legitimized business. There are always, in every industry, avenues for corruption. But we would immediately rise up — and have — at the barest HINT of the government moving to overreuglate the finance industry based on the world’s Madoffs.
aesthete

i.e., not needing violence, seedy areas with less government involvement to sell the merch would alone bring benefits by making it beneficial for firms in the market to lose or minimize the violence angle (less supply-side costs/input). Besides that, the benefit of being able to focus on more illicit sex-related crimes (trafficking, sex slaves, etc.) would narrow the parameters a bit. I don’t envision some crimeless utopia arising, of course, but I can see how an intelligently-implemented decriminalization would have positive net effects.

Gandalf

The only way to legalize prostitution and still maintain the facod that it is somehow “victimless” (ignoring, of course, the host of psychological and sociological data regarding the negative effects of sexual promiscuity on society, families, and individuals) is to heavily regulate it, as Holland and Germany have done. Prostitutes in these two countries are required to pass physical exams, administered by the government, every WEEK. They are also required to follow strict regulations as far as the location, etc. of their “businesses”. More government regulation and involvement.

“..intelligently-implemented decriminalization would have positive net effects.” Well, it depends on what you’re talking about here. If you want a culture like Germany and Holland’s and, to a lesser degree, Nevada, then yes, I agree. The net benefits will be increased government involvement in the free market, continued deteriation of both the government and society’s view of family and marriage, and an increase of young women and men who are seduced into a career that will quite literally ruin their lives forever.

Many of us would see that as a distopia.
streiff

the whole “victimless” notion is pretty paternal but getting beyond that, legalized prostitution would differ little from the situation we have today except we wouldn’t tie up cops and courts prosecuting the activity.

It doesn’t really follow that legalizing an activity necessarily involves heavy government regulation. It could follow the European mode bu it doesn’t have to and making that pronouncement seems to me to be a way of avoiding the issue.

Even a regulated regime on the European model would produce income from licensing and taxes on transactions while allowing society to avoid the costs of vice squads, court appearances, etc. You could also zone it to move it off the main thoroughfares so you don’t have to explain the scantily clad babe waving at you from the corner to your 10 year old daughter.

As to the “victimless” aspect, we create victims by making prostitution illegal. The girls are essentially chattel to a pimp. Because there is no recourse to the legal system, the business is much more dangerous than it should be. Because it is illegal it creates a market for trafficking in women to supply the demand. Recognizing that the human trafficking would not go away with legalized prostitution one would have to concede that we would have increased resources available to deal with this problem rather than worrying about someone placing an ad on Craigslist.
texasgalt

Joe_Schmo

You’re going to stir up thought, obviously, so nicely done.

Prostitution is legal already though. It’s just that it’s only legal in politics.

http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

Of course there it’s extremely expensive.

Joe_Schmo

Call girls and prostitutes. It’s all covered in our government.

http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

Politicians hate competition.

Joe_Schmo

nessa

“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”

dwander

I would support legalizing both prostitution, pot, and probably a few other drugs as well. The cost of incarceration of these victim less crimes is extremely high. Our county jails at time overfills with these and more aggressive criminals are let loose in order not to get sued by the ACLU for having to many suspects and not enough beds.

I just don’t see why our government feels the need to intrude but I guess we all need someone to pretend to be our parents no mater what our age.

Gandalf

Replacing outlawed activity with highly regulated activity would be an increase in expendeture for the government.

That will, of course, be redistributed away from prisons and into the Department of Health, so in a sense the argument you’ve made makes some sense, if we’re just looking at one part of the budget instead of the overall effect of legalizing such behavior.

And if prostitution is NOT heavily regulated, there simply is no argument to be made that it is a “victimless” once it becomes legal and thus widespread.

You want to end filling jails with the trash that engages in this type of behavior? The answer is harsher penalities, not simply letting them do whatever they want legally.

dwander

I don’t think harsher penalties will work in keeping people out of jail unless we are willing to be more aggressive about using the ultimate penalty, death, a lot more often. All that will end up is that there will be more people in jail for a longer period of time. Just look at the three strike and done as well as the length of jail time for crack vs other drugs. How well did that work out?

Prostitution wouldn’t need to be highly regulated. Drugs may be but after a while there will be less people demanding the drugs because they will be dead.

I’m all for the death penalty but its cost is starting to become prohibitive.
zroxx

Replacing outlawed activity with highly regulated activity would be an increase in expendeture for the government.

You have to at least offer up an affirmative argument for this statement, rather than assuming it.

It seems to me the tangible costs of criminalization include law enforcement costs (strong operations, street sweeps, resultant paperwork), court costs (public defenders, judges, paperwork), incarceration, parole officers, and more.

The intangible costs, which the OP touches on indirectly, include the (negative) impact that criminalization has on liberty, justice, and security for American citizens. It’s a restriction on the use and trade of pretty much the only permanent possession one can have, their own body. We don’t restrict adults from negotiating such a trade other than in these cases where sex is involved. As OP pointed out, we typically do not restrict adults from [courting / seducing / negotiating] with each other for sex in the absence of an exchange of cash. Why the different standards, then?

Would there be an increase or decrease of liberty, justice and security for American citizens were we to decriminalize prostitution? If there is an increase, how much higher would government expenditures have to be in order for us to not choose the option that improves those three intangibles?

I hate government spending as a rule. As an exception, I willingly accept government spending that’s narrowly focused on increasing liberty, justice and security. Usually, you get that increase by spending less, but that isn’t always the case.

So not only do you have to argue that there would be increased spending, but that the increase in liberty, justice, and security that followed would not be worth the cost.

Gandalf

This diary, and subsequent comments agreeing with it, has laid out a perfect summary of European Socialists’ arguments in favor of prostitution, legalizing pot and other drugs, While it’s the same argument in essence, I don’t think I’ve ever heard it worded so elegantly from my European friends and coworkers (understandable, since they are usually speaking English as a foreign language). Bravo!

And you’ve convinced me. I am absolutely ready to follow Socialist Europe’s lead on this.

We all know that the Dutch, Danish, and the Germans have created the ideal society.

Yes yes, I’d love to follow Germany, Denmark, and Holland in the dustbin of history. How exciting!

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson
dwander

How does this equate to socialism? These crimes are not against society, they are legislating morals and choice. Thus, they are an intrusion into the individual’s choice and should be more associated with big brother deciding what is best.

Government has no business here.
Finrod

.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

would appear to be “anything that disagrees with my own narrow view of the planet.”

It’s kinda synonymous with the Democrats’ definition of “hate.”

http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

Oriental hookers used to do the same thing in the 60s-70s, if there was a pay dispute. A fairly common scam.

Many states, in order to keep illegal gambling (Local poker, crap games, etc) out of the public eye allowed treble damages against the guy trying to collect gambling debts. He can send Augie and Vinnie over with baseball bats, uses the courts at this own peril,

Good re-telling of an old, old story. I’m not a libertarian so believe the people, the masses, have the right and power to inject their own pecking order of sins into what behavior should and should not be prohibited by statute…the more local the better. Banning prostitution is about as High Church of England as you can get,, meaning progressivism at a time when statism and churcism were joined at least at the kneecap.

I doubt prostitution carried out on a cash and carry basis today is as big on the public pecking order as it was in the day of Yankee blue bloods. I know of lot of burgs that would step a notch or tow with a Miss Pauline’s down at the end of Jimtown Road.
Trelaina

I note that a high percentage of those who are discussing the legalization of prostitution automatically assume that it must be followed by government regulation, whether at the state or federal level.

Why do we always assume that the government must take control?

http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

Legalization would be a loosening of that control.

A second point is that government regulates all of business. Prostitution would be no different in that respect.

zroxx

A good example here: New Orleans Cops/Prosecutors Tagging Prostitutes as Sex Offenders

New Orleans city police and the district attorney?s office are using a state law written for child molesters to charge hundreds of sex workers like Tabitha as sex offenders. The law, which dates back to 1805, makes it a crime against nature to engage in ?unnatural copulation??a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney?s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex. Sex workers convicted of breaking this law are charged with felonies, issued longer jail sentences and forced to register as sex offenders. They must also carry a driver?s license with the label ?sex offender? printed on it.

It’s interesting to me that a large part of arguments against decriminalization for particular vices are based around slippery slope appeals. If we decriminalize then surely x, y, and z will happen. One I hadn’t heard much til now was the concept that decriminalization would actually require greater government spending than criminalization.

The point is, criminalization carries it’s own potential for sprawling government involvement as the above article nicely illustrates. As soon as you’ve codified some behavior management goals into legislation, you’ve raised the potential that some government official, prosecutor, or other actor will use that legislation in ways that it was never intended. And they get to do this under the protection of the legal system.

Achance

prostitution, nude dancing, and such is that the women and the owners are constantly being shaken down by the cops, politicians, and the “good folk” of the community. Strip joints in Anchorage and Fairbanks are constantly running some kid of charity thing and are among the biggest “contributors” to charity. They know they have to or the cops will begin to pay them much more attention. The seminal case on Constitutional due process for public employees in Alaska came from an incident in which an officer was fired for bringing a prostitute in for questioning and then when giving her a ride home demanding sex from her. That stuff goes on all too often with both cops and politicians.

Achance

in Anchorage and Fairbanks though de jure illegal Statewide. I know that when I lived in ANC I was much more comfortable with the many thousands of transient military and construction workers being able to find a little “comfort” in the massage parlors than pursueing my daughter.

There is crime associated with it, but much of that crime is centered on how women get into that business. Many are foreign and they are the chattel of the patron who either smuggled them to the US illegally or brought them in on a fraudulent “family reunification,” particularly common with Asians. These women are sex slaves, pure and simple. Many others hook to buy drugs or to have drugs bought for them. To me the distinction is very hard-sought between a young, pretty woman who wants $500 to have sex with someone so she can buy drugs and the young, pretty woman who will have sex with a man who in the process spends $500 on a fancy dinner, drinks, and a gram or two of cocaine. The most obvious distinction is that the purely commercial transaction is far more certain. In the other case, it is easy to spend the money and still go home alone. And for some, it is just an easy way to make a living; they dance at the strip joints and hook, working at most a few hours a day and making an awful lot of money, money that someone with their “qualifications” couldn’t make any other way. A pretty young woman can make $10/hour working at Nordstom or make $500 an hour by hanging in hotel bars and have a pretty good chance of being taken shopping at Nordstrom’;s to boot. A few of them might be working their way through college or a single mom taking care of her kid, but most of them are just working at not working.

About 75% of the women in Alaska prisons have some sort of record for drugs and prostitution and they’re quite good at getting over on weak-minded men. I’ve rearranged the career plans of quite a few cops and COs for what we euphemistically called “undue familiarity” with the State’s female guests. The temporarily semi-retired working girls are a real joy to rely on as your primary witness in a dismissal hearing.
dbitz

Prostitution should definitely be decriminalized… 2 (or more?) consenting adults = no one else’s business.

As for possible increased/decreased cost regarding the decriminalization of prostitution and drugs that others have brought up… I think it’s hard to predict which way it would go.

On the one hand, you have savings in terms of not keeping these people in jail. Also, the government could tax these things…especially drugs, just like they currently tax alcohol and tobacco. They’d make a fortune, IMO.

On the other hand, there’s the cost of any government regulation, and the possible cost of these people (possibly) being a burden on our health care system.

Repair_Man_Jack

This is a recipe to bring lots of people from Planned Abortionhood into the Federal Civil Service and give them well-paid and tenured sinecures for life. And then there’s the question of what happens when loosened immigration controls meet with legal whorehouses. I see a lot of slavery, kidnap and human traffiking occurring, with the Good Ole’ US of A being the place they go to launder all that blood money and make it all look legit.

bs

And yes, I am imposing my morality on you. Tough.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

I would argue that premarital sex is immoral. That lying is immoral. That taking God’s name in vein is immoral.

Simple immorality doesn’t justify criminalization in a society purportedly based on liberty.

bs

Laws are all based on values and morals. All laws are. We simply have to determine which values are strong enough to be enforced by letter of law.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

given the social devaluing of sex that already exists here, viewing sex-for-money as somehow more heinous than many perfectly legal (and just as immoral) sex trades is silly.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

clearly, liberty doesn’t mean doing whatever you want….

BUT, I honestly don’t see that the federal government should or, Constitutionally, DOES, have the right or responsibility to govern based on preferred social mores. Their job is to protect one from the choices of others. Not to limit the free choice of consenting individuals.
Achance

is regulate transportation of a woman across state lines “for immoral purposes,” the Mann Act. I don’t know how much it has actually been used against real prostitution rings but it was once used a lot against prominent Blacks who had a White woman with them. Also got used a good bit against hippies in VW vans or school buses who had girls with them.

This area is one where federalism has sorta worked; prostitution is a state law crime and in some states and localities it is more of a crime than in others.

‘Course, in the Land of Obama if prostitution is legalized all the shops will have to be union. So, instead of the lineup where you get to choose the girl, you get the most senior out of work girl. Now that’s an ugly prospect!
Richard Mullins

have Prostitution legalized because not only will it be unionized but it will be extra safe. In Comrade Obama’s world, he has to save you from your self.
http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

In Obamaland, the only way they would EVER legalize prostitution is if they could somehow use it it justify federally funded abortion.

pilgrim

You answered the question in the title of this diary. You are entitled to give that answer, but your answer will not be an imposition on the state of Nevada.

Spiral

In an ideal world, we could criminalize just about everything that is bad for people.

Red meat that causes heart disease. Alcohol that impairs the ability to think straight. Gambling that induces people to bet “the rent money.” Chocolate that causes you to gain weight.

But as a practical matter, these prohibitions don’t usually work out well in the real world. People are much more diverse in their lifestyles than we would like to admit.

Some people are willing to risk a heart attack for a juicy T-bone steak. Some people want to enjoy several beers while they watch the football game. (And we haven’t even talked about banning football, where the risk of injury is very high.)

So, what we end up with is a government at war with the lifestyle choices (many of them, admittedly, ill-advised lifestyle choices) of its citizens.

So, yes. Let’s be pragmatic and legalize it.

Finrod

..

Finrod

Just recently, a legal brothel in Nevada hired the state’s first male prostitute. Caused a good bit of consternation among certain groups, actually.
kyoufuu

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/its-wrong-to-pay-for-sex/

Unfortunately most of the side arguing that it is wrong looked at it from a point of view stating: “if we allow this, then it will lead to even worse things.”

I don’t buy the slippery slope argument, because it fails to adequately debate the point. As I look at it, two consenting adults are free to do whatever they so choose, as long as their actions do not infringe on the choices of others. From a practical point of view, it would certainly free up law enforcement resources and also encourage anyone who’s been victimized in the process to report it to the police.

Many people opposed to this are unopposed to the adult video industry. Why? Is it the issue of who pays whom? Is it the issue of enjoyment? Because in the end money is changing hands from one person to another for the purpose of satisfaction. All that’s different is the level of connectedness.
Ausonius

“Legislating morality” is precisely what a government is supposed to do: the problem is how much goes into a legal code.

Parallel with prostitution is a problem the British faced in the 18th century. Gin was being brewed at an ever increasing rate, and produced a an increasing amount of tax revenues, but after some years, the rate of alcoholism and its attendant problems – child abuse and general domestic violence, work efficiency and quality, crime, indigence, etc. – all began rising.

The brewers, innkeepers, some government officials (treasury) and what passed for libertarians at the time argued in favor of a low tax rate, since it kept up a steady flow of business and therefore tax monies. Some claimed gin was necessary to counter England’s cold, damp climate!

Nationalists and reformers (some of them religious) began wondering about the future of England, if alcoholism kept rising: how would England be able to compete in world affairs (especially against the French) with a large percentage of the population incapacitated by alcoholism? A proto-Darwinian argument was made about England’s fitness for the future being threatened by widespread drunkenness.

After decades of debate, the British decided to tax gin at a much higher rate to curb alcoholism. It worked. This was one of the first examples of using tax policy to produce what might be called “social engineering.”

The question:
Does prostitution cause so many problems (like the British had with gin and alcoholism) that it should be proscribed? Disease, family destruction, alienation, violence against both seller and customer, etc?

Achance

where you won’t find some prostitution and so long as it is kept low-key and isn’t inciting crime or too much upset, it is tolerated by the cops and citizenry. It is a dangerous activity for both supplier and customer because of its illegality. There may be a prostitute in the Country that doesn’t use drugs but we really ought to find her and put her in a museum. Many of them are illegal aliens or here fraudulently, so they’re sex slaves for whomever brought them here. The customer never knows if today might be the day that the cops are across the street with a bug and a video camera and there goes his marriage and reputation. I actually believe that there would be much less crime associated with it if it were legal and certanly legal brothels, even illegal brothels, are much safer for the women than streetwalking; a good way to get dead.

That said, there is a tremendous moral hazard that tempers the libertarian in me. Telling a wife or girlfriend, “it’s legal” ain’t going to help the situation a bit. Try telling your wife, “I didn’t buy any table dances” if she finds out you were at a strip joint and see if that makes her want to kiss and make up. American relationship mores simply will not tolerate much sexual infidelity, even in the most liberal places. So, more readlily available and legal prostitution is going to wreak havoc on marriages, and marriage has enough trouble in this Country already. Making it legal will remove at least some of the stigma that repels many women. Hooking is an easy living and what gets so many women in trouble with it is they become hookers in order to buy drugs and at some point they can’t make enough to buy drugs so they turn to other crime. Making it legal won’t eliminate the drug association because the women were trading sex for drugs before they started trading sex for money for drugs. And there are plenty of women who while they won’t hook per se are certainly accustomed to “living off the kindness of strangers,” so making it legal makes the next step much easier.

And finally, the greatest moral hazard is that easy to get, relatively inexpensive, porno movie sex with somebody new and different any time you want it will simply ruin sex in stable relationships. Sex life in stable relationships is already badly strained by a popular culture that leads people to believe that everybody but them is having exciting sex with a new and exciting person every day. Then it becomes a matter of getting and hiding the money and the lies and deception involved in all that.

It isn’t just a philosophical argument for me because I’ve lived where it was prevalent and de facto legal for most of my adult life. Lived a portion of that time as a single man who was on the road a lot and if the hotel bar didn’t look promising, I knew where to find some entertainment. That kind of entertainment is every bit as addictive as any drug and just as hard to put down, maybe harder. And when sex in a stable relationship gets to the “gray, I think I’ll paint the ceiling gray” stage, and it will from time to time, it’s hard not to start thinking about getting a little “entertainment.”

Ausonius

You are quite right: the woman may seem to be freely choosing such a life, but these days there are too many factors like slavery involved.

Psychologically and physically abused women often end up as prostitutes, trying to be the ones controlling sexuality as opposed to the men who abused them earlier.

The libertarian position too often factors out such situations and assumes a pristine society of “freely consenting” adults. Too often things are much muddier!

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

slavery is involved in the illegal sex trade too. I’d argue that legalization would introduce a measure of oversight currently missing.

Ausonius

How much oversight?

That opens up a can of worms: will you be hiring investigators to make sure no woman is being coerced? Do you draw the line at physical coercion? Some prostitutes are demonstrably mentally ill, others are more borderline: are they part of the oversight system or not?

Psychiatrists/psychologists/counselors/social workers/doctors etc. all hired by the government for the oversight of legalization: will this now become more expensive than police enforcement against prostitution?

And the effects on society mentioned above are still not addressed.

A side note:
A psychiatrist once told me that many “adult film” people display some sort of mental incapacitation, i.e. they are not normal, or are below normal intelligence.
http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

so far, that’s the best argument I’ve heard.

as far as bigger government, I don’t buy that it’s a necessity. They’d be governed by the same apparatus under which business is normally governed. MOST businesses that operate in a legitimate market don’t require slave labor, and if they tried, our current level of government involvement (on a state level) is generally enough to deal with it. Granted it may miss some. But again, it’s also going on (and probably more now than it would be) even though prostitution is illegal. So I’m not seeing the slavery angle as being particularly compelling.

http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

because AChance has written too much for me to do so. Instead, I’ll say, so far he’s made the best arguments in the “con” side of the debate, IMO, and has given much to mull over.

Thanks, Achance.

dwander

I have to agree. When I first started reading his input, I thought he was leaning toward pro.

His analysis and input is a very interesting read and certainly, once again, provides food for thought.

tankertodd

Look, our governments are headed for an apocalypse. We frankly need to shrink government to the bare essentials so there’s less to collapse. We need smaller prisons and a smaller police force, and a smaller judicial system. We will no longer have the luxury to enforce all laws. Let’s rationalize the laws we have and start taking them off the books, starting with prostitution.

You can have sex for money as long as you get filmed. You can marry for money and exchange sex in return. A girlfriend could have sex with you if you buy her things. Why you can’t have a red light district is beyond me. And frankly I don’t need to make the moral argument when the federal debt will do the arguing for me.
AKSteveB

I actually don’t think legalizing prostitution is a good idea, because, even where it is legal, it is inevitably mobbed up. I wouldn’t enforce laws against it, in most situations, as someone else said ..who cares if someone wants to advertise on craigslist, but I do want something in the arsenal, if there is a case of forced sexual servitude etc.

Having said that, it would make no difference for the state of marriage whether it was legalized or not. Between working in close quarters and the Internet, it is literally always there. It is one reason I can’t fathom WHY someone would go to a hooker at this point. In terms of American social mores, at this point apparently about half of men cheat, and close to a third of women do. The religiously devout apparently aren’t that much less likely to than the secular. The social mores will end up evolving (one reason I think the gay marriage issue is overblown, things are FAR past that for heteros already) on this, just like they did about divorce. There comes a point where you can’t socially censure what the majority does.

Very long term monogamy doesn’t have much of a chance in the future. It was probably inevitable from the moment the birth control pill was available, and whatever chance it had isn’t going to survive the age of instant access …where you no longer have to go out and look for it ..it comes to you.

Btw please, don’t take this as an endorsement of all this, this comes from an analytical point of view.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Prostitution: Why not?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL