31 Responses to “The Great Prostitution Debate”

1. #  Segen 3/11/2008 7:37 PM

   Some countries recognize that a majority of people who prostitute themselves are doing so to escape poverty or other hardships. For this reason, some countries do not seek to punish those who have arrived at their last resorts and are prostitutes. Countries like Norway do not ban the SALE of sex...but do ban the PURCHASE of it.
   
   This is an attempt to curb DEMAND for sex--because there will always be an ample supply of sex workers either through "voluntary" or forced prostitution.
   
   I do not agree with the legalization of prostitution in any regard when it comes to purchasing sex. When the purchase of sex is legal, certain costs disappear (fines, jail, and most importantly---social stigma).  

2. #  Segen 3/11/2008 7:41 PM

   Also, if you have an interest in learning more about prostitution, I highly suggest you read the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000: Trafficking in Persons Report" to the US Congress from the US Department of State.
   
   The annual report covers a plethora of trafficking issues--including prostitution and sex slavery.
   
   http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2007/  

3. #  Allan Niemerg 3/11/2008 8:13 PM

   I don't really know a good reason why our default position should always be liberty rather than, say, the protection of social values (assuming those values have some rational and secular basis, and it seems to me the protection of women against objectification and coercion does).
   
   What? Why do values only matter when they have a "rational"(whatever that means) and "secular" basis?
   
   Further, there is no such things as "social values." Of course, a certain community may have a set of values, but there is no such thing, for example, as a set of "Illinois" values. Instead, there is an enormous diversity of beliefs and values in our state. Fortunately, we have a political process that is flexible enough to deal with our differences and form a working, stable government. But the result of that process is not one coherent set of "social values."
   
   And because there are no "social values, because society is composed of various communities with a diverse set of values, liberty is important. The notion of liberty is not a refutation of the idea of community values--it is the opposite. Liberty is the recognition that communities are the strongest when they are composed of human beings who can choose which communities they belong to and on what terms.
   
   So that's why our default position is--and should be--liberty.
   
   But on the merits of the discussion: Should prostitution be legal?
   
   I'm not sure. I admit that I strongly lean towards decriminalization and regulation, but I haven't convinced myself that decriminalization is the way to go.
   
   But I do feel compelled to comment on this:
   And I would further argue that nobody thinks being a prostitute is a dream come true. It is overwhelmingly an occupation for those who are financially coerced.
   
   
   Uh, isn't every job the result of financial coercion, i.e., get a job or you can't pay the rent? For that matter, how many people actually have jobs that are "dreams come true"? Most jobs suck, that's why they're jobs!
   
   Allan  

4. #  Schmitty 3/11/2008 8:20 PM

   I love hizity hoes  

5. #  tet 3/11/2008 8:34 PM

   I'd say most jobs are the result of economic coercion. If you don't believe me, ask a random sample of people whether or not they'd keep their present job if they won enough money to pay their bills for the rest of their lives.
   
   I loved my job, but I still got out of it as soon as I no longer needed it for money.
   
   I'm in favor of prostitution being legal with a major caveat:
   
   No coercion--period. If 79% of the sex workers in the Netherlands (or, for that matter, in Nevada) feel that they are being coerced, then only 21% should be working. The coercers of the others should be in prison or in the stocks in the town square.
   
   The numbers for coercion would have been a lot lower in the Netherlands in say, the 70s or 80s, prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain. There's been a major change in the makeup of the procurers in Amsterdam, for example--a lot of the coercive elements are sex slavers from the former Eastern Bloc.
   
   Slavery of any kind is the greatest insult to humanity that is possible. Death is preferable.
   
   Tom  

6. #  Brian 3/11/2008 9:01 PM

   Segen,
   
   That's an excellent point I was going to mention but didn't. I probably would favor a policy banning the purchase but not the sale of sex, but the problem still remains that in such a circumstance, you are still going to have more prostitution than you otherwise would. It's all a balancing act between the different downsides and upsides, but I think I agree with you.
   
   To the two of you who said that all jobs are jobs of economic coercion: that's a neat rhetorical trick, but it's also deliberately obtuse. The obvious point is that an awful lot of people like you and me have grown up with enough privileges such that while we do feel an economic need to get SOME job, we do not have to choose between selling ourselves for sex or not having a sufficient income to survive. Those are two awfully different kinds of financial coercion, and it's a little bit offensive to try to conflate them.  

7. #  kofi the you're all a bunch of a oppressors 3/11/2008 9:07 PM

   I thought women were the ultimate masters of their bodies. If they want to sell them, who is the government to prohibit them? Next you will all be advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to abort fetuses growing inside them.  

8. #  Segen 3/11/2008 9:22 PM

   Kofi,
   
   Given that we have mentioned the "coercion" (economic, force, etc.) factor in prostitution...the issue is generally not about women *wanting* to sell their bodies and the government infringing on the right to use one's body how she wishes, but rather the government in some way (debatable ways) protecting prostitutes who have arrived at this sort of work (or enslavement).
   
   Also--male prostitutes, although I assume not as numerous as female prostitutes, are also subjected to this type of sex-work.
   
   This ain't just a woman thang...  

9. #  tet 3/11/2008 9:28 PM

   Brian, you insult me by putting me in a privleged class. I went to bed hungry for one month out of twelve from the time I was born to my fourteenth year, when I became old enough to work.
   
   I had to chose between jobs that could have very well killed me (standing atop a thirty-foot platform wrestling hay bales into a barn), maimed me (hunting raccoons for fur in sub-zero weather in a forest covered with ice), or at best were mind-numbingly boring (picking string beans under a hot sun in rows 3/4 of a mile long every 10 days for summers).
   
   A pole dancer at the Silver Bullet Bar makes considerably more money than a clerk at Wal-Mart. A pretty one on a good night makes more money than a secretary in a dental office. Many of them are way too low on the IQ chart to work at much above the Wal-Mart clerk level.
   
   These girls are not collecting money for college. They're often from families as disadvantaged as mine was and they're trying to feed a kid or two.
   
   In other words, it is entirely proper to conflate the two situations, and if you had ever lived in poverty, you'd understand why. All jobs exist in a continuum--people take jobs that they can do and get the money that others feel they're worth.
   
   This range goes from street whore through blue-collar worker clear through to lawyers at lobbying organizations. They're all doing what they can do, because if they don't, they're not going to live and their kids are going to go hungry. It's the way of the world.
   
   Tom  

10. #  thetodd 3/11/2008 9:34 PM

    In the original post, it is claimed that legalization of prostitution results in a significant increase in the number of prostitutes.
    
    What are all of these women doing before they become prostitutes? It is tautological that they were not working as illegal prostitutes. Whatever their life situation was beforehand, it wasn't bad enough that they decided to (or were forced to) become illegal prostitutes.
    
    So, how are these new prostitutes - the ones that only work when it's legalized - being coerced? I will grant that there is coercion among prostitutes who work whether it's legal or not, but I don't see how legalizing it will increase the amount of coercion.
    
    If we assume that there is little or no coercion among legal-only prostitutes and we also assume some rationality on the part of the prostitutes, then we can conclude that the total size of the prostitution market substantially increases in response to legalization (because the number of prostitutes increases and their incomes also increase or at least remain approximately level). If this is true, then it suggests there is substantial unmet demand in an illegal-only market.
    
    Also, I expect the trends of people having fewer children, later and fewer marriages, and longer lifespans to continue. The social stigma of prostitution serves a useful purpose in a world where these "family values" are important, but I see this stigma having less and less practical value as time goes on. I think legalization will also help reduce the stigma.  

11. #  Brian 3/11/2008 9:39 PM

    Also--male prostitutes, although I assume not as numerous as female prostitutes, are also subjected to this type of sex-work.
    
    And I have the bruises to show for it! (ba-dum-dum)
    
    (NOTE: Allan and Tom arguing that prostitution is the same as any other job is still offensive, but me joking about having worked as a male prostitute is not. Get over it.)
    
    Tom,
    
    I don't understand how you didn't just demonstrate my point. When you were not in a position of privilege, you had few options and they all sucked. Then you got to the point where you were in a position of privilege, and your options were all much better. Those two things aren't different?  

12. #  kofi the prostitution opposing liberals are to political theories as cafeteria catholics are to religions 3/11/2008 9:39 PM

    Segen,
    
    So far as I can tell, it's already illegal to use physical coercion to force anyone to perform any task (unless, of course, its the government doing the forcing).
    
    And as Tom and Alan have already pointed out, the economic coercion argument fails. The vast majority of people work because they need the money, not because they love what they do. Economic coercion is already a factor for illegal prostitutes. Granted making prostitution legal wouldn't remove this factor, but it would make the occupation safer for participants.
    
    And let's not gloss over the fact that some of these people may be very happy with their choice to be prostitutes. You all want to immediately talk about the dirt poor and substance addicted, but what about the women in Nevada or the four figures / hour Emperor's Club 'spokes models.' It may offend some feminists, but I contend there are female prostitutes out there that could be working some average office job but choose to be prostitutes because they prefer it.
    
    I'm sorry but once you remove physical coercion, the arguments against prostitution just don't stand. People are either in charge of their bodies or not. The government should either impose its version of morality or it shouldn't. You can not credibly argue to have it both ways. Those of you attempting to are all hypocrites and sellouts.  

13. #  kofi the and theTodd was carried off the field victorious 3/11/2008 9:41 PM

    What are all of these women doing before they become prostitutes? It is tautological that they were not working as illegal prostitutes. Whatever their life situation was beforehand, it wasn't bad enough that they decided to (or were forced to) become illegal prostitutes.
    
    slam dunk.  

14. #  Hanno 3/11/2008 9:44 PM

    "What? Why do values only matter when they have a "rational"(whatever that means) and "secular" basis?"
    
    Allan, I think the point Brian is trying to get at here is that "because God says so" isn't really going to fly in a world where not everyone believes in the same god or any god at all for that matter. I think he's sort of shooting for a principle that transcends religion, though his choice of words is not ideal.
    
    "And because there are no "social values, because society is composed of various communities with a diverse set of values, liberty is important. The notion of liberty is not a refutation of the idea of community values--it is the opposite. Liberty is the recognition that communities are the strongest when they are composed of human beings who can choose which communities they belong to and on what terms."
    
    See this is a fundamental misconception of our generation. A community isn't something you choose to belong to. Not really. A community is a group of people who live in the same place and have to come to some sort of workable accommodation with one another to do things that they have in common. People living on the same street or in the same neighborhood watching each other's dogs when the other's on vacation or helping each other shovel their driveways - community. A group of gay men coming together to advocate for their rights - interest group. That's not to diminish the group, but it's not a community. They have a common characteristic, but they aren't a community in the traditional sense.  

15. #  Brian 3/11/2008 9:54 PM

    Hanno,
    
    Well said. I realize now it may have sounded like I was saying that "rational" and "secular" mean the same thing and that I was in some way implying that "non-secular" is "irrational." I wasn't. What I meant is two separate things: (1) secular, for the reasons Hanno laid out, and (2) rational, in the sense that laws can't be based on irrational prejudices like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. - that is, there has to be some arguably legitimate rationale supporting the policy.  

16. #  Schmitty 3/11/2008 9:54 PM

    Hizity Hoes or for Brian Pierce, Homozity Homoz  

17. #  thetodd 3/11/2008 11:27 PM

    I think there is a small flaw with my argument.
    
    I said that when prostitution is illegal, there is unmet demand for prostitutes. However, maybe some of this extra demand is never actually made. Some people won't demand prostitutes when prostitution is illegal, but they will demand it when it's legal.
    
    If that is true, then it is no longer logical to conclude that all new prostitutes that emerge after legalization are uncoerced.
    
    Although my previous argument was not completely logically watertight, I still suspect that the combined net utility (happiness level, or something like that) of all new, post-legalization prostitutes increases with legalization, although an unfortunate few probably do suffer quite badly.  

18. #  Anonymous 3/12/2008 8:18 AM

    Liste, we can't buy and sell women anymore, being able to rent them out is all we have left  

19. #  Augur 3/12/2008 8:54 AM

    I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this one. I tend to agree with Matthew Yglesias. Legalize and regulate.
    
    Legalization will increase demand, and perhaps slightly decrease the social stigma, and decrease the percentage of clients that are absolute scumbuckets, which should lead to an increase in the number of women who choose to become, as schmitty puts it, hizity hoes.
    
    The increase in safety for women making this now exceedingly dangerous choice, and the decrease in people incarcerated for buying sex, are both positives. Whether or not these outweigh the obvious negatives is a pretty close call.  

20. #  Augur 3/12/2008 11:07 AM

    I wonder what Bill Maher thinks of all this...ohh, look!
    
    http://tiny.cc/maher  

21. #  tet 3/12/2008 11:46 AM

    Brian, I've never been in a position of privlege. I've always had to do work because if I didn't, I would not eat.
    
    I spent ten years in a factory where we had one death per five years per hundred employees in industrial accidents.
    
    I spent eight years in research surrounded by explosive gases and high-voltage. I was once thrown ten feet when I accidentally discharged a capacitor with my finger.
    
    I spent fifteen years, and got one heart attack, keeping smart-ass surburban kids from blowing themselves up. A room in the basement of our building exploded with enough force to bank its door from the opposite wall and smash it.
    
    Most blue-collar, and many pink and white-collar jobs, have some element of risk. Unless you are born to the silver spoon, you end up taking one of those--truck driver, nurse, rancher, night clerk at a hotel.
    
    The world is a much, much more dangerous place than you can ever imagine. It is a continuum of people working because they have to. Whoring is mostly a bottom-end of this continuum.
    
    Augur, your link is broken.
    
    Tom  

22. #  augie 3/12/2008 12:37 PM

    its on the huffington post  

23. #  Allan Niemerg 3/12/2008 12:44 PM

    I think Hanno's definition of what a makes a community leaves out a lot of the characteristics that I think most people associate with the idea of a community, such as friendships, shared experience, common goals, etc. I would define community as a group of people with a mutual feeling of belonging to the group that have an understanding that the group shares certain values, traditions, etc. I think that definition more accurately captures what a community is.
    
    But my larger point is this: There is no common set of values shared by all people at the relevant political level--the state. Therefore, the idea that there is some set of "social values" that decides the issue of prostitution is fundamentally flawed. Maybe I'm being nit-picky, perhaps "social values" just means "anything that at least 51% of citizens agree upon." But I don't think that's what Brian originally meant. I think that implicit in Brian's comment is the sense that not only is there a set of values that everyone shares, but that there is a set of values that everyone should share. That is, I think that implicit in idea of "social values" is the idea that, in theory, everyone could sit down together and hammer out a common set of values which almost everyone would agree upon, and which everyone would agree should be the basis of political decision-making. I reject the idea that such a set of values exists, except for truly uncontroversial decisions.
    
    The reason I'm hammering on this seemingly minor point is that I think the idea that there exist "social values" upon which decisions can be made legitimizes decision-making at a level of government where making such a decision may be inappropriate. Why is it that the state of Illinois should decide that prostitution should be illegal as opposed to the Champaign county "community"?  

24. #  Brian 3/12/2008 1:35 PM

    Allan,
    
    My point is that the decisions that individuals make almost always affect other people one way or another. Because of that reality, we have given the government a monopoly over the use of force, and created certain procedures by which the government tries to figure out ways in which we can all basically get along happily with one another. The importance of doing that as a means of preserving social order might in many cases be greater than the importance of preserving some particular liberty interest.
    
    That's why I think that me paying somebody else to have sex with me should be against the law, whereas me paying two other people to have sex with each other on camera and then selling that film for a profit should NOT be against the law. The liberty interest at stake in the latter case (freedom of expression) is way more important than the liberty interest at stake in the former case.
    
    The point is that there are many different kinds of liberty interests that are compelling to varying degrees. The liberty interests at stake when dealing with the freedom to express oneself, or the freedom to worship according to one's beliefs, are really compelling, so much so that we have written a constitution erecting enormous, almost insurmountable barriers to their infringement. The liberty interest at stake in soliciting prostitutes is nowhere near that level, and because that liberty interest is at such a low ebb, it confuses me when people say "we should err on the side of liberty." Liberty isn't a singular concept, and it matters more in some circumstances than others. When it doesn't matter that much, I see no reason to err on the side of it.  

25. #  Allan Niemerg 3/12/2008 3:25 PM

    Brian,
    
    Good point. Especially the "some liberties are more important than others" part.
    
    I think that where I come out on this issue closely mirrors my feeling of strip clubs--it should be a local decision. So if Champaign wants to outlaw prostitution, and Danville chooses to allow it(too pick an example) then that should be allowed.
    
    Augur,
    I enjoyed the link. I think what is so poignant about Spitzer is that he had carefully crafted this "law and order" image and would call these press conferences and denounce the people he was prosecuting. So I think he got what was coming to him.
    
    Allan  

26. #  Brian 3/12/2008 3:49 PM

    Allan,
    
    Why does it make me nervous that you agree with me?  

27. #  Allan Niemerg 3/12/2008 5:06 PM

    Brian,
    
    I don't understand. Did I imply somewhere that it makes me nervous if I agree with you? If I did, I didn't mean too.
    
    I think you're a smart guy Brian, and I think you made a good point, that's all.  

28. #  Brian 3/12/2008 5:46 PM

    Urgh. I was just making a joke that apparently fell flat. I was saying I felt nervous that we are in agreement, b/c usually we aren't.
    
    *limps off the field in disgrace*  

29. #  Allan Niemerg 3/12/2008 6:28 PM

    Brian,
    Ok, when I read it correctly, I see the humor.
    
    Somehow, I read that as you thinking that I had become nervous about us agreeing.
    
    Now that I understand, I think I'll point it out every time we agree, even though it causes you to question yourself. =)  

30. #  Hanno 3/13/2008 10:46 AM

    This truly is a GREAT prostitution debate  

31. #  tet 3/13/2008 11:59 AM

    To get it back on subject, from the news reports on the Emperors' Club VIP, it looks like the young lady in question was not really a whore, but a hetaera.
    
    This is especially notable when you look at the buyout clause in the young ladies' contracts. A millionaire could literally pay for her to work for him permanently and thereby sever all ties with the EC.
    
    Interesting. She's more like Inara from Firefly than a street whore.
    
    Tom