The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"
Always ahead of the curve. Matthew Yglesias leads the meme with his post, "Thinking About Prostitution":
Whenever a politician gets caught up in a prostitution scandal, I do need to return to the fact that at the end of the day I don't really think the exchange of sex for money is serious wrongdoing in the sense that justifies criminal sanctions. Obviously, in most cases such conduct will be a form of private wrongdoing against one's spouse, etc., but that's not a matter of public concern. [emphasis in original]
The unstated reason why it is "not a matter of public concern" is because no one is harmed by prostitution, at least not in a way that would necessitate intervention by the state. This is a view commonly held by social liberals and libertarians who believe that the primary (if not sole) purpose of the law is the protection of rights (however narrowly or expansively defined).
In contrast, a traditional conservative view is that law and public policy should be concerned with public health, public safety, and public morality. The first two are shared in common with our left-leaning political cousins; it is the last item that sets us apart. While they have discarded the concept as antiquated, we maintain a view held by thinkers ranging from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas to Robert George that the promotion of virtue--"making men moral"--is a proper, though subsidiary, role of the government.
As George notes in The Clash of Orthodoxies, "public morals laws, like health and safety regulations, regulate private conduct insofar as it harms or threatens to harm, the public interest." For instance, using the example of prostitution, George argues:
Assuming, again, that prostitution is indeed immoral, then the availability of prostitutes is going to facilitate immoral acts by individuals--prostitutes and their customers. Of course, the commercial sex acts will likely take place in "private," that is, behind closed doors and it could be the case that there is no highly visible publicizing of the prostitutes' availability (though unless there is some way of getting the word out publicly, there won't be much work for the prostitutes). Still, public interests are damaged. The public has an interest in men not engaging prostitutes: for when they do, they damage their own characters; they render themselves less solid and reliable as husbands and fathers; they weaken their marriages and their ability to enter into good marriages and authentically model for others (including their own children) the virtue of chastity on which the integrity of marriages and of marriage as an institution in any given society depends; they set bad examples for others. In short they damage what I have referred to as the community's "moral ecology"--an ecology as vital to the community's well-being, and as such, as integral to the public interest, as the physical ecology which is protected by environmental laws enacted pursuant to the police powers to protect public health.
Although commonsensical, liberal-libertarians will scoff at such talk of "moral ecology." The concept is simply too foreign, too abstract, too pre-modern (i.e., pre-'60s era sexual mores) for them to grasp. While they could connect the dots between the "private wrongdoing" of littering and the inherent public concern with protecting our environment--they know why Iron Eyes Cody is crying--such talk of legislating sexual activity because of public moral harm seems...bizarre.
Regrettably, the same holds true for many people who consider themselves to be "conservatives." Because of a misunderstanding of the concept of limited government, many conservatives today have sided against their own tradition and with the liberal-libertarians on this point. They simply can't comprehend either the concept of moral ecology or the idea that government has any role in making citizens virtuous.
This post is a lament, not an argument so I won't try to defend virtue jurisprudence here. (Besides, if conservatives ignore the wisdom of Aristotle or Russell Kirk why would they listen to me?) The shame is not just that weak and ineffectual men like Spitzer succumb to temptation. No, the true regret is that we have such strong and capable apologists for sanctioning vice. We can survive the individual moral polluter. It's the people who deny that we a duty to protect our moral ecology that will be our downfall.
Yes we are harmed by his corrupt actions. The man is a hypocrite and a pig.
Why aren't people up in arms about this?
http://newyorkhope.net/blog/2008/03/08/eliot-spitzer-day-433-nothing-changes/
No matter how you cut it, this is a man who cannot be trusted!
As I posted to some libertarians over at Free Republic, who were lamenting our tired old morals:
Why is using prostitutes so evil?
1. Because not everything is physical. Why is rape considered such a heinous crime? It is possible for a woman or child can get raped or molested with NO physical damage. And yet she is horribly damaged. Why is that? In what way was she violated? Her soul was violated, that's why. To sell your body to plant cotton, or to can tuna, or to sing on a stage does not violate your soul. To sell your body for sex, does.
Try telling a horny guy that not everything is physical, and you will get an impatient dismissal. However, the truth stands.
2. Prostitution (and porn) make men absolute terds. Rather than protecting and defending women and children, they pay them to destroy themselves. It’s the worst of a man.
3. NO woman chooses prostitution like any other career choice. Almost uniformly, they do it because:
- they are addicts and need to get high
- they were molested as kids and have a psycho sickness to keep punishing themselves
- they are sexual slaves or victims of pimps
If you think it's a valid and exciting lifestyle for women, consider pimping our your wife or daughters. If that doesn't give you pause, you are sick in the head. That reluctance or disgust you feel at the notion? It's an unwillingness to kill a woman you love. Even if a prostitute is not physically killed from her activity, her spirit is killed.
4. Prostitution destroys families by encouraging and legitimizing fornication and adultery. This damages society at large and children in particular.
5. There are of course the social costs of the spread of STDs.
What concerns me in this particular case is this: If we wink at *international* prostitution as an industry (of a sort) then we very easily will wink at international slave prostitution. We will because there is no real way for the *john* to know the difference. It's not so much about the solicitation (as the "news" focuses) but on the industry.
I'm still waiting to hear the feminist *outrage*.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
What concerns me in this particular case is this: If we wink at *international* prostitution as an industry (of a sort) then we very easily will wink at international slave prostitution. We will because there is no real way for the *john* to know the difference. It's not so much about the solicitation (as the "news" focuses) but on the industry.
I'm still waiting to hear the feminist *outrage*.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
The problem with the moral ecology argument is that it doesn't address how far gov't's proper place is in policing it. Should gov't also crack down on men who have affairs? Affairs, after all, are probably more damaging to a marriage than a visit to a prostitute. The visit to the prostitute (leaving aside the STD concern) is much more contained and isolated. The affair requires setting up a type of parasite marriage that sucks (no pun intended) resources from the actual one.
I wonder if the illegality of prostitution actually backfires on Joe....if it results in more men having affairs which in the long run is probably more damaging to 'moral ecology'. After all, who do you think has the better moral ecology; Las Vegas where prostitution is illegal or the rest of Nevada where it is not?
The slavery argument also cuts against the 'moral ecology' argument. It being illegal promotes and encourages slavery, the use of violence and other abuses. I think the moral good of preventing a few husbands from straying hardly balances out the moral evil of essentially greenlighting such abuse.
Interesting.
The constitutional basis for environmental regulation is not preservation of ecology or public health for its own sake, but the Commerce Clause (hazardous waste shipped across state lines, pollution in rivers or air currents leaving one state and entering another, etc).
I know little about the Spitzer case, but the strongest indictment appears to be not merely prostitution, but that prostitution crossed state lines (NYC to DC).
In this sense, the notion of regulating moral ecology isn't too far off.
*[for ex: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/Page35.html]
Affairs, after all, are probably more damaging to a marriage than a visit to a prostitute.
I don't think many wives would agree with this assessment (mine wouldn't), nor do I think many daughters would.
The affair requires setting up a type of parasite marriage that sucks (no pun intended) resources from the actual one.
So does use of a prostitute. It consumes money and time, and I suspect it evens consumes "emotional capital", even though there is ostensibly no emotional attachment.
I wonder if the illegality of prostitution actually backfires on Joe....if it results in more men having affairs which in the long run is probably more damaging to 'moral ecology'
You are assuming that use of a prostitute is less damaging to a marriage than an affair is, I don't agree with this assumption. Not to be snarky, but ask your wife or mother which she thinks would be more damaging. I think you will find that either would be equally damaging to the relationship
Marie makes good points, to which I would add this: Whenever we discuss prostitution--a perversion of sexual conduct--we must discuss marriage--God's design for sexual conduct.
The government has an interest in regulating marriage because
(1) sustained interaction of men and women inevitably produces children, and society has an interest that they are raised in the best way;
(2) children are best raised by their own father and mother, so society must develop social mechanisms and institutions to bind parents to their children; and
(3) the concept of “anything goes” in marriage and family produces chaos, producing irresponsible men, exploited women, and neglected and undisciplined children. Yes, there are plenty of irresponsible men, exploited women, and neglected and undisciplined children even where two married parents are present. Marriages are not perfect because people are not perfect. But all parties--men, women, and children--are most likely to benefit from the institution of marriage.
Returning to prostitution, this question is often asked: Shouldn't sex be permissible as long as it's between two consenting adults? What people do with their bodies in the bedroom is their business.
This view ignores the harms produced by some activities of "consenting adults." Adultery involves two consenting adults, but obviously it harms others (spouses and children). Prostitution has victims, such as the women whose "services" are bought by customers seeking singular sexual satisfaction. The sex business degrades all individuals involved, even if all consent. The point is this: When an activity produces a generally degrading effect on a society, that society can ban that activity, even if engaged in only by consenting adults.
Boonton raises an interesting distinction between affairs and prostitution (setting aside concerns about STDs), but I think he misses the point: sin is sin, regardless of artificial degrees that we attach to it. Both activities damage and can destroy marriages and both should be prohibited.
Also, there is an underlying selfishness in this entire discussion of prostitution and individual "rights," isn't there? Shouldn't we be talking about individual responsibilities, instead? When we remember that the Bible instructs husbands to truly love their wives as Christ loved the Church--even to the point of laying down their lives--this whole discussion about individual rights and varying degrees of deviance seems ridiculous, doesn't it?
Boonton had a valid point that so far hasn't been answered, though. How far do we go with this?
I agree that the government needs to rein in human moral failings, lest they destroy us all. And I agree that sin is sin. But I don't agree that the government should be trying to control all sin.
I want the government to control murder. I do not want the government to even try to control coveting. I do not want the government to control idolatry, or to enforce that "You shall love the Lord your God." Purely pragmatically, the results of such attempts will be horrible - worse than the problems, and ineffective.
See, the government can (try to) prevent murder, but it can't take the murder out of people's hearts. Only God can do that. So at the point where the external behavior stops being (too) harmful to others, that's where I think the government should stop trying to control sin.
Marie wrote: To sell your body to plant cotton, or to can tuna, or to sing on a stage does not violate your soul.
It certainly can. Going to a job every day where you find little to no job satisfaction and despair of anything ever changing, simply because the paycheck is way too good, can rot your soul.
Mike,
You raise a valid point. I agree that government cannot and should not regulate ALL human conduct; we don't want the vice police around with the ability to establish an Orwellian state. That said, we all recognize that the law cannot possibly cure all of mankind's ills--only God can and only He will--so we try to err on one side or the other. In this instance, I think it's important to remember that almost all behavior that is harmful to one person is harmful to others...
Drugs- If someone uses drugs in his bedroom, he's still providing a demand for drugs and that harms others.
Pornography- If he watches porn on his computer, he's still providing a demand for that pornography, which degrades and harms others...And it harms him at present and will harm him in future relationships with women.
Sex- If he's an adult and has sex with another consenting adult outside the context of marriage, he's harming himself and her because it is outside God's design for sex.
The ultimate question for a Christian should be NOT whether a particular activity harms anyone else, but whether it harms at all.
Your thoughts?
I would like to see someone seriously address Boonton's question. Should the government outlaw affairs? I would think affairs are far more damaging to marriage than visits to a prostitute.
Even more damaging is divorce. Shall we outlaw divorce? Maybe we could at least pass a law that anyone who has ever been divorced (unless for a scriptural reason) cannot serve in elected office. Well, maybe not since that would rule out McCain (and the Republican saint Reagan).
Interestingly, the Old Testament Torah (AKA God's perfect law) doesn't seem to have a big problem with prostitution unless it is in the context of cult prostitution in which foreign gods are being worshipped.
Further, adultery laws in the Old Testament were aimed at keeping married women from having sex outside of marriage. It was fine for married men to do so. A man could have multiple wives, concubines, prostitutes. But a married woman was considered to belong to her husband. This is why David was not rebuked for having seven wives, but for taking another's man wife. Nathan told David he could have more women, just not any married women. David compounded the problem by having Bathsheba's husband killed. (Sidenote: Under the Law, David should have been killed, but God had a soft spot for him so he killed his child instead.)
"Should the government outlaw affairs?"
Actually, adultery--sex between two consenting heterosexual adults who are not married--is illegal. This covers affairs and prostitution. It's a misdemeanor in 22 states (plus D.C.) and it's a felony in 5 others. It's rarely enforced but sometimes it is. Laws against adultery, sodomy, and fornication are reminders of our country's founding. In Mass., for example, adultery was a capital crime, punishable by death. People's sex lives were considered a matter of public concern, not something to be protected within the modern invention of a "zone of privacy."
So I guess the better question would be, should the state governments enforce laws outlawing affairs?
I would think affairs are far more damaging to marriage than visits to a prostitute.
Why would you think that? Ask yourself a question, do you really think your wife would be less hurt by a visit to a prostitute than she would an affair with a co-worker? Do really think one would be more easily forgiven?
Maybe I am misunderstanding Boonton and you, and your comment is really about the damage to marriage as an institution, as opposed to individual marriages, is that the case? If so, that is a bit harder to quantify because the damage caused by prostitution is limited by its legal status and its illegality is driven in large part by its links to criminal activity as opposed to its ability to damage marriage as an institution.
Joe concluded: "We can survive the individual moral polluter. It's the people who deny that we [have] a duty to protect our moral ecology that will be our downfall."
I seem to have missed that period of history when all the public decency and prostitution laws were repealed, can someone help me out?
The whole argument boils down to the notion that law can produce morality, doesn't it? Or is moral ecology only the appearance of morality and if so is the appearance of morality without actual morality really a "good"? Is regulated behavior moral behavior?
Either way how could the moral landscape with regards prostitution (in this instance) have changed so dramtically if all the attendent laws have remained in place and in force because that suggests, to me anyway, that it ain't law creating moral ecology, merely that law is a reflection of an existing moral ecology.
In which case the argument is misguided because law doesn't come before virtue or create virtue, at best it merely draws the defining line between virtue and not-virtue for those unable (or unwilling) to discern it for themselves.
ucfengr
So does use of a prostitute. It consumes money and time, and I suspect it evens consumes "emotional capital", even though there is ostensibly no emotional attachment.
This may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that while a prostitute MAY also consume emotional capital, money and time it would almost always be less than what a relationship would consume.
You may or may not be right about how a wife would respond emotionally to learning that her husband cheated on her with a prostitute versus that he cheated on her through an affair. That isn't the end all in this calculus, though. I think on average affairs are more damaging in the long run because they are more likely to break up marriages and even when they aren't their resource drains are more serious.
To see how that is imagine cases where the wife never learns of the husband cheating. The affair draws away a lot more in terms of time and emotions. The prostitute may or may not draw off more money. I would suspect that more often than not the affair draws off more in terms of money unless you're talking about someone whose addicted to prostitutes.
Not to be snarky, but ask your wife or mother which she thinks would be more damaging. I think you will find that either would be equally damaging to the relationship
Ahhh but if we are talking about something like 'moral ecology' then the wife doesn't get all the say does she? An affair brings a lot more complication to the table. Not only is time and emotions taken out of the marriage but you also get a lot of other potential problems ranging from social humilation ("what do you mean he's your husband! He comes here with his girlfriend every week!") to having kids. Not only that, the affair provides a 'fall back' if the marriage breaks up because of it. While maybe using a prostitute can cause equal emotional pain to the wife, it usually does not have all those other drawbacks associated with an affair. STD's may work to even out the equation a bit but I'm skeptical that they do...especially since they can be reasonably controlled for.
Daniel
Boonton raises an interesting distinction between affairs and prostitution (setting aside concerns about STDs), but I think he misses the point: sin is sin, regardless of artificial degrees that we attach to it. Both activities damage and can destroy marriages and both should be prohibited.
Leaving aside the theological question of whether all sins are equal (Catholics for example have mortal sins and veneal sins) the question is what should and shouldn't the gov't be involved in regulating. In other words, the question isn't should affairs and prostitutes be prohibitted but who has the jurisdiction in policing that prohibition? To use another concept that Joe has talked about in previous posts, marriage is its own 'sphere of authority' as is government. The two have different areas of authority and while there is sometimes some overlap the two are not one in the same. Gov't shouldn't be policing the extramarital affairs of married couples anymore than it should hand out fines to spouses who forget anniversities (and NO I'm not saying the two are the same).
Actually, adultery--sex between two consenting heterosexual adults who are not married--is illegal. This covers affairs and prostitution. It's a misdemeanor in 22 states (plus D.C.) and it's a felony in 5 others...
Such laws may technically still be on the books but are unconstitutional.
ucfengr
If so, that is a bit harder to quantify because the damage caused by prostitution is limited by its legal status and its illegality is driven in large part by its links to criminal activity as opposed to its ability to damage marriage as an institution.
You completely missed the other question of whether the good done by outlawing prostitution outweights the evil. Use Spitzer as an example. His marriage has been marginally improved by the fact that it is illegal. By improved I mean his wife is now aware of the truth, the issue is on the table and both members of the marriage can confront it on an equal footing. Before one partner was in the dark about the truth.
On the flip side, it being illegal creates an environment where women are victimized by it, subjected to violence, put at unnecessary risk of STDs and more. All of that is a very big negative and I'm not really sure it would be cancelled out by 'fixing' the Spitzer marriage. And let's face it, even if prostitution was legal it wouldn't be accepted. Imagine if it came out that Spitzer was a huge consumer of porn and spent just about every night hanging out at strip clubs. While his behavior would be perfectly legal such a revelation would likewise hurt his marriage and be politically costly. The argument that if prostitution isn't illegal then it will be able to willy nilly destroy all standards is a false choice. There are plenty of things that are legal but are socially unacceptable.
Honestly, I don't know exactly how my wife might react differently to a visit to a prostitute as opposed to an affair and I'm not stupid enough to ask her. I'm basing my assumption on the notion that a visit to a prostitute is mainly a physical encounter while an affair generally implies a physical and emotional betrayal. I seem to have heard or read somewhere that women are more hurt by emotional affairs that their husbands have, while men are more hurt by physical encounters that their wives have. But that could just be stereotype. I would agree with you that both are extremely damaging. Still, do you think the government should prosecute adulterers?
ex,
I think ucfengr is limiting himself to the imaginary conversation where one has to 'come clean' after being discovered. In that limited time I think both might be equal. The wife might throw one plate at you when you tell her you've had an affair and likewise she might throw one plate at you when you tell her you saw a prostitute.
All that illustrates, though, is that people have a 'max' setting on their level of rage. More important from the standpoint of trying to assess damage is the long run and yes over the long run I think affairs on both sides are more damaging for the reasons I gave.
The statement is often made by liberals that "you can't legislate morality." I submit that the only thing you should legislate is morality. We make murder and stealing against the law because they are not moral. We make perjury punishable by law because lying is immoral. When the war crimes trials were being held after WWII the defendants held that they were illegal because they had not broken the laws of their country and the laws of other countries did not apply to them. The judges ruled that there is a law written on the heart of men, a natural law, that tells us that such actions are wrong and should be punished. Those men paid with their lives for violating that inner law. The relativistic position that what is wrong for you may be right for me and each should live by their own conscience is called anarchy and leads to violence, fear, inhumane treatment of others, and life at an animal level. The problem is that many have dismissed the standard of morality, the Word of God, and thus they no longer have anything to measure actions against. In addition that inner voice that tells us what is right and wrong had been dulled by repeatedly violating its urging. Perhaps those who condone the behavior of people like Spitzer are saying more about themselves than about him.
Yeah! What Mr. Luter said! :o) Good stuff.
I totally and wholeheartedly concur, sir.
ucfengr,
What a woman feels is not objective truth. Objectively speaking, using a prostitute is not a relationship, it is a sinful financial transaction. An affair is, objectively speaking, a wholesale violation of the marriage vows by shifting love, attention, energy and sex to another party. In terms of violent crime, prostitution is simple assault, an affair is at least attempted murder.
You're right, there are many women that don't see a difference between prostitution and having an affair. However, there are many women who would far rather hear that their husband went to a hooker than a mistress because at the end of the day, odds are, he doesn't want to have anything else to do with the prostitute.
One of the things that society has fallen down on, and the Christian church is almost as bad for this as secular, feminist-friendly society, is expecting women to be sexual in a marriage. I wonder how many men are actually driven to adultery of any form by a sexless marriage, or a marriage where the woman openly has no interest in having sex. In such marriages, part of the blame does indeed fall upon the woman because like it or not, she has as much of an obligation to provide for his sexual needs, as he does to provide for her and her children's material needs. Just as he gave up claim to full control over his income, she gave up claim to full control over herself in that respect.
I don't think I've ever seen any serious Christian writer in the blogosphere other than Vox Day point out that women have as much of a duty to their husbands' needs as vice versa.
That should have read "is not expecting women to be sexual in a marriage."
I actually agree that most laws are based on morality. But the question remains - should every immoral action also be illegal? I think McMansions are immoral. Shall we pass a law against them?
The big question"
Does Spitzer take a "wide stance"?
The statement is often made by liberals that "you can't legislate morality." I submit that the only thing you should legislate is morality.
But it doesn't follow that all morality shall be legislated.
On the flip side, it being illegal creates an environment where women are victimized by it, subjected to violence, put at unnecessary risk of STDs and more.
Simply making prostitution legal would not change this, Boonton. From a State Department article, "The Link Between Prostitution and Sex Trafficing"
"Legalization of prostitution expands the market for commercial sex, opening markets for criminal enterprises and creating a safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution. Organized crime networks do not register with the government, do not pay taxes, and do not protect prostitutes. Legalization simply makes it easier for them to blend in with a purportedly regulated sex sector and makes it more difficult for prosecutors to identify and punish those who are trafficking people."
What a woman feels is not objective truth.
But it is rather important if we are discussing prostitution's impact on marriages vs. extra-marital affairs.
Just as an aside, I remember not to long ago that liberals used to argue for the criminalization prostitution, and its cousin porn, based on its encouraging of men to treat women as sexual objects, instead of as people. Now we have liberals arguing, in essence that prostitution is good for marriage and by extension women, because, it encourages men to treat women (other than there wives, I guess) as mere sexual objects. What a crazy time we live in.
On the flip side, it being illegal creates an environment where women are victimized by it, subjected to violence, put at unnecessary risk of STDs and more.
Simply making prostitution legal would not change this, Boonton. From a State Department article, "The Link Between Prostitution and Sex Trafficing"
"Legalization of prostitution expands the market for commercial sex, opening markets for criminal enterprises and creating a safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution. Organized crime networks do not register with the government, do not pay taxes, and do not protect prostitutes. Legalization simply makes it easier for them to blend in with a purportedly regulated sex sector and makes it more difficult for prosecutors to identify and punish those who are trafficking people."
What a woman feels is not objective truth.
But it is rather important if we are discussing prostitution's impact on marriages vs. extra-marital affairs.
Just as an aside, I remember not to long ago that liberals used to argue for the criminalization prostitution, based on its encouraging of men to treat women as sexual objects, instead of as people. Now we have liberals arguing, in essence that prostitution is good for marriage and by extension women, because, it encourages men to treat women (other than there wives, I guess) as mere sexual objects. What a crazy time we live in.
Just as another aside, boy is this going to be a tough day for the "spam filter".
Seems like the Moonlight Bunny Ranch has done alright for the women that work there. What you're not seeing ucfengr, is that no one is saying that you can just legalize it and stop there. You would have to legalize it, and then enforce laws against human trafficking and sexual slavery, just as you have to enforce laws against smuggling alcohol and cigarettes. In fact, one could make a convincing case today that the very fact that prostitution is illegal gives prostitutes incentive to not cooperate with the police when there is sexual slavery involved.
You're going to have a hard time arguing that a country with as large of a hardcore porn industry as the United States is going to have a hard time finding women who want to be prostitutes. Commercial porn is, after all, nothing more than an act of prostitution with a video camera taping the evidence.
What you're not seeing ucfengr, is that no one is saying that you can just legalize it and stop there. You would have to legalize it, and then enforce laws against human trafficking and sexual slavery,
I guess you missed the quote from the State Department paper I linked to. Here it is again (emphasis mine):
"Legalization of prostitution expands the market for commercial sex, opening markets for criminal enterprises and creating a safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution. Organized crime networks do not register with the government, do not pay taxes, and do not protect prostitutes. Legalization simply makes it easier for them to blend in with a purportedly regulated sex sector and makes it more difficult for prosecutors to identify and punish those who are trafficking people."
So, legalization actually makes it harder to identify and punish human traffickers and slavers.
In fact, one could make a convincing case today that the very fact that prostitution is illegal gives prostitutes incentive to not cooperate with the police when there is sexual slavery involved.
One could make a convincing case that the facts on the ground indicate otherwise. The phrase "works on paper" springs to mind.
In fact, one could make a convincing case today that the very fact that prostitution is illegal gives prostitutes incentive to not cooperate with the police when there is sexual slavery involved.
I'm guessing you've never watched "The Sopranos". Ask yourself a question, if you were a legal prostitute and Tony Soprano opened an illegal brothel next door, would you call the police and risk being fitted for a pair of cement galoshes?
Where is the state department's evidence for this?
Except that the facts on the ground in Nevada point otherwise, with the success of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. The facts on the ground in Sweden have no bearing on the facts on the ground in the United States if our experience is different from theirs.
Would most people have a different reaction to having a violent mobster do this with any means of making money? Swap out prostitute for liquor store here with the Russian Mafia and you have another example of where this falls apart. There is no easy solution to violent organized crime. The only the thing the state can do is to mercilessly root out and eliminate violent criminals. I wholeheartedly advocate bringing back firing squads and hanging as methods of execution for this very reason.
Your side is just ignoring the fact that these criminals will always exist, regardless of whether or not the state legalizes the vices that they sell. Furthemore, you've provided no argument for why it is easier for them to operate openly. Our own experience with alcohol prohibition shows that under a prohibition policy, criminals quickly take over the market, but that in a legal market, they're marginalized.
I agree with you that it's a thorny issue, but the sort of men who do these things are the problem. The government has to take them out whenever they give the government a legal and just excuse to eliminate them from society.
ucfengr:
"I'm guessing you've never watched "The Sopranos". Ask yourself a question, if you were a legal prostitute and Tony Soprano opened an illegal brothel next door, would you call the police and risk being fitted for a pair of cement galoshes?"
If prostitution is made legal then it is far less likely that Mr. Soprano *will* open a brothel at all, much less an illegal one.
Notice that since we ended prohibition the number of speakeasys has declined precipitously. There's a reason for that. Organized crime gets involved with illegal products and services because they can charge a lot for them. That makes them attractive despite the risks of being caught. Making them legal means that the price comes way down. No longer nearly as much reward.
Where is the state department's evidence for this?
Did you follow the link in comment 27? The State Department paper provide 8 sources in the paper and also provided links to their Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons which has a lot of other information.
Except that the facts on the ground in Nevada point otherwise, with the success of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
From the State Department paper cited in comment #27: "Legalization of prostitution expands the market for commercial sex, opening markets for criminal enterprises and creating a safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution." The success of the Bunny Ranch is a non-sequitor.
If prostitution is made legal then it is far less likely that Mr. Soprano *will* open a brothel at all, much less an illegal one.
See the bolded comment above.
If prostitution were legalized it would develop like any other industry.
Consider these:
1) Scion, Chevy, Mercedes
2) Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Macy's
3) gitney, Yellow Cab, Limousine
Brothels would still open. You would pay for the particular quality of service that you would prefer.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
If prostitution were legalized it would develop like any other industry.
No, the economics of prostitution are different from the economics of Macy's or Wal-Mart. The reality is there are only a very few people willing to enter a life of prostitution. Prostitution is really not as glamorous as Hollywood tries to portray it. The reality is much darker. The article I cited in comment 27 and some of the other information elsewhere on the cite paints a very different picture than the one in "Pretty Woman". From the article cited in comment 27: "Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60-75 percent of women in prostitution were raped, 70-95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans and victims of state-organized torture." Unfortunately, the demand is much greater than the supply of people willing to provide the service. This what creates an opening for organized crime to bring in sex slaves. Legalization increases the demand without increasing the supply.
Given the advances in Artifical Intelligence and robotics, what will the morality be in the not too distant future when sophisticated robots can replace human beings? There was a bit about this in the blogs a month or so ago when some expert in robotics stated that humans would be able to have robotic sex partners in his lifetime. Woul there be anything morally upsetting if men were using robots? It takes out the emotional and exploitive aspects of the transaction, but is it still bad for society?
I do find it troubling the number of Christians here that are willing to sanction the "commodification" of women.
ucfengr:
"The reality is there are only a very few people willing to enter a life of prostitution."
You are letting your personal preference color your perceptions. The *fact* is that there are quite a lot of women and men who voluntarily become sex workers of one sort or another. Quite a lot. Take a peak at any of the bazillion personal webcam sites set up by young women to make money. Take a look at the various strip clubs. Those women are not slaves, they choose to do what they do because they can often make very good money at it.
a traditional conservative view is that law and public policy should be concerned with public health, public safety, and public morality...
Nonsense. The "traditional conservative view" is to yell "Stop!" regardless of the morality of the consequences, and to want a government so weak and ineffectual (and incompetent) that you can strangle it in a bathtub.
It's a joke to suggest that "traditional conservative views" involve public health and public safety. Those, would involve, y'know, socialized medicine.
Conservatism has been discredited by the fruits of the Bush regime.
I'd suggest a new word. Maybe "liberal?" Progressive's been taken, you know.
You are letting your personal preference color your perceptions. The *fact* is that there are quite a lot of women and men who voluntarily become sex workers of one sort or another. Quite a lot.
Sorry, no sale. I am not going to accept the premise that setting up a webcam or even stripping is equivalent to prostitution. By that standard you may as well say that being a Hooter's girl is equivalent to being a prostitute. Sorry, not biting.
Stripper not equal to prostitution.
Having sex for pay when a camera is on you not the same as prostitution.
Having an affair is no worse than seeing a prostitute.
Gov't, always wrong*
* State Department reports infallable (**)
** Except when they say Iraq had no WMD.
Just making notes for my "ucfengr ethics for dummies" book.
I find it troubling the number of Christians who are obsessed about men "manning up" and looking after women and children, but who have nothing to say about the very real damage that women have done to sex and marriage. If anything, women are to blame for virtually every trend that you decry because they demanded that the old order be torn down in the name of "freedom."
State Department reports infallable
You got me Boon. We at the State Department ginned up that report and all the sources to keep normal, red-blooded American He-men like yourself from selling their wives and daughters into prostitution. Cause that's the American way.
i>If anything, women are to blame for virtually every trend that you decry because they demanded that the old order be torn down in the name of "freedom."
Sounds like you got some "Mommy issues" there Bubba. So, have you always found women threatening?
ucfengr:
"Sorry, no sale. I am not going to accept the premise that setting up a webcam or even stripping is equivalent to prostitution. By that standard you may as well say that being a Hooter's girl is equivalent to being a prostitute. Sorry, not biting."
No they aren't the same. There is one big difference- prostitution is illegal (with few exceptions in the US). Other than that they are the same in the ways that matter for the argument. Clearly a good number of people find performing sexual acts to be an acceptable job. hence your argument that there is not a sizable population of people *willing* to become prostitutes is false.
There is one big difference- prostitution is illegal (with few exceptions in the US). Other than that they are the same in the ways that matter for the argument.
So, is being a Hooter's girl the "same in the ways that matter for the argument as a prostitute? What about a nude model for an art class?
Clearly a good number of people find performing sexual acts to be an acceptable job. hence your argument that there is not a sizable population of people *willing* to become prostitutes is false.
Clearly it's not clear at all. How many people in the US perform sex acts for money? No need to be exact, just round up to the nearest hundred. Also what does "good number of people" finding a job acceptable have to do with anything. Clearly "a good number" of people find selling crack to school kids to be an acceptable job. That doesn't make it an acceptable job.
BTW--Here's an interesting article on prostitution in Nevada (not from the State Department), It's Like You Sign a Contract Be Raped. In the article it states that "Nevada's illegal prostitution industry is already nine times greater than the state's legal brothels.". Even in the legal establishments, work conditions can be quite harsh. Again, from the article:
"The women are expected to live in the brothels and to work 12- to 14-hour shifts. Mary, a prostitute in a legal brothel for three years, outlines the restrictions. "You are not allowed to have your own car," she notes. "It's like [the pimp's] own little police state." When a customer arrives, a bell rings, and the women immediately have to present themselves in a line-up, so he can choose who to buy."
and
"brothel owners typically pocket half of the women's earnings. Additionally, the women must pay tips and other fees to the staff of the brothel, as well as finders' fees to the cab drivers who bring the customers. They are also expected to pay for their own condoms, wet wipes, and use of sheets and towels."
I'm done for the moment, please feel free to resume your defense of the exploitation of women.
There is one big difference- prostitution is illegal (with few exceptions in the US). Other than that they are the same in the ways that matter for the argument.
So, is being a Hooter's girl the "same in the ways that matter for the argument as a prostitute? What about a nude model for an art class?
Clearly a good number of people find performing sexual acts to be an acceptable job. hence your argument that there is not a sizable population of people *willing* to become prostitutes is false.
Clearly it's not clear at all. How many people in the US perform sex acts for money? No need to be exact, just round up to the nearest hundred. Also what does "good number of people" finding a job acceptable have to do with anything. Clearly "a good number" of people find selling crack to school kids to be an acceptable job. That doesn't make it an acceptable job.
BTW--Here's an interesting article on prostitution in Nevada (not from the State Department), It's Like You Sign a Contract Be R*ped. In the article it states that "Nevada's illegal prostitution industry is already nine times greater than the state's legal brothels.". Even in the legal establishments, work conditions can be quite harsh. Again, from the article:
"The women are expected to live in the brothels and to work 12- to 14-hour shifts. Mary, a prostitute in a legal brothel for three years, outlines the restrictions. "You are not allowed to have your own car," she notes. "It's like [the pimp's] own little police state." When a customer arrives, a bell rings, and the women immediately have to present themselves in a line-up, so he can choose who to buy."
and
"brothel owners typically pocket half of the women's earnings. Additionally, the women must pay tips and other fees to the staff of the brothel, as well as finders' fees to the cab drivers who bring the customers. They are also expected to pay for their own condoms, wet wipes, and use of sheets and towels."
I'm done for the moment, please feel free to resume your defense of the exploitation of women.
When all else fails, resort to bad comparisons, right?
See, here's the thing... there's a world of difference in morality between selling crack to kids and selling crack to adults because kids are neither in biblical or secular sense responsible for their decisions. Adults, are. Same goes for adults and prostitution.
Let me give you a little perspective here.
There are a lot of pornographic sites out there that rely on paying women $300-$500 for a single sex act. They have no problem recruiting new women to do these videos and photo shoots.
Here's another example.
My university used to have an escort service run out of its president's office about five to ten years before I went there. The President matched up a number of good looking college girls to clients of his, many of whom ended up having sex with them. In exchange, he winked and nodded at admissions, and they got their tuition wiped clean.
You have the example of girls gone wild, where girls will show off for beads. Beads, ucfengr. Beads. Not cash, but little pieces of plastic on a string. It's like the purchase of Manhattan on a small scale.
American women have given themselves a very bad reputation around the world from Europe, to Africa, to Asia, for their loose sexuality. I don't think it'd be much of a stretch to find many women willing to be prostitutes at least part-time to make extra money.
See, here's the thing... there's a world of difference in morality between selling crack to kids and selling crack to adults
Really? So "selling crack to a 17 year old = morally reprehensible", but "selling crack to an 18 year old = not so bad"? Interesting.
There are a lot of pornographic sites out there that rely on paying women $300-$500 for a single sex act. They have no problem recruiting new women to do these videos and photo shoots.
You seem to have a lot of insight into the business; do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? Let's look at your statement for a moment, these sites have to pay $300-$500 for a single sex act, hmm. From the Guardian article I cited in comment 45, a prostitute in a legal Nevada brothel nets about $20 ($50 - brothel owner's 50% cut - tips and incidentals) for a Bravo-Juliet (read only first letter in each word), so essentially what you have is a web site that has to offer 15-25 times the going rate for a single act. Imagine you are already a prostitute, wouldn't that seem like a pretty good deal. You seem to be working under the assumption that these websites draw in people not already in the business to "perform"; I think that is a mistaken assumption. It is more likely that the people "performing" for these sites are already in the business and are doing this as a way to increase their income. It is also probably safe to assume that many of the women performing are forced to do so, in the same way many are forced into prostitution. In essence, the two businesses have a symbiotic relationship in which they use the same "performers", much like Larry Flynt uses the same woman in his magazine as he uses in his clubs.
My university used to have an escort service run out of its president's office about five to ten years before I went there. The President matched up a number of good looking college girls to clients of his, many of whom ended up having sex with them.
Mike, you and Tlaloc keep talking about numbers without actually using any. How many women were run out of this university president's office and what was the size of the student body? Which university was it? How many of the women involved were already "in the business" before they ever attended this university?
You have the example of girls gone wild, where girls will show off for beads.
Yeah, I've been to Mardi Gras too, what's your point? That woman who've had a lot to drink and are under a significant amount of peer pressure will do stupid things? I concede that point, but it is a big stretch to compare a bunch of drunk women acting stupidly to women engaged in prostitution.
Just as an aside, Mike; have you ever considered joining the Muslim religion? The Quran allows you to beat women to enforce modesty and submission. This seems to better comport to the feelings you have expressed towards women in this thread than Christianity does.
Joe, I am breaking this comment up to try to find out what is causing the spam filter to hold, so forgive the multiple posts.
See, here's the thing... there's a world of difference in morality between selling crack to kids and selling crack to adults because kids are neither in biblical or secular sense responsible for their decisions.
I personally don't think God sees much of a difference between a dealer selling to a 16 year old, or even a 13 year old (Jewish age of majority) and one selling to an 18 year old. Maybe he sees a difference between selling to a 6 year old and an 18 year old, but even at that you would have a hard time finding Biblical justification for the position.
You have the example of girls gone wild, where girls will show off for beads.
Of course, it is important to remember what you don't see in your "Girls Gone Wild" videos, the number of woman who aren't willing to show off for beads, in other words the women who say "not just no, but He(double hockey sticks) No" or the ones that toss a drink in his face. They don't make the cut.
I'm done for the moment, please feel free to resume your defense of the exploitation of women.
Glancing through the article you cited the problem that seems to exist with Nevada's legalization of prostitution is that it really isn't legal. It's basically legal where there's essentially a tiny market (counties with less than 40,000 population) thereby allowing a few employers to monopolize the legal market. In other words, employers are essentially allowed to create sweatshop-like brothels.
No legalization doesn't solve all the problems. You still need to enforce employment laws, still need investigate allegations and so on. Some of the items cited in your article, though, do not appear to be horrible violations of human rights. For example, the legal prostitutes in Nevada have to buy their own condoms and split their fees with the brothel owners? That seems less like a human rights violation to me and more like the dynamics of a labor market.
It is hardly obvious to me that legalization could not work to limit the problems. For example, legalization alone could eliminate underage prostitution as legal businesses would be required to collect social security numbers and confirm ages of their employees. The adult video industry, for example, has to now collect birth certificates and other documents and keep them on file to keep anyone under 18 out after Tracy Lords caused a huge ruckus in the 80's and 90's when she revealed she had lied about her age.
Do videos of underage people exist? Of course but it's better that law enforcement concentrate its resources on them than to try to tackle all videos.
Ucfengr's argument seems to be that legal prostitution cannot avoid the human trafficking and violence problems because there are just no women on earth who would willingly be prostitutes. I disagree, there's many that would never be prostitutes. There are many that would be prostitutes if the pay was right. And there are many that are prostitutes today. The high priced escorts the Gov. was using were probably banking thousands and no one was holding a gun to their heads and they probably were not kidnapped from some innocent peasent village in the Ukrane or south Asia.
Ohhh and another thing
You got me Boon. We at the State Department ginned up that report and all the sources to keep normal, red-blooded American He-men like yourself from selling their wives and daughters into prostitution. Cause that's the American way.
Cut and paste the exact same thing into a post two times again ucfengr and I'll show up at your house with a tire iron and pry ctr-v off your keyboard!
I have trouble believing it has been American women by themselves that have been giving themselves that bad reputation (if it is any worse than the reputation other women around the world have gotten). I think it has been the men exploiting them as much as anything else. How about estimating how much money would be spent around the world by men on videos of "Women Going Modest!"
Ucfengr's argument seems to be that legal prostitution cannot avoid the human trafficking and violence problems because there are just no women on earth who would willingly be prostitutes. I disagree,
I would agree, if that were my argument; it wasn't. What I said in comment 35 was "The reality is there are only a "very few people willing to enter a life of prostitution". See the difference, "very few" is different from "no women on earth". This is the dynamic that drives the human trafficking problems associated with prostitution. The number of women willing to enter prostitution is not enough to supply the demand in even when prostitution is legal, let alone illegal. This also explains the treatment of even legal prostitutes highlighted in the Guardian article cited in comment 45. When women discover that the life of a prostitute bears no resemblance to Julia Robert's character in "Pretty Woman", many, quite understandably, desire to leave the business. If it were easy for brothel owners to replace them, they would not make it so difficult for them to leave.
Couldn't agree more, smm.
Cut and paste the exact same thing into a post two times again ucfengr and I'll show up at your house with a tire iron and pry ctr-v off your keyboard!
Wise man say, "never bring tire iron to gunfight";).
The high priced escorts the Gov. was using were probably banking thousands and no one was holding a gun to their heads and they probably were not kidnapped from some innocent peasent village in the Ukrane or south Asia.
I don't know that you can safely assume this. It's probably true that the girls working for the "Emperor's Club" weren't peasant girls from Thailand or the Ukraine, but it is probably also true that that the people that ran it also ran less reputable outfits that did kidnap peasant girls from Thailand and the Ukraine. It also probably true that they had similar employment constraints as their less well paid Las Vegas counterparts. In other words, their cages were probably mink-lined, but they were still cages. It is hard to find out much about the owners of the Club, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that they maintained the service primarily as a way to curry favor among powerful politicians and business leaders and so to shield their more lucrative outfits. Kind of like Las Vegas casinos that offer big perks to high rollers to better allow them to tap the more lucrative downscale markets.
Number nine......number nine.......number nine.....
somebody crank up the Beatles..
I would agree, if that were my argument; it wasn't. What I said in comment 35 was "The reality is there are only a "very few people willing to enter a life of prostitution".
Do you mean very few willing no matter what or very few willing at a particular rate of pay? They are two very different things.
The number of women willing to enter prostitution is not enough to supply the demand in even when prostitution is legal, let alone illegal.
Demand always equals supply. There is not a single demand point (as in 100,000 men want one prostitute encounter per week) but a series of points that tie demand to price. (more like 100K at $25, 110K at $20, and so on...even that's a simplification since we make no allowance for quality).
That is true of illegal as well as legal markets.
When women discover that the life of a prostitute bears no resemblance to Julia Robert's character in "Pretty Woman", many, quite understandably, desire to leave the business.
Hmmmm
So when they were walking up to this place with its 'help wanted' sign did they still think they were taking over the position Julia Roberts left when she hooked up with Richard Geer?
To me it seems rather difficult to maintain there's large populations of people doing this with guns to their heads if they got to report periodically to police stations and show up to a medical office every week. The article is not very clear on how brothels 'legally imprison' their prostitutes. I suspect it's more like how Wal-Mart 'imprisons' their workers by forbidding them to leave the store and less like people are imprisoned in 3rd world brothels. A lot of the article reads less like legalization is the problem and more like Nevada has horrible labor laws and seems to be stuck in, say, 1910 in regards to its law enforcement in small communities.
It's probably true that the girls working for the "Emperor's Club" weren't peasant girls from Thailand or the Ukraine, but it is probably also true that that the people that ran it also ran less reputable outfits that did kidnap peasant girls from Thailand and the Ukraine. It also probably true that they had similar employment constraints as their less well paid Las Vegas counterparts.
I wouldn't be so sure. In the high end of the market there are lots of 'independent contractors'. Women who either work entirely for themselves or use outfits like the "Emperor's Club" the way a movie star uses a talent agent.
Interestingly that illustrates what I'm talking about. Immigration enforcement and the IRS alone would work to dramatically limit a lot of that stuff from the upscale "Emperor's Club" type outfits and there are many men who would even be willing to pay a premium to use a service that they know is legal. That would free law enforcement resources to concentrate on the real problems of slavery & abuse just as law enforcement does not have to divide its porn resources going after Playboys and Penthouses today.
Ohhh for Collin Brendemuehl;
I'm still waiting to hear the feminist *outrage*.
Try http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12prostitute.html?hp. spitzer was something of a hero to Equality Now. As a prosecutor he took on, at their behest, a sex tourism company that was operating in NYC. The previous prosecutor claimed NYC had no jurisdiction over acts of prostitution that happened overseas. He managed to get the business shut down and its operators indicted as well as new laws passed. While the group (whose supporters include Gloria Steinem and Carolyn Maloney) isn't saying they are outraged they are clearly disappointed in him.
Do you mean very few willing no matter what or very few willing at a particular rate of pay?
The former.
Demand always equals supply.
You didn't understand what I said. I said that there weren't enough women "willing to enter prostitution". That's where organized crime steps in, to fill the demand with, shall we say, less than willing women.
To me it seems rather difficult to maintain there's large populations of people doing this with guns to their heads if they got to report periodically to police stations and show up to a medical office every week.
Again, from the article, the illegal prostitution population is 9 times the size of the legal. Those woman don't periodically report to police or medical offices.
To me it seems rather difficult to maintain there's large populations of people doing this with guns to their heads if they got to report periodically to police stations and show up to a medical office every week.
Not if you are paying off the police, etc. Remember, many of these operations are run by organized crime, not AT&T or Wal-Mart.
The former.
OK, so there are many women who would be prostitutes if the pay was different. Pay here meaning everything together, including working condiditions.
You didn't understand what I said. I said that there weren't enough women "willing to enter prostitution". That's where organized crime steps in, to fill the demand with, shall we say, less than willing women.
The best way to understand organized crime is the line from Goodfellers which went something like "we were the cops for people who couldn't go to the cops". An illegal market has no less need for regulation than a legal one, the only difference is who does the regulating and what methods they use.
Even among street walkers, one of whom I've meet and antoher I know about second hand (I assure NOT as a client in any way) there is competition even for pimps. Do horrible things happen? Yes but it's a bit of a fantasy to say this entire market was created by innocent women who were kidnapped and made to work as prostitutes. There's a large degree of choice in this mix. Granted choice corrupted by drugs, mental problems and all other ugly things but that doesn't change the truth about things.
So, ucfengr, it costs to obtain an unwilling employee base. Maybe you don't have to pay as much for wages but you have to pay more for those who obtain and police forced labor. Since, as you say, there are pleny of women who would work as prostitutes (in contradiction to your earlier posts) if the pay was higher why wouldn't the market respond simply by raising the pay rather than using the services of 'enforcers' who bring with them all sorts of additional legal and practical problems?
Not if you are paying off the police, etc. Remember, many of these operations are run by organized crime, not AT&T or Wal-Mart.
It sounds to me like Nevada's law was designed to keep as much organized crime as possible in 'legal prostitution'. It's problems do not seem to be tied as much to the idea of legalized prostitution.
There is an interesting interview with a call girl over at the Freakonomics blog at the New York Times site.
I want to clarify that I do not in any way think that prostitution is a good thing. To me, the question we are debating (at least some of us) is whether or not it should be illegal. There are many bad and even immoral activities that are perfectly legal.
The principle I try to hold to is that laws exist to protect us from others who might do us direct harm. If one, two, three or more consenting, mentally competent adults want to have sex or do anything else together that does not cause harm to others, that's not my concern.
Please, Joe or ucfengr or others who favor criminal prosecution of prostitution, tell us if you think the government should have and vigorously enforce laws that outlaw adultery, fornication, divorce, homosexuality, masturbation, lust or any other behaviors between consenting adults.
"Please, Joe or ucfengr or others who favor criminal prosecution of prostitution, tell us if you think the government should have and vigorously enforce laws that outlaw adultery, fornication, divorce, homosexuality, masturbation, lust or any other behaviors between consenting adults."
If the answer is yes, you just put Congress out of business.
OK so let's try to stay on track by pro/coning this:
Pro:
Illegal prostitution probably limits the use of prostitutes which improves some marriages.
Illegal prostitution probably limits, shall we say, "too much sex" in our culture thereby improving this notion of a 'moral ecology'.
Con:
Illegal prostitution might encourage more affairs which are more damaging to marriage....or at best equally damaging per ucfengr's isolated argument.
Illegal prostitution probably facilitates slavery, abuse, and other unacceptable 'employee relations'.
In regards to 'labor relations'...a brothel can respond to a shortage of prostitutes in two ways; spending on 'forced' labor or spending more for willing labor. I suspect less developed countries where the rule of law is weaker and without traditions of individual freedom find it easier to resort to the first while more developed countries would rather opt for the second*. Looking at the whole picture, then, we can add another con. If prostitution is illegal in the developed country the impact might be to increase the use of prostitutes from less developed countries (either imported illegally or by 'sexual tourists').
I think the pro side only wins if you ignore the prostitute entirely. It's all well and good that the Spitzer marriage has been improved by more honesty but I don't see how that compares to the horror of a single woman needlessly getting AIDS or taken captive (either in the US or anywhere in the world) due to a misguided policy.
* Why would a developed country's brothels opt for willing labor over forced labor? Here's a few reasons:
1. Even if you're running an illegal operation it is still a good idea to minimize the number of crimes you can possibly be charged with. The penalties for assault, kidnapping, etc. are pretty harsh when compared to a simple 'facilitating' charge.
2. In general willing labor produces better 'service'. While some men will not care many will.
3. Since you're running an illegal operation...it's a good idea to keep the number of people who might have a motivation to rat you out to a minimum.
Let me note that all of the above has nothing to do with 'moral relativism' or saying gov't shouldn't try to regulate morality. All of the above applies if you start with an assumption that prostitution is morally wrong.
OK, so there are many women who would be prostitutes if the pay was different.
No, that was the latter choice of the two. I said "the former". In other words "very few no matter what".
Since, as you say, there are pleny of women who would work as prostitutes (in contradiction to your earlier posts) if the pay was higher why wouldn't the market respond simply by raising the pay rather than using the services of 'enforcers' who bring with them all sorts of additional legal and practical problems?
No, you misread my post or don't know the difference between "former" and "latter".
Yes but it's a bit of a fantasy to say this entire market was created by innocent women who were kidnapped and made to work as prostitutes.
Of course, I never said the "entire market was created by innocent women..", what I said was that "innocent women...kidnapped and made to work as prostitutes" make up the difference between the supply of women who "willingly" enter the market and the demand that exists.
Please, Joe or ucfengr or others who favor criminal prosecution of prostitution, tell us if you think the government should have and vigorously enforce laws that outlaw adultery, fornication, divorce, homosexuality, masturbation, lust or any other behaviors between consenting adults.
Now I am not a lawyer, but I would be very surprised if there are actually laws in the US that outlaw divorce, especially since it is the state that grants divorces. Perhaps you could help out by pointing out specific examples in US federal or state legal codes that outlaw divorce.
OK but there are women who have sex for money on camera....paid for by large corporations with deep pockets that could easily be sued big time if they were using forced or coerced labor.
Unless you're going to argue, bizaarly, that having real sex on film for money is not prostitution it would seem the supply of prostitutes resonds to compensation as does any other market.
As a matter of fact, you more or less gave your game away when you talked about prostitutes who were supposedly disappointed that the real thing is not like the Julia Roberts movie. If just about no woman would be a prostitute no matter what the payoff then it wouldn't matter even if the real thing WAS like the movie!
Your view of women seems to be like Ivory Saop....99.94% pure. I think in reality human nature applies to both genders.
Of course, I never said the "entire market was created by innocent women..", what I said was that "innocent women...kidnapped and made to work as prostitutes" make up the difference between the supply of women who "willingly" enter the market and the demand that exists.
OK, let's work with this model. Whether or not it is true isn't very relevant because it does generate some interesting conclusions that I think are valid.
A brothel owner is confronted with a labor shortage. He has, as I said, two general strategies:
a. Increase compensation (more money, better conditions, benefits whatnot)
b. Use forced or unwilling labor.
The fact is unavoidable that both involve more cost. Assuming the owner cares only about profit it doesn't matter to him what option he must choose. Both simply represent increased costs for his business.
Your assumption is there is some small portion of women willing to be prostitutes and then the rest of women totally unwilling no matter what the cost.
Under legalized prostitution the owner would apply choice a until he recruited as many willing women as he could. He would then apply b only to the degree that the cost of b is less than the additional profit he could make. The cost of b would, of course, be the money he has to pay to hoodlums, kidnappers, traffickers etc. as well as the costs of dodging law enforcement, the risk of the punishments if caught etc.
Since under legalized prostitution law enforcement would not be expending resources on a it would be able to concentrate on b. Since that would raise the cost of b the same result would hold. Legalized prostitution lowers the amoount of forced labor used. That positive has to be netted out agaisnt the positive of supposedly better marriages created by keeping prostitution illegal. So the same result holds even if your (unrealistic imo) model is true.
Unless you're going to argue, bizaarly, that having real sex on film for money is not prostitution it would seem the supply of prostitutes resonds to compensation as does any other market.
In comment 47 I made the point that the "prostitution industry" and the porn industry are likely symbiotic, with "workers" crossing between industries as opportunities present, much like Larry Flynt uses his magazine's models in his clubs and vice versa. So, no I don't make a distinction between the two.
OK so let's try to stay on track by pro/coning this:
You probably need to provide some data to support your assumptions. From the CDC, Nevada has the highest divorce rate in the country (they also have the highest marriage rate). If the availability of prostitution had a positive impact on marriage, as you appear to assert, marriage would tend to be more stable in Nevada; instead the opposite if true.
As an aside, I know why marriage rates in Vegas are high, and I know why in the past divorce rates were high, but with "no fault divorce" common among the 50 states, it would seem that divorce rates would be comparable with the rest of the nation, but they tend to be much higher.
As a matter of fact, you more or less gave your game away when you talked about prostitutes who were supposedly disappointed that the real thing is not like the Julia Roberts movie. If just about no woman would be a prostitute no matter what the payoff then it wouldn't matter even if the real thing WAS like the movie!
One doesn't follow the other. It is possible both that a very small number of women are willing to be prostitutes and that some number of those who were willing, were seduced by the glamorous prostitutes featured in movies like "Pretty Woman".
Ucfengr,
I didn't say there were laws against any of those. I'm asking if there should be. IOW, are you going to be consistent and take the position that it is the job of the government to outlaw all behavior that "pollutes the moral ecology"? If it is only the government's job to outlaw some morally polluting behavior, which ones do you so designate and how do you arrive at that conclusion?
I'm asking if there should be. IOW, are you going to be consistent and take the position that it is the job of the government to outlaw all behavior that "pollutes the moral ecology"?
I don't accept the premise that consistency requires I accept that position, but let's throw the ball back in your court for a moment. If prostitution, even legal prostitution is as bad as the various international agencies (not just the US State Department) that monitor it say it is, do you favor its legalization in the US?
Why can't you give me a straight answer? Even though you have refused to even address any of the questions, I will answer your question. Yes, I favor decriminalization of prostitution.
Why can't you give me a straight answer?
I did.
Yes, I favor decriminalization of prostitution.
So you're in favor of the sex enslavement of, perhaps millions of women. I'll have to remember that.
I hope you were just generalizing ucfengr, because I don't think that it's just about women since there are male prostitutes also. The slavery and degradation also apply to them as well.
As my Criminal Law professor put it ex-preacher, laws are codified when social deterrence no longer works (at least in this country). So I'd say you are making a good case for why laws should be codified against prostitution.
You probably need to provide some data to support your assumptions. From the CDC, Nevada has the highest divorce rate in the country (they also have the highest marriage rate). If the availability of prostitution had a positive impact on marriage, as you appear to assert, marriage would tend to be more stable in Nevada; instead the opposite if true.
I know enough about econometrics to know that such a calculation is beyond both of us. Just to begin with, for example, you have to adjust for the fact that Nevada has lots of 'trans