How Whorable is Prostitution?
The Eliot Spitzer saga has reopened the debate as to why prostitution should be illegal.
Reason‘s Kerry Howley has written several posts on the subject arguing that, while anti-prostitution laws are sold under the guise of protecting women, they’re really just a form of “slut shaming” aimed at limiting women’s sexual freedom.
Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs. Even decriminalization, which treats Johns as outlaws and sex workers as victims, assumes that all sex workers are damaged, that no woman would ever love sex enough to make a career out of it. And why not? Well, because every woman knows that she is her sexual purity rating. No sane woman would ever choose to mess that up.
Megan McArdle notes that male prostitutes are not free from scorn but figures that,
But if the only prostitutes were men selling themselves to women, no one would want to make it illegal. Supporting yourself that way might bring social opprobrium, like becoming a Morris dancer or eating live chickens–can’t you find something better to do? But we wouldn’t criminalize it in the name of protecting them from violence, criminals, or the untold horrors of multiple anonymous sexual encounters. A bizarre “We must destroy the village in order to save it” mentality permeates the discussions about legalization on both left and right.
Stacy McCain observes that, “The stigma against patronizing prostitutes is very strong among men, since when a guy has to pay for sex, this implies that he can’t attract partners otherwise” and goes on to argue that, to the extent that there’s a double standard, the emphasis should be on “increasing the stigma on male promiscuity” rather than making it more acceptable among women.
Ross Douthat agrees and states the premise upon which anti-prostitution laws are grounded:
Laws against prostitution ultimately depend on the assumption that the state has an interest in preventing serious forms of self-abuse, and that renting out your body to satisfy another person’s sexual needs is a form of self-inflicted violence serious enough to merit legal sanction irrespective of why and how you decided to become a prostitute in the first place.
Will Wilkinson retorts:
The whole case for banning trade in sexual services stands or falls on the defense of this claim and the assumption behind it. Even granting the assumption that paternalistic efforts to protect adults from the consequences of their own choices are justified, which I certainly don’t, the claim that prostitution is, by its nature, a kind of self-harm is pretty clearly false.
Again, it bears emphasizing that absolutely every form of labor involves renting out your body. The language of “selling your body” is generally intended to elicit a “wisdom of repugnance” disgust response, but it just doesn’t when you consider that folks like Ross and me get paid for things we do with our bodies — thinking, typing. Surgeons rent out their brains, and steady hands, to meet people’s health needs. Construction workers rent out their arms, legs, backs, brains. Etc. I sell my body for a living. So do you.
I think the real claim is not about bodies, but about vaginas and penises in particular. These should not be rentable. (Do note, however, that it is legal to rent a uterus and vagina for the purposes of surrogate gestation and childbirth, but no one really enjoys that and a lot of conservatives don’t like it anyway. And there is always porn, which is nothing without genital rental.)
While I find the idea that renting one’s brainpower to the Cato Institute or one’s hands to a hospital is tantamount to renting one’s sex to random strangers strained, he’s essentially right on the economics. As I noted some months back during a similar debate,
Certainly, the man who cuts my grass isn’t doing it for self-actualization. The couple who cleans our house every two weeks are exploited for no other reason than my laziness. If those people quit, or stopped performing their jobs to my satisfaction, I’d replace them with others without any significant remorse. They are, in a purely economic sense, commodities.
[…]
[I] see no obvious point of demarcation after which exploiting labor on the basis of voluntary exchange becomes too exploitative. People who do manual labor or drudge work are, for all intents and purposes, selling their bodies. For that matter, cops, firefighters, and soldiers put their bodies in mortal danger for a living.
One could argue it happens even at the upper range of the pay scale, such as with professional athletes. In what sense is a professional boxer less exploited than a prostitute? What about lingerie models? Indeed, one could argue that players in professional team sports, who may be traded to other teams and forced to move across the country — or even out of the country — if they wish to continue to work in their industry are much more like serfs than a self-employed prostitute.
Also, as Will points out, the fact that “acting” in pornographic movies is legal while prostitution isn’t points to the absurdity of the law. If anything’s more exploitative and degrading than trading sex for money it’s doing it whilst being filmed so that many others can later watch.
Megan and Kerry have also received the strange retort that, if prostitution is so great, why don’t they change jobs? But that’s just silly. Nobody’s arguing that prostitution is a wonderful job, just that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for engaging in their best possible career choice (as demonstrated by the fact they haven’t been offered preferable alternatives) unless said activity is harmful to others.
Aside from the circular argument that the existence of prostitutes demonstrates to young girls that prostitution is a viable career, it’s not clear how prostitution per se creates harm to anyone not choosing to take that risk.
Heh. In an earlier post on the subject, Wilkinson argued “If You Own It, You Can Sell It.”
Presumably, by “selling” here, he means “renting.” It would be hard to make a libertarian case for voluntarily giving up your liberty indefinitely and irrevocably.
I’ve always wondered whether today’s libertarians believe that personal services contracts should be binding (they haven’t been in the United States for a half century or more). If they do, then they believe that slavery is acceptable. If they don’t, they’re just as paternalistic as the rest of us.
I disagree, you’re not being paid for your body typing, you’re being paid for what you produce and/or the time it took you to produce it. At no time does my employer pay for my body, and if I could do any of what they do pay me for without the use of my body, they would pay me anyway.
Prostitution is selling access to your body, not selling the good or services you do with it. For anyone who still disagrees, try this: Think of a situation where a prostitute could accomplish the same thing without the use of her body, would it still be considered prostitution? I’ll say that for any such situation, the answer will be no. Therefore, prostitution is inextricably tied to bodily access, where as other works are not.
BTW:
Best headline I’ve read in months.
In the state of Nevada, prostitution is not only legal but it is officially considered a major “industry” of the state. The state carefully regulates it with the prostitutes required to have a weekly medical checkup by a state approved doctor.
I don’t know exactly how that is relevant to this discussion, I just thought I would bring it up for a different perspective.
I think Nevada is a good example for the federalism argument here. At the state level, if the legislature or by voter referendum, they want to ban professional sports for the “self-inflicted violence serious enough to merit legal sanction” or allow prostitution, then that is a decision for that states voters.
But there in lies the rub. Which politician is going to bell the cat?
Since no one else will argue religion, tradition, and social order I will.
Many laws are based upon those three reasons and rightly so. Making prostitution illegal satisfies religious beliefs, it is traditionally illegal, and it maintains social order by keeping the number of prostitutes lower and therefore fewer married men will use their services.
It seems like people want to debate this in a complete vacuum absent of real world influences and implications.
We have created a world where sex is recreational and the natural product of that act -dispensible.
We have called the profaning of marital love a good and faithfulness and fidelity a novelty.
We celbrate perversions with parades and gay pride day at ballparks and encourage the indoctrination of the most innocent children into this culture of perversion and the culture of death and we’re smuggly certain how right we are.
We shout “character doesn’t matter” and we protect the obsenity of our role models and politicians if they are of our political beliefs.
People who are offended by all this and say so are rejected by both political parties as bad baggage and not wanted.
This is our real crime, ande it is not Spitzer’s alone to bear.
it is traditionally illegal,
This is mistaken. US laws were generally silent about prostitution until the “Progressive” era. Both Tulsa, OK, and Chicago, Il, had large numbers of brothels operating in the open circa 1905, for example.
I believe the bans on prostitution were brought about by (roughly) the same folks who instituted Prohibition. Notice, for example, the date on the Mann Act: 1910.
The Progressive argument was simple: Prostitution led to poor health and economic outcomes for vulnerable girls, and thus should be banned.
Sound familiar?
Moving wider, the idea that legally regulated prostitution is outside the historical norm for Western culture is simply wrong. In Germany, for example, exchanging sex for money is a personal matter. Instead, _pimping_ is outlawed except in state licensed brothels. The Czech Republic has similar laws. Prostitution was defacto legal in London until late into Queen Victoria’s reign.
Indeed, urban governments have generally not banned prostitution since the founding of Western Civilization. One of the highest places of honor in the Athenian Agora was reserved for the man who founded Athen’s state-run brothel system. This was viewed as brilliant innovation at the time: saving abandoned girls from starvation while generating substantial revenue for the city. Pericles himself was quite public about his fondness for the hetaera Aspasia (a high-end call girl)
So now you know why few here are making the “historical” argument in favor of criminalizing prostitution: it’s weak.
I read one person’s opinion on this, and I couldn’t find it if I tried…
But anyhow, the writer was a ‘scheduler’/madam for a prostitution/escort outfit. She saw model/prostitutes come and go.
But many became caught up in the lifestyle (lots of bucks and drugs). Spent their 20’s in it, and by their 30’s they get out.
But they didn’t learn any life skills or get a career. They were just the model/prostitute during those years.
So being that, is their anything else for them to contribute to society? Do they just become a trophy wife for a 50 yr old, pop out babies and then don’t care if their daughters became the next generation of whores?
Really, isn’t it in society’s best interest to make sure that all member are encouraged to become a contributing member to society? Instead of just allowing those with the money (ie Johns) to spend it on a prostitute to “rent her body” for an hour?
Shouldn’t society encourage Johns to spend the money on their children/family/”eradicating their personal debt” instead of allowing them to spend it on a prostitute?
Michael, a few points:
Ok, I am a union carpenter and while it is true that if I don’t produce, I am gone, it is also true that it is a certain body type that produces. While I am of the wirey type and can hold my own, some of the guys I work with are true animals. To imply that a woman (I suspect they do exist but I have never hung drywall with a woman, never even heard of a woman hanging drywall… they, in general, do not have the upper body strength) could do what I do is almost ludicrous (I suspect they exist, just not in my professional experience)
My employer pays for my body, pure and simple (my mind too, but mostly my body) and I can not do, what I do, without the use of my body.
In my business, they are inextricably entwined… I have broken I don’t know how many fingers, or ribs, my back, my ankle, and my wrist… had nails imbedded in me, shrapnel removed from my hand, steel removed from my eyes twice… I could go on but it would get boring. Suffice it to say I also almost died once. I AM selling my body.
You have a point here… But I have to ask how you feel about phone sex? Should it too, be illegal?
What is the difference between bodily access and bodily usage? At least a whore gets to meet her “john”… I have never met the man who signs my check.
Your employer has no more access rights to your person than anybody else does. Your employer is only entitled to your work, which can theoretically be done by a machine, therefore your body is not necessarily tied to the work being purchased.
But none of that was required of you. You could, again theoretically, accomplished the exact same work without doing any of that to your body. Therefore that kind of access to your body is not absolutely necessary to accomplish the work you are being paid for.
No, phone sex not inherently different than writing an erotic novel, you are selling the story not your body. A recording or computer program can produce the same service, your body would not be necessary.
When I pay someone to clean by house, it may required them to use their body to do so, but I am not entitled to their body in any way. When you pay a prostitute, there is an implicit granting of rights to you over her body.
Does she not have the right to grant me such access? She can do so for free, if she so choses. Why can’t she do so for money?
If you want to find out why prostitution is usually a cultural no-no, try setting up a trial prostitution service in a very liberal, family-dominated suburb. The women, no matter how liberal, will react negatively to the idea that their mate might find sex available outside of the home. A “mate” is needed for more than sex… he’s needed to help raise a family. There are probably more than a few “liberated” women who have been convinced by their college profs that prostitution should be legalized, but harsh reality still dominates.
Notice that even in Amsterdam, they don’t put prostitution in the family areas. There would be a revolt.
Lessons from Spitzer: Decriminalize prostitution; impose price controls. $4,000? Price gouging!
I see no mention of human trafficking, pimps and violence, or the abused woman in the trade. I understand the libertarian argument but what about some concern about the issues above.
Those things are almost universally declaimed. They’re just not necessarily part of prostitution. The $5000 an hour hookers in Spitzer’s call girl ring were volunteers, had a female, white collar boss, and weren’t beaten.
The concerns of abuse, then, could be dealt with by legalizing prostitution and regulating it to deal with excesses.
Michael, I don’t want to act too knowledgeable here, but:
Maybe you need a little experience before you say this. The women I’ve known in this line of work are not giving up much, they control the whole thing. Just try getting out of line.
But beyond that, a robot could do it, and I’m sure will do it, down the road. Like anything else. And I am paying for the result of the interaction, not the interaction itself. When that’s completed, I will have a very difficult time using your argument that I have paid for access to her body anymore, even if there’s time on the meter, so to speak.
None of this matters– the laws in place make the situation, if anything, WORSE for women in this line of work. The laws are NOT traditional, they are new. As with drug laws. There is no moral coarsening going on, there is a reflexive response to authoritarianism.
One thing I totally don’t understand– if porn is legal, how is there not an operation to pornify the prostitution experience? I mean sign a film waiver and shoot a throwaway scene in order to lose the legal problems? I’d be in.
Mike S.,
We’ve had a woman arrested recently here in Omaha for running a brothel out of her suburban house. I wasn’t worried about my husband spending time there. I was worried that my children might be exposed to the idea that sex is a fine job, that sex is nothing more than a job. I want to raise my children with the idea that sex is something sacred, something to wait for. I have a hunch that they won’t wait until marriage, but by raising them with the idea that sex is something special, something sacred between husband and wife, they will delay sex until they are grown up enough to handle the complex emotions around sex.
Kids are already exposed to sex as recreation through music and clothing. I don’t want that lesson reinforced by the cute chick down the street who dresses cool and has plenty of “boyfriends” and money.
I disagree that it is a good idea to get men to feel more ashamed to visit a prostitute, within a cultural context that doesn’t generally practice waiting until marriage to have sex. From my perspective, as a Christian, there is an inherent danger in encouraging men to adopt an attitude of serial monogamy, rather than to at least acknowledge truthfully what they are doing, which is just getting sex out of a woman. One of the greatest dangers to good behavior and truth is when you have something that is merely 45 degrees of separation away from the truth or good behavior, rather than polar opposite. That small skewing of what should be, is often enough to deceive people into going down the wrong path.
When men cheat on their wives, a sexless marriage is often the reason. I ask which is worse, a man going to a prostitute to get that need taken care of, or forming a relationship which exists in true parallel to the marriage? Any reasonable person would say that in the greater scheme of things, for the majority of cases, our society would clearly be better off with men being able to easily pay for sex, rather than having to form emotional bonds with a woman who they otherwise wouldn’t have one with.
There is a high-minded policy approach to this, which is to rely on pure principle, but that doesn’t work in practice. Men will seek out sex, and will do what they have to in order to get it. The question is then, is society better off with them having to form relationships in order to get it from a woman they don’t want to be attached to, or to just pay for it?
I’m offended by people in sexual relationships having joint accounts.
Obviously In marriages where one partner works and the other stays at home this is tantamount to prostitution. There should be laws against things like marriage that mix cash, property and sexual relations.
The $5000 an hour hookers in Spitzer’s call girl ring were volunteers, had a female, white collar boss, and weren’t beaten.
They weren’t beaten because if they were, a member of the Gambino family would pay said assailant a visit.
Go read some of the work that Donna Hughes has done on prostitution and sexual exploitation.
It seems that the reasoning on why laws are established in the first place is disappearing. Prostitution reduces a person to functional parts – making them a non-person. It’s about what they can do, rather than seeing them as a whole person, immeasurably valuable and loved for who they are.
In other words prostitution strikes at the equality of that person under the law, which protects all of us. Spitzer’s daughters did not engage in the act, but I would hardly argue they were not harmed. That holds true for many others as well.
If you cannot see this then your love for others has grown cold.
If we don’t stop it, we actively condone it. Don’t get so clinical that you forget to see real humans in humanity.
As to the selling of ones body:
I find this a strained weak argument. A moments reflection should remind us that prostitutes are said to service their clients. This is not a spurious point. Take the commonly requested fellatio. It is an act performed on the client. The prostitute is not renting out her mouth. The John can’t stop her and begin performing dental hygiene on the theory he paid for the mouth per se. She is paid to manipulate the client to a pleasing outcome just as is a masseuse or a chiropractor.
And if you accept this line of reasoning, then it is just a matter of simple generalization to include her other commonly employed orifices when used to perform similar services. Johns do not pay for a leg or a mouth or a head, they pay for specific actions on the part of the prostitute with specific goals in mind.
It should be seen then that in all these examples, prostitutes, masseuses, carpenters, no ownership of bodies is ever conferred. But payment for actions and services, deliverables if you will, is.
I think that it would be wise to decriminalize prostitution, so long as it is regulated to avoid the abuses of pimping (which is a lot harder than it sounds). Still, I have some doubts about the premises some people are operating on.
First, the idea that “everyone sells their body” is, well, a little ridiculous. This would suggest that the rape of a woman and the thefts of a mechanic’s toolbox or a lawyer’s brief are of equal gravity. If they are, should we increase the penalties for thefts of services, or reduce the penalties for rape?
Second, how do we continue to stigmatize johns without stigmatizing hookers? How can we say it’s acceptable to sell one’s body but improper to buy that body?
It seems that the reasoning on why laws are established in the first place is disappearing.
The reason there are prostitution laws is because politicians need issues to run on. Going after sinners is always a winner with the religious voter.
Prostitution reduces a person to functional parts – making them a non-person.
That says more about how you look at call girls vs. how they are actually treated by those that know them.
It’s about what they can do, rather than seeing them as a whole person, immeasurably valuable and loved for who they are.
Yes, arresting them I guess is one way to show your love.
In other words prostitution strikes at the equality of that person under the law, which protects all of us.
So the law must protect people from themselves.
Spitzer’s daughters did not engage in the act, but I would hardly argue they were not harmed. That holds true for many others as well.
Whatever “harm” Spitzer’s daughters suffered was due his infidelity. Maybe we should make adultery punishable with time in prison.
In fact, if there were no Mann Act and no laws at the state level against prostitution, we wouldn’t know about the ex-gov.’s trysts with call girls, and his daughters would be in the dark too.
If you cannot see this then your love for others has grown cold.
Still on your cross I see. Of course, the current illegality is much worse for all involved, where hookers existing outside the law can take abuse from pimps, johns, vice cops, etc. IOW, the “love” you’re showing them by having vice laws in the first place makes their lives immeasurably worse.
If we don’t stop it, we actively condone it.
Yeah, right. My parents weren’t drinkers and thought alcohol problematic in many ways. It woudln’t occur to them to lock people up for it though.
Don’t get so clinical that you forget to see real humans in humanity.
Don’t get so holy that you forget to see real humans in humnanity. Fixed it for you.
I understand how many view prostitution from a Judeo-Christian perspective. But the bottom line is that there’s nothing criminal about the act. To say otherwise is to bear false witness against the prostitute and her customer. For my money, that’s the greater crime.
If you look at a map of Manhattan Island, on the lower east side, the East River takes a bend called “Hooker’s Bend” which is where street walking prostitutes used to hang out, so they got called “hookers.”
It was actually in the Civil War that brothels were shut down in our city, since for lack of latex protection against it, debilitating STDs were pulling Northern soldiers off the battlefield, often based on a visit to one of Manhattan’s many legal brothels in what is now Chinatown (“The Bowery”).
As one commenter noted, prostitution is one of Nevada’s largest industries. Well, if you flip through the Yellow Pages of any big city like NYC, there are two huge sections of full-color full-page ads, one for law suit lawyers, the other for escorts (officially hired dinner companions, which in fact many actually merely are!).
Now imagine you are a politician:
(1) You understand that taxes should be low, since high taxes inhibit the economy after they pass around 35% (figure pulled out of the sky since the actual value is obviously the subject of highly politicized debate). Look up the Laffer curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Would you want your term in federal or state office to be so libertarian that 50+% of the economy was suddenly taxed at the usual income tax rate? (such as California’s No.1 cash crop being pot) which is based on the consensual crimes of drugs and prostitution and a little non-state-sponsored gambling thrown in. Where does all this laundered money go? To political kickbacks (campaign donations, bribes to prosecutors, judges and police etc. either as cash or as freebies, it being much more likely for a police officer to have sex with a prostitute than to arrest one).
(2) You want to reduce the stress in your highly public life by having a variety of nubile sex partners.
What is less risky? Getting frisky with an intern or going to a very discrete, high class escort service, one used to dealing with high profile clients, one known to not be in the blackmail business like some dumb girl on Craigslist. Note that few escort services turn in their own clients, little more than do drug dealers, since then they’d lose that client. But an intern or an “independent” prostitute? Much bigger risk. A few hidden camera images, and all the porn magazines start offering her a million bucks for a single photo shoot.
So if you are a politician (or priest for that matter, or rich with kids, etc.), do you want prostitution legalized and thus no longer extremely discrete?
For a real-world view of the largest brothel in NYC, and highest rated at the review sites (sites that allowed brothels or individual “sex workers” to garner enough reviews for customers to figure out they were not a police sting), see the recently busted, jailed and released blog of Julie herself, the owner:
http://www.julienyc.com
She tells stories of each of her prostitutes, and indeed (often because it is illegal and thus involves drugs and competing pimps etc.), there are stories of really screwed up (pun intended) girls, but also a story or two of those who finished school and now work normal jobs, or even one who married a rich client and is now monogamous.
While I am not against legalizing prostitution on moral grounds I do worry about the trafficking women and children part of the industry. Those that get excited about the nice stories offered by a few kindly madams in NYC (notice you never hear one of these “the opportunity for the girls is so wonderful†from a male pimp) are not recognizing the big picture. Supply!
Does anyone really think that there are millions of women and children just sitting around looking for a job who decide to sell themselves? Worldwide prostitution is a $100+ billion industry servicing millions and millions of clients. Even at $5000 per hour look at the trouble the Emperors Club went through to find a women who was not addled on drugs.
The working life of a female prostitute is from around 9 years old to tops 30 years old. Once over 25 their value is significantly diminished. They might be acceptable for some of the more sever fetish services. Where then do all these women and children come from? Someone mentioned the wonderful brothel in NYC. As a resident of NYC I can pick up the Village Voice, the local alternative paper and within one hour bring you to a “brothel†that is staffed by sensual Asians or sultry “barely legal†East European girls. Most of these girls (and that’s what they are barely women) will not speak English and will probably not even now where they are. They are slaves. Right here in NYC!!! For the right amount of money anything goes. You want a 13 year old? No problem. How about a girl to beat and burn with cigars? OK $10,000. This scenario can be repeated all over the country. Pick up the alternative paper and find a slave within minutes.
There are simply not enough of the “high class†happy hookers to meet demand. Someone is going to procure and supply this flesh. How will that be regulated?
Recently I was passing a legal brothel in Amsterdam. I was approached on the street and asked if I saw anything I liked. When I replied not really I was pointed to two windows in a building across the street. In one window was a blue flag in another a pink. I did not understand and the pimp laughed. The blue was for little boy, the pink for little girl.
The fact is this.
Only men who have access to NO women can be coerced into monogamy – having access to ONE woman – with the promise of existent sex. A man who has access to two or more women quite rightly perceives that one woman would be fewer women, and is not tempted.
Legal prostitution gives all men access to many women. This naturally and normally requires that a woman who desires to have access to a man must compete with prostitutes, and is unable to coerce the man into monogamy with existent sex. She must instead coerce him either with other qualities, or with preferable sex – sex that is better than he gets from prostitutes.
Who are professionals, and therefore experts.
Legal prostitution requires women to have more than just a vagina to secure the attentions of men. They must have – horror of horrors – other redeeming qualities.
I suggest that this would be an advance.
James, gambling is now legal in many places and is very heavily regulated. Nonetheless, illegal gambling and the organized crime that goes with it still flourishes. Making prostitution legal will not take the stink off it.