Comments on Thinking Critically about Legalizing Prostitution

I think I heard this blog post on NPR yesterday.

great post.

That's great and all, but in order to buy into that argument, we have to assume that prostitutes are exclusively female. Which is most definitely not the case.

Friday is suddenly becoming less freaky in the last few posts and more staff writer sounding.

Where'd you get your stats on an increase in trafficking?

There's a reason that the first half of the phrase "harm-reduction" is "harm." The approach of harm reduction starts from the premise that some kind of regulatory approach that stops short of criminalization will reduce a negative outcome. For example, Britain provides some heroin addicts with maintenance levels of heroin in order to reduce the profitability of the illegal trade and also the transmission of infectious diseases. The point is not to lend state sanction to heroin use, the point is to reduce the cost to society of a problem that can't be solved by criminalization.

The fact that the Australia or Nevada models of legalized prostitution don't do a very good job of this doesn't necessarily mean that a harm-reduction approach can't work under any circumstances, but it does point out some obvious problems with treating prostitution as just another business. When I look at the Nevada laws governing brothels, for instance, it's pretty obvious to me that the laws are written to protect the business interests of the proprietors and not the rights of the prostitutes themselves. Given that the American political process is so thoroughly corrupted by the influence of lobbying money, it stands to reason that the parties who profit the most from such an exploitative system would make sure that the laws work to preserve their business model.

However, even in places where prostitution is outlawed in this country this is generally the case, because criminalization prevents prostitutes from seeking any recourse when they are victimized. They cannot go to the police if they are mistreated, they cannot form unions, they are unlikely to seek any kind of legal assistance whatsoever because of the stigma attached to their position and because they fear prosecution. Thus criminalization allows abusive pimps to operate with little fear of consequences, and because the "product" they are dealing in is an illegal one, it is also an immensely profitable one.

I agree that the commodification of sex is unfortunate and that the "it's just another business" line is morally bankrupt. But the fact is commodification of human life is endemic at every level of our society and it seems naive to expect that this one area might be the only exception. We're working at computers made from materials dug out of the ground by miners (and in many cases, minors) working in conditions that are deplorable, and yet nobody is suggesting that they not be allowed to go down into the mines to dig up our precious minerals for us. We're wearing clothes made by people working in factories for pennies a day. And on and on. Exploitation is the very bedrock of modern capitalist society.

Unless we're going to overturn that model (and if you've got a plan for that, I'd love to see it) the best hope we've got for reducing problems like this is to address the underlying economic realities that make sexual exploitation so profitable, to offer alternatives to those who wish to get out, and to deal with those individuals who will inevitably still continue to engage in this sort of commerce in a humane way.

And lastly: I'm pretty sure prostitution predates abstinence education.

Well said, flamingbanjo.

does anyone else think it's weird that prostitution is totally legal as long as you film it?

preach it, sister! the post is spot on.

@8, you're absolutely right. Wow.

@8,

No. The Supreme Court says porn is free speech, so it's free speech.

exelizabeth... thanks.

Exelizabeth, thank you for a thoughtful and balanced post on a complex issue. Nice to hear such intelligence and restraint on a topic so contentious.

Note to the Stranger: please hire this woman! You need her.

For more info on the free speech thing, see this article on slate.

@14, Thanks. I was reading this post and wondering where I'd already read it before.

http://www.slate.com/id/2186243/

Uh, I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but as stated earlier your view is completely straight male heterocentric. First of all, I do not believe the increase in terrible things happening since the legalization of prostitution in Australia. You would have to show me statistics on before and afterwards and state how you got them. Has it occured to anyone that these things are usually just not reported, i.e. under the radar? Just because someone says that "there has been a significant rise blah blah blah" doesn't mean it is so people. READ CRITICALLY. Where's the citation? How was this data obtained?

Also, what about Germany, what about the Netherlands? There are many other examples to look at in the world. And please let's not forget Nevada. Isn't the fact that one state in this great sexually hypocritical nation is able to have legalized prostitution while everywhere else it's fodder for police and others to exploit and penalize.

I know - prostitution takes advantage of women. Yep. Pornography takes advantage of women. Yep. Vogue takes advantage of women (and makes 'em feel really bad about themselves).

I suppose it is good that people talk and think about how to square this circle. Sadly, market forces and human nature (two rather irrepressible forces) will ensure that prostitution goes on. Nonetheless, I suppose it is uplifting and good to carry on with the futile unwinnable fight as the goodness lies in the struggle not in the unreachable victory.

Ultimately, we all prostitute ourselves. Prostitutes just hawk their bodies.

Legalizing being a prostitute while making it illegal to purchase their services. . . huh? Is that really good government policy? We want to emulate a totally incoherent legal system?

Prostitution isn't the buying/selling of women, it's the buying/selling of SEX.

And like it or not, people will always do it, so let's stop diverting our public resources to fixing this nonfixable nonproblem.

What would Matisse think of this? Can women get exploited as prostitutes? Yes. Can many women and men (especially the less educated) make far better income as prostitutes than as ... anything else? Shouldn't they have a choice about whether or not they want to pursue that option, given the reality it will ALWAYS be a much-sought service? I don't think anyone demonizing all Johns that create this market much understands male sexuality. It is an intense force which is basically impossible to utterly repress. In the depths of slavery to it, back when I was 17, I was literally going insane (losing my grip on reality to dementia) and masturbating incessantly. Years later that I can see the influence of the hormones for what it was: An altered mind state on par with drugs or alcohol. I never used prostitutes, but I don't see why it should be illegal for a willing person to make good money for providing what our society never will: An safe outlet for a raging beast that lives in most every male brain.
-

It takes a lot of political will to decriminalise/legalise prostitution. In the absence of that political will, what needs asking is whether it is more reasonable, effective and just for law enforcement to go after the prostitutes or their customers.

In the UK, the tradition has been to go after the 'punters' and the kingpins way up the food chain, which keeps the prostitutes on reasonably good terms with the police so that they hopefully feel able to report crimes against them and to assist with police investigations without fear of being arrested. In New Zealand prior to decriminalization, we traditionally went after the prostitutes. In either case, despite what the law may say, we punish one party for a crime that takes two. I don't have any doubts about which tactic is more unfair. It makes me far angrier to think of streetwalkers having to deal with police harassment on top of what they already deal with from their clients than it does to think of some right upstanding member of society getting a slap on the wrist from the courts for purchasing an illegal service.

If the aim is to stop prostitution, we've more chance of doing that by waking up kerb-crawlers to the consequences of their actions than we have by constantly harassing and imprisoning people who typically have few other options. We don't lock folk up on drugs charges when they show up at rehab centres or AA meetings--it wouldn't be fair, right? If we believe that prostitution is fundamentally harmful to prostitutes, we shouldn't be landing them with criminal convictions, fines, imprisonment because that only tends to make it impossible for them ever to get "legitimate" work. The law should be protecting the vulnerable, and the vulnerable here tend to be the prostitutes, particularly those on the streets and those who have no power to vary their working conditions (those with the worst pimps/bosses, or who don't speak the language, etc)

Of course, either response is pretty unfair. Which leaves ... if we don't believe prostitution is fundamentally harmful to prostitutes, who is it harming and why can't we simply legalise and regulate (and tax!) it so as to provide prostitutes with a relatively safe working environment (ie off the streets)?

Don't forget, Seattle was built on prostitution. And logging. But prostitution was the bigger industry.