In retrospect, whether you agree with it or not, Prohibition was the progressive, feminist point of view. When it comes to banning prostitution in Nevada, I am not sure if you can unambiguously make the same case. The same impulse is certainly there. One can make an argument that Harry Reid’s support for prohibition of prostitution is totally consistent with the progressive legacy. But the modern progressive movement isn’t unified in its moral objection to sex workers.
This is an example of how the progressive movement has morphed over the years. There could be big divides on the left over issues like pornography, prostitution, and other forms of traditional vice, but those divisions are driven below the surface by the unified horror aroused by the marshals of cultural conservatism.
In the latter part of the last decade, the (white) progressive movement in Philadelphia was largely driven by opposition to the expansion of gambling. Meanwhile, some in the (black) progressive movement saw gambling revenues as preferable to no revenues at all.
I don’t have a problem with it being legal. Reid’s arguments were that prostitution has, at times been the #1 industry (not a problem in itself), and that that has hurt economic growth. That might be a real problem. I’m just not sure if that’s really true. As he said, the poor educational system is a problem too, and I’d say it’s probably the bigger problem.
Fix the education system first. If prostitution is still the #1 industry then you might have a problem on your hands.
There is no good reason for prostitution to be illegal. It’s legal in Germany, legal in New Zealand, legal in Australia. Doesn’t seem to come up as an issue in those countries, does it?
Laws against sex for hire are based on a whole host of bad motives: sexist, religious, moralistic objections. The issue with prostitution in my town revolve around it’s illegality. The criminal element is all over it, BECAUSE it’s illegal. It’s a lot like drug prohibition like that. The only valid objection is around STD’s; but making it illegal won’t make that go away any more than prohibition stopped people from drinking bad stuff and going blind.
I don’t know why Harry Reid was in on this, or what’s going on in Nevada. Then again, how old it he? It’s a little like gay marriage – Sex needs to be taken out of the closet in general.
My pet theory is that ‘kids today’ are watching internet porn on demand from the time that they are about 10 years old. They will have very different reactions to sex – straight sex, gay sex, group sex, fetish sex, <many categories> – than older folks do. Internet pay for sex hookups are just part of the landscape now.
There is opposition to prostitution in Germany. Probably in the other places too, but I’m less familiar with those places.
http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2014/07/06/prostitution-sexkauf-verbieten_n_5554993.html
In a better world, there would be better employment options than sex worker. Until then — the best answer is to legalize and regulate.
Would you make it illegal for sex workers to discriminate against customers due to race?
Do strip joints engage in customer racial discrimination?
I think it should be legal (when prostitution is legal at all) for a sex worker to reject a client for any reason or no reason.
I think if a brothel had racist policies in place, that might cause trouble, but the individual worker should have absolute autonomy over which clients s/he accepts.
Prostitution has been illegal just about every place I’ve lived in the U.S. That meant that it took the locals up to half an hour to find a hooker. Making prostitution illegal has worked out pretty much the same way as making drugs illegal.
From what I understand, after Germany legalized it, prostitution exploded and actually increased human trafficking of prostitutes to Germany to meet demand. Consequently I am on the fence.
That may be – but probably you’re thinking of the time after the wall fell when legal prostitution became available to Eastern Germany.
In cold war West Germany prostitution was legal but, importantly, regulated. Health checks, tight location restrictions, and pimping was a felony. When the wall fell there was a lot of chaos. The assumption in the West was that the easterners were Germans, so of course they’d go along with standard western laws and customs. Not even close. The permissive laws were exploited and unlike in the west there was no legal/police infrastructure in the East used to dealing with these new laws.
I was 7 when the wall fell so, not thinking about that.
http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-902533.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=
I think anybody I could afford to pay to have sex I’d be willing to pay NOT to have sex.
As with abortion, I believe what President Clinton said holds: It should be “safe, legal and rare.” The comment on education (above) is on point; we should work to produce a society that promotes economic, intellectual, physical and emotional well-being.
What do I think of capitalism and the exploitation of human beings for profit? Interesting question. On the one hand a girl grows up knowing that her body is a commodity that she could sell, not to mention that she will meet a few pimps who want that opportunity for profit. It’s hard when I defend my support for abortion by saying “it’s my body to do what I want with.”
I have to admit I dislike the whole idea and cannot see it as progress, but then I am old and probably don’t know anything. For instance, I don’t get the connection between Carrie Nation and feminism – is it just that she was an aggressive female?
Considering that I hate the whole idea of “vice cops,” I would have to support legalization.
At a time when women could not vote, they still organized politically to ban the sale of alcohol because they were the primary victims of violence fueled by alcohol.
It was also (and possibly primarily) an economic issue. Money for alcohol came off the top and left the women and children in want or even destitute.
Very true.
They shouldn’t have focused on the alcohol, but on the violence. Making the alcohol illegal just made the violence more profitable. The same is true of prostitution. It doesn’t have to be dangerous. It doesn’t have to be exploitation. And it is not going away. So let’s focus on making it safe and fair.
Right idea, wrong execution. Its the American Way!
I don’t have a firm opinion about prostitution.
However, I firmly and unequivocally oppose all types of gambling, including in-person and internet-hosted. Gambling is a huge problem, and it should be banned in all places.
I’ve always gone back and forth over the years; it’s hard to balance “my fucking body” when the mere act has a substantial power differential and is inherently objectifying and enhances patriarchy. In theory, I’m not necessarily opposed to its legalization.
Presently, and in reality, I’m opposed to its legalization. However, I think the obvious answer is to decriminalize it. Criminalizing it makes zero sense whatsoever. This has always been my base position; the US has the worst of both worlds.
It should also be known that legalizing can have some of the same problems as criminalizing it:
To me, Prostitution being illegal is even more absurd than marijuana being illegal, for a number of reasons.
Why is prostitution illegal? Because money changes hands. What does the money represent? It is the reason the sex worker had the sex. Meaning if the same two people had sex for procreation, or for love, or simply for the hell of it, the government is OK with it.
How can we pass laws objecting to two consenting adults having sex because we simply don’t like the reason they had it? That’s nuts. It is simply not the job of government to be codifying into law what they feel is or is not a just and valid reason for having sex.
Moreover, how can something be OK to give away for free but illegal to purchase? Imagine if a friend painted my house as a favor to me for free, and everything is fine. But then simply change the law so that if I paid him to do it I can now go to prison. The same act took place in both instances (my friend painted my house) yet payment for the act is a crime, while if done for no monetary compensation all is dandy. Again, just crazy.
In addition, as George Carlin used to say, you mean I can purchase a rifle at my local K-Mart, but if attempt to purchase an orgasm I’m a criminal. Really?
I still don’t understand under what actual basis it’s a crime. Two consenting adults have sex. But one does it for money. Whose rights are being violated? Where is the crime being committed?
And don’t say, well it’s are horrible, harmful profession fo the sex worker. Boxing is a horrible profession for most. The vast majority never make any money or win a belt yet get paid to punch someone else in the face. Repeatedly.
Pretty amazing that one can get paid to bash another human being in the head and it’s not a problem.
You can purchase mood altering substances known alcohol, not a problem.
You can purchase a gun at Walmart, not a problem.
But if you even attempt to purchase an orgasm, we will make you a criminal. Just insane.
The law has always recognized the subordination of women. It still does. Initially, women were practically their father’s or husband’s chattel under the law. Now women are treated by the law as slightly more than children but still in need of extra-protection. Very recently, Kennedy stated as much when he voted with the majority in the late-term abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart.
Where racial discrimination has always required “strict scrutiny” of government interference with individual liberties, sex discrimination has only ever required “intermediate scrutiny” and if the government has some “important” interest then it can interfere as it (a bunch of hims) sees fit.
In an ideal world – where millenia of oppression and discrimination had notdistorted the playing field – I agree that government has no business interferring with consenting adults’ sexual activities. However, we don’t live there and the reality is that women, as a class, remain at significant educational, social, and economic disadvantages that leave them with often already narrow “choices” that are vulnerable to further manipulation and exploitation by better-resourced men.
The paternalistic “intermediate scrutiny” standard is talked about in benign terms (almost an affirmative action for women) and is justified because of child-bearing but, in the hands of misogynistic men, it’s being used to control and deny women choices that their male “protectors” don’t approve of, thinking they know what’s best. So it’s perpetuating, the male control over women’s own choices that discrimination laws were intended to stop.
The consequences of boxing or other brutal jobs (e.g., a coarsened population, damaged and dead boxers) are are only a subset of the consequences of prostitution which, at the most prevalent low-end, include the open display of all the horrors of human slavery (including forced pregnancies and abortions, abused/unwanted children) where essentially all your earnings belong to someone else who holds your life in his/her hands.
There’s still a long way to go but until women really are free to consent and have meaningful access to a full range of choices, I think prostitution should not be legal and the government has a role to play by decriminalizing and highly regulating it.
Prostitution was one of the original sparks for the municipal reform movement wing of progressivism. Expressed as the fear of “white slavery”, the anxiety was about rural women being attracted to cities with offers of non-existent employment and trapped in situatons of peonage and prostitution.
Karen Abbott’s Sin in the Second City: Madams, Ministers, Playboys, and the Battle for America’s Soul is a fascinating history of the reform movement, Protestant social gospel, and one of the most notorious brothels in Chicago.
Like most things that are complicated by their being wrapped in the predatory side of capitalism, the answer to what the legal status of prostitution should be is not simple.
On the economics (as opposed to the moralistic side of the issue), there is a huge issue about where exactly the lines between the legitimate economy, black market, and organizaed crime are drawn in law. And the obvious observation that wealth buys impunity.
I believe politicians should be able to provide services to whomever donates to their campaigns.
What?
I guess the question is: Are you more upset if a worker gets screwed by her boss or her customer?
If you legalized prostitution, you’d have to insure a level of worker’s rights – surrounding pay, STDs/health, working conditions – that the US seems reluctant to embrace right now for workers in any field.
So my objections to legalizing prostitution is less about the sex part and more about how poorly we treat wage workers in “normal” jobs. Imagine how that would translate into a “profession” rife with potential for abuse.
But if the legal/health protections aren’t there now, are you worried that it would become worse (?) or that more people would become prostitutes and would increase the number of people entering a dangerous profession?
I would assume that Brothel A that advertises that you can see each person’s clean bill of health will do better with the public and the law than Brothel B that doesn’t provide health test results. Same with making it a professional safe environment.
It’s almost akin to opposing marijuana legalization not because the legalization is inherently bad, but because of fears of the initial results of a drastic change in law.
Prohibition is silly unless there is some proof that all the moralizing and social engineering has some health/social benefit (“Well. At least we tried,” does not qualify). Pushing prostitution even more underground doesn’t seem to have these benefits.
Gambling is a bit different in that the regulated form we typically have (you must go to this building or that) takes a toll on a specific area (socializes the costs, privatizes the gains), especially as it creates a certain economic dependence, see Atlantic City (geography is a b–ch). All the tax breaks in the world couldn’t save the place (but Donald Trump did just fine). Internet gambling is a reasonable response to these issues.
The Philly casino opposition was pure NIMBY-ism. Concerns over parking, traffic and crowds of gamblers coming to this neighborhood or that. Neighbors felt that a casino at the convention center would have made driving through Center City hellish. I didn’t hear one person say that gambling was immoral. It’s freakin’ Philly.
Don’t forget that gambling can be an addiction, a debilitating mental illness. So IMO objecting to casinos is like tobacco-related ordinances. Also, impact on quality of life for the casino’s neighbors is a fine reason to object, much better than moralizing. Also, per AC, would it be worth it in the long run?
I have a friend who has spent years in the sex industry. Among other things, she gathered together a bunch of dancers and managed an employee owned strip club. What she chooses to do with her body is none of my business. Nor is it yours. What is my business is that she should be safe, make a living wage, and pay appropriate taxes, just like anyone else. Legalize and regulate.
Would that we saw more of this. Of course, its just this kind of thing that the patriarchy would object to. Currently, criminal capitalists exploit black-market labor. Would legalization or decriminalization result in any improvement for the workers involved? That’s how the argument ought to be framed, but that’s promoting worker’s rights! Can the government do that in this day and age?
And then there’s this kind of prostitution:
Just as I think all drugs should be 100% legal, I think prostitution should also be 100% legal.
Both should be well-regulated because of their long association as illegal activities. Age restrictions. Usage restrictions. Zoning laws. Taxation.
There are many things that individuals and societies as a whole want to encourage and discourage.
Making something so universally sought after, such as sex or consciousness-altering substances illegal is a recipe for abuse and corruption. What percentage of harm is because of the illegality itself?